If you were in China would you really find it insulting that Tibet is considered by some to be its own country? It was invaded, and I can’t really see any other way to characterise what happened.
That depends if you think some Americans would be offended if you claimed Hawaii was its own country. It was also invaded and then forcibly gentrified and colonized. That's not to even mention the entirety of the United States. It's not so much if China has legitimate claims on Tibet so much as it's the pot calling the kettle black. The greatest conquerer on Earth and its modern beneficiaries telling another country to give up territory and sovereignty.
> That depends if you think some Americans would be offended if you claimed Hawaii was its own country
Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to suspend online sales to your 300 stores in the country. Why is there always someone willing to twist things into a pretzel in search of moral equivalence when it comes to China or Russia? There's no pot. There's no kettle. Using your leverage to force a company to stop doing business for a liked tweet is uncool for any country.
>Of course not. They'd just ignore you. Not force you to suspend online sales to your 300 stores in the country.
That's because there's no threat to them. If the situation was tenser, and there was some open controversy about Hawaii, with another superpower taking sides, they could do all that, and worse.
For a liked tweet? No, not even in a tense situation. We have to stop excusing government sanctions for something like a liked tweet. It's a dumb equivalence and harms the real point by deflecting.
What they did was an economic sanction and it is something the US does engage in to further political goals. The US uses similar tactics to force countries to comply with US drug laws, punish Russia for invading Ukraine, as well as other less noble political goals. It’s often in the form of sanctions but can also be in the form of withholding aid from poor countries or embargoes. They do this to many central american countries to uphold inane policies that make no sense for the welfare of those countries except to serve American political interests.
There’s really no good reason for the decades long embargo against Cuba except that the US considered it an enemy all nations partake in to pursue political goals.
I’m simply replying to your comment that America do in fact enact policies to further its own political goals all the time. In fact the US is a frequent offender of doing so to influce foreign countries while at least China usually focuses on itself.
If you meant just the American people, well not all Chinese side with China on the Tibet issue, but most do. But then that’s personal opinions and you can’t really blame them for having a personal opinion.
Using political leverage to force an outcome is inevitable, and frankly, discussing right or wrong on the matter is pointless as you cannot ever achieve politically neutral policy. All policy is enacted with a certain goal so it cannot be neutral by definition (unless your policy does nothing).
Either China wants Tibet as part of its territory or it doesn’t. In either case it will use its political powers to further whatever the goal is.
The government of the United States does not demand that mainland China relinquish control of Tibet. Nor does the USA insist on censoring mainland controversies or on punishing foreigners who say inconvenient things. This difference is essential.
You are free to criticize America. People, including politicians, regularly do so. China, despite claiming to be a strong, ascendant power, is remarkably sensitive when it comes to such fictions as there being one China or the historicity of their nine-dash line.
Also, though the USA certainly was a conquerer -- few powers on this violent planet were forged in peace -- it's also the foremost defender of the modern rules-based order. There are Hawaii and the Mexican-American war in its past, but there are also Japan and Micronesia closer to today.
> You are free to criticize America. People, including politicians, regularly do so.
Legally you are, yes. However it’s not seen that way but a large swath of people including the current president - the NFL kneeling/sitting controversy being an example.
Just because free speech is not without consequence, does not mean it is illegal to do so. Every single person in the US who has spoken out has gone through some jail time. Most of them have been vindicated only in history or extremely long after the initial events.
Marriott didn’t criticize China so much as enacted policy that China didn’t feel served its political interests and policies. As a result they retaliated by denying them the market and money making opportunity that they do not have a entitlement to in the first place.
It’s no different from say US enforcing political policies such as the Nixon era drug wars against black and other poor minorities, sanctions against Russia to deter their invasion of Ukraine, US withdrawal from the TPP, denying aid in retaliation to Central American countries if they refuse to enact anti-drug law or specific policies (policies that only really serve the short term interests of the politician in office).
Denying a foreign company certain rights is not inherently any different from a preferential tariff such as the ones Trump is trying to enact. Doing so for political purposes—well that’s the whole point of the government: every move it makes is politically or policy motivated.
This would all be fine if it weren't based on a false premise that all actions are equivalent. Proportionality matters. I may not agree with it, but if this was based on, say, Marriott issuing a statement calling for a free Tibet, then it would at least be a little more proportionate. However this was a liked tweet and an error in a web form, swiftly corrected.
>or on punishing foreigners who say inconvenient things
I wonder how many people are/will be affected by current DHS policy…[0].
Also like another comment here said, with the passage of the CLOUD act (which mostly legalizes behavior that of which was already being engaged in), the US can get foreign powers to act on their behalf if they so choose.
As an US citizen who has been living abroad for almost two years now, I'm not here to point out equivalencies, but state that technology will be leveraged by those who see fit regardless of the country or if one believes in their "foremost defender of the modern rules-based order".
>This difference is essential.
Only if one believes it to be so (and I suspect many people do), though the ones who seem to suffer most will be the poor and the marginalized, and will continue to be so long after when the war drums eventually stop and the battles breakout…
I’m talking about Americans and everyone here benefitting from the fruits of the conquest. We exist because it happened, and to deny it is to deny our own existence.
You used the words: "the greatest conquerer" - it's just this that's doubted, not that the conquest happened.
Historically, in terms of area, or percentage of (world) population involved, there are strong contenders for the title, other than the one you mention. Not to mention, some capital cities are stuffed with treasures they looted a millennium ago - so if you mean "the amount of conquest summarized over history" then your "greatest conqueror" doesn't seem that special at all.
I think the Hawaii example was rhetorical, but you can find examples of Americans being fired for supporting BDS movement or speaking against Israel occupation of Palestine, we even have laws against doing business with BDS supporters in some states. So we do evidently care enough about these sorts of disputes to make laws about them.
"we even have laws against doing business with BDS supporters in some states"
Link? I see some laws against state governments doing business with those companies, but nothing that says that a private business (like Marriott) has to fire supporters of that movement, nor do we have laws that prohibit those companies from doing business at all.
US government banned contractors using China-manufactured electronics.
You can make up all sorts of excuses about how it’s for national security, but from the otherside it looks like the US is simply unfairly preventing a Chinese company from competing in a foreign market that it has not natural entitlement to.
Whether or not the reasons for it are true, the reality is it has real financial consequences for Chinese electronics companies, even if they are fully legitimate and with good intentions. Thus it’s an example of how the US is potentially using political power to suppress foreign influence.
That's a completely different case than preventing private companies from engaging with BDS supporters. If you were talking about the government preventing Holiday Inn from taking reservations from BDS supporters, that might fit, but you're talking about a proposed bill to prevent the government from doing business with contractors using foreign electronics systems. That bill is very unlikely to pass, by the way.
We have basically the entire state of texas doing that
As well as our most notable internal conflict was trying to split the country in half, and you still have a good chunk of supporters for it in the south. And the only real thing that offends people about that support is the racist underpinnings; and a common joke is that California should split off and form its own country (and take its politics with it).
It's hard for me to imagine that many would care if hawaiians also joined in and started claiming sovereignty.
Perhaps when they actually attempt to split off, but until then
Offended? Maybe. But 1st Amendment means that you are allowed to do that in America, generally speaking.
Case in point: our current President called the last President a Muslim born in Kenya. People take offense, but overall its an understanding that speech is free in the USA.
As an American, I wouldn’t be offended if a Chinese person suggested that all non Native Americans should leave America. I wouldn’t think that would be reasonable, although I would acknowledge that we could do much more to help rectify the situation that still exists today. I would likewise be not offended (but might feel slightly uncomfortable) if someone told me that California, my home state, should be returned to Mexico.
But do you really think it is so unrealistic that many Americans would be offended by such a statement? Let’s not pretend it is somehow surprising that people might be very insulted by being told what they consider part of their country should be returned, especially by foreigners.
I think more generally, and particularly on social media, we need to cease to take people "being offended" seriously. The world is full of professional offendees, taking offense at any small pretext and storming social medias in revenge. The idea that anyone can set an arbitrary line anywhere he wants (and often after the fact), pretending to be offended and demanding apologies or reparation is dangerous and unhealthy. Anyone who entertains these professional offendees is locking himself into a position of perpetual apologies and self-censorship.
The article does mention that twitter is blocked in China, and therefore that the social media storm is most likely not genuine.
You can control whether you respond to someone being offended. There’s a very long tail for offense and companies (and individuals) can work to recognize that responding to someone feeling offended (or claiming to) should be rare. Although it’s hard to differentiate when 100 people tweeting #imoffended is just 100 people or 100 people part of 1 million.
There are activists who argue that all of the southwestern US should be returned to Mexico. And indeed, the idea generally isn't that unpopular in Mexico. For what that's worth.
"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed."
At present, the idea that California might be returned to Mexico or that all non-native-Americans might be kicked out of America is sufficiently ridiculous that nobody will take you seriously. Thus, there's no reason to get offended. You can say whatever you want, you're just a nutcase.
That China gets mad whenever you suggest that Tibet become its own country or when you mention Tiananmen Square indicates that it worries its citizens might actually take you seriously...
I think pg in that essay makes the assumption that morality is absolute, and we should always be questioning the thoughts of ourselves on the basis of where we are now. But the fact is morality isn't absolute; he falls too much into the positivist trap of believing in humanistic perfection, while reality is much stickier than that. Ultimately, people believe in something, and whether or not that is right (to you), that's what's true to them. Qualms about moral relativism aside, you have to at the very least accept what people believe to be able to level with them. I can definitely accept what pg says about moralism insomuch as it 's a force to be questioned, but that's a morality as is any other. Ultimately, morality rests in the collective conscience, even of a nation, and what China thinks is bad is bad for China. Maybe we don't think so, but that's us anyways.
I don't think you interpreted what I was saying correctly. Why should I be offended at the idea of the idea of my state joining my state seriously joining the Mexican federation?
It's an addition to the conversation, not a response. I'm not saying you should be offended, I'm providing context to this and previous replies so that other people who read this subthread can understand why California joining Mexico is a different situation from Tibet splitting from China and so responses differ.
Well for one the analogy is more like a New Yorker taking offense at the prospect of California (or Texas) joining Mexico. That puts it in a different light, although it’s stull not comparable to he forced displacement and ethnic inequalities that has happened and is happening in Tibet.
I don’t think PG really knows what he is talking about with respect to Tibet China relations if he thinks that analogy holds...
Maybe not now. But 100 years ago, it certainly would. And that's about where China is now, regarding Tibet, and such autonomous regions as Xinjiang. It takes time for opinions to go from offensive to laughable.
I'm not laughing. I'm seriously confused as to why I'm supposed to be offended at the prospect of becoming mexican. Is that supposed to be lower status or something? I can't think of a reason here that would be offensive which doesn't boil down to underlying racism or anachronistic nationalism.
It's not insulting. It's a threat to their sovereignty. It's comparable to if lots of map makers changed the borders of the US to give Texas to Mexico, and it was acknowledged by international companies operating there and it was taught to kids in school. Eventually, by massive popular belief, it would be nearly impossible to retain it under US control because everyone would think it's obviously part of Mexico, including vtoers. Of course there's no risk of that happening in the US so they don't have to police it. For recently taken territories though, the position is weaker and easier to lose, so the new owners have to control the popular belief about whose it is.
Seems like this was the Mexican's mistake: "In the hopes that an influx of settlers could control the Indian raids, the bankrupt Mexican government liberalized immigration policies for the region. Finally able to settle legally in Texas, Anglos from the United States soon vastly outnumbered the Tejanos. Most of the immigrants came from the southern United States. Many were slave owners, and most brought with them significant prejudices against other races, attitudes often applied to the Tejanos. Mexico's official religion was Roman Catholicism, yet the majority of the immigrants were Protestants who distrusted Catholics"
