Miscellaneous News

FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Puss in Boots said:
When others discuss China's history of conquest or colonization, China doesn't gloss over it to claim a moral high ground.
A common Western tactic is to claim that terrible things are happening in the region, and that they simply occupied these territories out of goodwill, seeking to end conflict. Russia's narrative of expansionism reminds me of Japan's sophistry regarding its invasion of China. This is the hypocrisy of these countries.
China's common excuse for territorial expansion is self-defense counterattacks against harassment from other regions along its borders. Of course, we all know that these counterattacks can sometimes be quite severe.
There's a stark difference between these two narratives: one is unwilling to admit expansion for profit, while the other is determined to convince others that it's expansion for profit. This is the difference between a hypocrite and a true villain, and the Chinese hate hypocrites even more.
Many Chinese people have tried to use Western narratives to justify China's occupation of Tibet, which has had a certain effect on public opinion. However, this narrative has actively abandoned China's historical sovereignty over Tibet and even indirectly weakened China's legitimacy in occupying Tibet. This is a very costly act.
Click to expand...
At least Russia is minimizing killing civilians. Only a % of military casualties.

In history, a conqueror that doesn't kill or at least kills less civilians is a hero. The conquerors that are hated are not the ones who are successful, but those who are brutal. The successful conquerors who showed mercy are considered heroes.

Persians, Greeks, Romans, Han Chinese, etc. are considered heroic, because they mostly kill the enemy military. It is also why everyone hated and feared the Xiongnu and Mongols and celebrated their demise, because they killed civilians and even ate humans.

Some countries killed even more than Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan only killed 10%-20%, they killed 90%. People hated Genghis Khan for killing 10-20%, yet they worship and love this countries that killed 90%.
 
_killuminati_

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
uguduwa said:
West is not perfect but it is a lot more open to people from different backgrounds than the East. Of course there will always be reasons for divisions, but IMO current white supremacist movement will die when Americans start feeling economic pain because of their incompetent leadership.
Click to expand...
It's the other way around. Resentment goes up when chips are down. Supremacists then recruit from the cope crowd.
 
A

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
Puss in Boots said:
When others discuss China's history of conquest or colonization, China doesn't gloss over it to claim a moral high ground.
A common Western tactic is to claim that terrible things are happening in the region, and that they simply occupied these territories out of goodwill, seeking to end conflict. Russia's narrative of expansionism reminds me of Japan's sophistry regarding its invasion of China. This is the hypocrisy of these countries.
China's common excuse for territorial expansion is self-defense counterattacks against harassment from other regions along its borders. Of course, we all know that these counterattacks can sometimes be quite severe.
There's a stark difference between these two narratives: one is unwilling to admit expansion for profit, while the other is determined to convince others that it's expansion for profit. This is the difference between a hypocrite and a true villain, and the Chinese hate hypocrites even more.
Many Chinese people have tried to use Western narratives to justify China's occupation of Tibet, which has had a certain effect on public opinion. However, this narrative has actively abandoned China's historical sovereignty over Tibet and even indirectly weakened China's legitimacy in occupying Tibet. This is a very costly act.
Click to expand...
In the Ming dynasty China was literally in a position to colonize Brunei but they didn’t instead maintain trade relations with Sultanate where even one sultan died in China and his grave is in Nanjing. As for Tibet I don’t like the way the government narrative. The reality is that Tibet was at the time still internationally recognized as a part of China therefore Chinese takeover was legal and Dalai Lama doesn't represent Tibetan Buddhism because the Khampas and Amdo as well as Sherpa, momma and minor tibetic groups have zero loyalty to the Dalai Lama. Tibet also wasn’t an actual independent entity because like Bhutan the Brits controlled Tibet foreign policy.
 
Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots

New Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
At least Russia is minimizing killing civilians. Only a % of military casualties.
Click to expand...
China's current stance on the Russo-Ukrainian war is based on the logic of "self-defense and counterattack." Normally, China would harshly criticize any invasion of another country's territory, but the Russo-Ukrainian war was sparked by NATO expansion, which severely threatened Russia's survival and security. Therefore, it is also a disguised form of self-defense and counterattack.
The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is morally unacceptable and only undermines the legitimacy of Russia's war on Ukraine. Russia's current restraint may help it secure the acquiescence of some neutral parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top