China bad. US bad. Russia bad.
All three can be true at the same time. (And they are)
France bad
Except for that one little village where people like Germanix lives.
Don’t forget, most of the countries in Europe bad also. Oh, and Japan very bad at times.
Maybe humans bad?
No, europeans bad.
If only there were other countries that said bad things about China lol
Bold of you to assume I am American, did you not check the instance I am from ?
Yes, there are many lies about China, but don’t get stuck in second opinion syndrome. China is both worse and better than you know.
The fact the government lies about China, while China is still bad behind the scenes, can both be true. During the cold war, both sides accused the other of being evil, and both were right.
Don’t let anyone who puts a “communist” sticker on their own forehead fool you into supporting them.
The fact the government lies about China, while China is still bad behind the scenes, can both be true.
This is just vague-posting unless you actually link some credible china-bad studies that aren’t sourced from British or US state media.
some credible china-bad studies that aren’t sourced from British or US state media.
University of Limpopo, South Africa, on China neocolonising Africa - https://www.jstor.org/stable/27159668. Is that credible enough for you?
If not, is there a source that you would call credible - and if it exists, what is it?
Note: I hope I don’t come as aggressive, I was trying to be succinct.
Many studies have been conducted on China-Africa relations, including those written by Fairchild (2020), King (2020) and Nyadera, Agwanda and Kisaka (2020). This article builds on the latter studies to confront the real myths and realities of China‘s Africa policy. Firstly, It is worth noting to highlight the significant contributions of Fairchild (2020)‘s research study that revisits how sub-Saharan African countries especially those of the continental coastal democracies with abundant mineral resources engage with China for equal mutual benefit particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Okay, so of the 3 major contributions to this study, at least one, seemingly the most significant, states that Chinese diplomacy (particularly BRI) is mutually beneficial.
After a careful critical analysis of China‘s Africa engagement in the context of the three highlighted countries, FairChild (2020) argues that even though BRI has been presented historically as a debt trap diplomacy, a mere interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist risks analysing China through the lens of European history that discounts the active role of African countries. Forthright, he says that it is unfair to choose a one-size-fits-all understanding of China‘s practices in Africa.
So Fairchilds (2020) study, argues that interpretation of BRI as neo-imperialist is a reactionary Eurocentric view which both applies European imperialist intentions to China and removes the agency of African countries. Also that you can’t take a “one size fits all” understanding of Chinas involvement.
It is not far-fetched that this argument is rendering FairChild (2020)‘s research to sound more like a study conducted from a Chinese perspective that did not compare China‘s involvement in the coastal democracies with the likes of In-land African countries of Zambia, Angola and Kenya. Therefore, leaving us with a gab as to how come this stance is not broadened and compared. Hence, this study aims to build on top of Fairchild‘s study whilst disagreeing on not choosing a one-size-fits-all definition.
So they accuse Fairchild (2020) of basically being a China simp for not researching and comparing inland African countries. They aim to disagree with the premise that you cannot apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis to Chinas involvement.
There is also the Study conducted by King (2020), that discusses the human resource traditions of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and those endorsed by the BRI with particular attention to the Education Action Plan for the BRI published by the Chinese Ministry of Education in the year 2016. The research article‘s value contribution stems from explicitly comparing the FOCAC HRD pledges with the recent ones related to Education Plan under BRI. A review of the same context is done under FOCAC VI and FOCAC VII that compares the discourse of action plans of the different plans, goals, and pledges in the implementation in various African countries including in Ethiopia and Kenya. A clear generated scholarly view from the study highlights that King‘s study supports the two plans undertaken between both China and the African States by indicating that social welfare is important to the development and also quotes Xi in 2017 who highlighted that ―Improving people‘s livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development‖ (2020: 233). And additionally, supports his argument by quoting (Frankopan, 2018: 242) who has described China-Africa relations as ―win-win‖ through the mutual benefits and using cooperations combined with incentives to weave countries, peoples, and cultures in a so-presumed win-win scenario.
So now we establish that King(2020) also takes the view that Chinese diplomacy efforts are mutually beneficial after analyzing human resource traditions and those proposed by the BRI, particularly the education aspect of the plan.
It also references another study Frankopan (2018:243) who also describes Chinas relation as Win-Win and mutually beneficial.
We should then understand that the current article seeks to differ completely with the above highlighted of presenting China and Africa relations as win-win and add several relevant empirical findings that render his article relevant but short-sighted and best limited and myopic particularly looking at how China is not engaging in a win-win in the countries under study.
So this study is specifically trying to argue against these previous significant contributions as being short sighted, particularly because China is not engaging in “Win-Win” under the countries they will research. Harkening back to their prior insistance that you can apply a “one-size-fits-all” analysis.
The study of Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020) engage the attractiveness of China’s Africa engagement has raised some of the controversial perspectives and views recently. Also, this is a tale that continues to be welcomed with mixed feelings, from disquiet to confusion. They all show that China‘s Africa engagement is driven by its demand for minerals and oil whilst it delivers Africa‘s infrastructural needs. In Non-Economic drivers of China‘s Africa engagement, they all pinpoint at personality traits of Xi. They quote Cabestan in 2012 who understand XI‘s personality traits as driven by his ―realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the need for China to move towards a market economy‖ (2020: 09) that is useful in analysing his approach to Africa. Prominent former and current African leaders are understood to be in good books with Xi including Robert Mugabe (Late and Former Zimbabwean President) who described XI as a ―true and dear friend‖ of Zimbabwe. His personality and leadership credentials and work have earned him his first honorary degree by the University of Johannesburg (UJ) in 2019. He is also understood to be having the choice of words, outspoken in nature that increased his interactions with African leaders. The second reason relates to the decline of Western countries‘ major investments in Africa in the post-second world war.
So basically, we establish that yet another study, Nyadera, Agwanda, and Kisaka (2020), frames this relationship as Win-Win “we get infrastructure they get resources”. Which is partially informed by Xi Jinpings own established personality as a “realistic, efficient, and relaxed Party Secretary, conscious of the need for China to move towards a market economy”. It also establishes that Xi is highly regarded among African leaders and institutions, and vice versa.
…
If you read the article you can know I’m not nitpicking positive aspects, I’m not jumping around, this is the start of the study.
To avoid making this comment as long as an actual breakdown of an entire academic article, having demonstrated my willingness to engage with the work, can you go ahead and state some of what you believe to be the more valid points against Chinese involvement/framing Chinese involvement as imperialist from the study.
Sorry is China cutting people hand because they didn’t pick up their quota of rubber for the day? Ah that’s right, it was Belgium.
Quit downplaying the horror of real colonisation.
downplaying
Where am I doing that?
Sorry is China cutting people hand
This is literally whataboutism.
Was Leopold bloody years of terror vastly worse? Yes. Who is arguing with that? Is China benevolent and non exploitative? The African studies done by locals tend to say no.
removed by mod
I can’t read that as it’s paywalled. Anyway here’s a lot of links about this topic, several from African leaders and diplomats on the difference between Chinese trade and development in Africa and actual imperialism as practiced by western countries:
- Debunking the claim that “China is Imperialist”
- The demeanor of Chinese leaders (Xi Jinping) vs Western leaders (Nancy Pelosi) towards African nations. One of the reasons why African nations favor China instead of the West. Full video here
- An African leader on the hypocrisy of those saying China is imperialist.
- China africa panel: if you want actual infrastructure, you go to China, not the west.
- Is China really imperialist? What’s the difference between what Europe did to Africa, and what China is doing?
- Five imperialist myths about China’s role in Africa.
- Evo Morales - Why China and Russia aren’t imperialist, but the US is.
- US air force veteran Bill Brown breaks down the history of anti-chinese propaganda, and why China is not colonialist like the west.
- Yanis Varoufakis on China’s foreign policy dealings with Greece and Africa.
- Vijay Prashad and Qiao Collective - Is China imperializing Africa?
- Danny Haiphong from BlackAgenaReport interview with Anya Parampil from thegrayzone: on the new cold war, and a myriad of lies about China.
- The Belt and Road Initiative: the antithesis of Colonialism.
- The war on China : and geopolitical significance of the belt and road initiative.
- China has forgiven over $10B in debt, over half to Cuba, but also including > 20 African nations, Pakistan, and Cambodia.
- After covid, China suspends debt repayment for 77 countries, promises > $2B USD and medical supplies as aid to help developing countries fight covid.
- President Xi pledges coronavirus vaccine to Africa first, helps fund African CDC headquarters.
- The chinese debt trap is a myth.
- China writes off $6M in debt to rwanda, provides another $60M in grants.
- China forgives over $78M in Cameroon debt.
- China writes off $36m Mozambican debt.
- China writes off substantial amount of Angola debt.
- After a group of Guangdong landlords evicted a group of Africans, the CPC arrested them, apologized to the African Union, paid for hotels for the migrants, passed a series of anti-discrimination laws, and spent weeks going to all the restaurants, landlords, and taxis to warn them of the law.
- Nato’s new enemy: the CPC.
- The western media’s China hysteria.
It’s not paywalled. I think you didn’t even bother to click “read full article” or whatever the button name is. They might ask you to register witb a free account.
If you want to use other people opinions as an argument, I’m going to ask you for what you asked for - studies. Preferably published in journals, not essays by socials celebrities like Caitlin Johnstone, nor articles in Chinese newspapers, nor Reddit. And that’s because a deluge of weak sources is worthless - that’s how US propaganda works and enforces itself.
Extra points if the studies are not from China or it’s close Allies, just so that you have exactly the same requirements as the ones you asked for.
Can be paywalled.
Edit: I highly recommend you read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Edit: I highly recommend you read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
It’s crazy how Wikipedia has becomes essentially the Holy Scripture of liberals.
If you’re not logged in they give you a button to log in through your institution. Alternatively they seem to let you create an account to view a limited number of articles per month.
If they want an account you are paying with your data whether they use it or not.
It could still be a good source I just wanted to portray the not logged in view.
Say what you want about China but they aren’t out there enslaving the population and raping women. At worth they’re doing what the FMI is doing with their debt trap. How dare you compare that shit with real life violence
Something like a one-party political system with dear respected leader, concentration camps, surveillance, social rating system, GFW?
Note how I don’t say anything about propaganda from every crack. That’s because western propaganda has successfully evolved in the conditions of outright censorship not being allowed. Like killing cockroaches in a building again and again you make them evolve for the poisons used in the past.
If you are going to pick the “all this is not credible” line, then don’t bother. Also credible is a synonym for “believable”, and nobody can make you believe things you don’t want to believe.
The USA is a one party system in many ways so is the EU when it comes to imperialist and neoliberal policies every single party is on board doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Can you name a single piece of anti-China propaganda from the West that you don’t accept unquestioningly?
This person wouldn’t believe the sky was blue unless you linked a study proving it.
The Huyghur genocide. Not recognizing the independence of Taiwan. The entire way their “democracy” functions. The lasting damage the “one child policy” has done to their demographics (by their own reporting, not the wild exaggerations of the West)
You don’t need to pick between the sides you’re being offered today, don’t fall for this false choice fallacy. Freedom isn’t choosing the correct master to serve.
If you disagree, I invite you to go to Tiananmen square wearing a Winnie the Pooh T-shirt and see what happens.
Holy mother of racism batman
I know the mod erased it, but could you hint at the inappropriate post’s content?
You can check their mod comment history
I’m on Voyager. How do I do that?
This is why people won’t support lemmy lmao.
You know there are other sources for China’s ills than American news media right?
A bunch of cracKKKers don’t support lemmy. Which is the minority in world population.
There isn’t a single piece of anti-China propaganda from the West that you don’t believe without question.
And those are?
Seriously, link these without sourcing Zenz or another US or British state media source.
bro gonna link an “el pais” article that just reposts whatever US media posts but in spanish.
Please person who only speaks English provide non-English source.
Maybe learn French
I know domestic media that parrots American news media. I’ve seen them rail against experts of my own country when suggesting otherwirse.
“Won’t support Lemmy” is a bit strong, but we should probably de-federate lemmy.ml
Why?
“The US is bad, but I believe everything it says about its enemies without question”
It doesn’t matter who said it. There isn’t a company or a government that is your “friend”. They’re all out to squeeze you
China has never done anything wrong to my country while the US has and continues to do so, how insane you have to be to group them together.
You should probably stop unquestionably believing everything the US says about its enemies then
What is it about my comment that makes you think i do? Fuck ALL corporations. Fuck ALL governments. Is that clear enough?
It’s clear that you equate an empire’s atrocities with their victim country’s self defense.
Saying “all governments are equally bad” while the US is bombing them outright or funding their destruction is tone-deaf.
I agree with the second half but I can’t figure out where you got the “equally” from.
China is, eh, self-defending in Xinjiang against Uyghurs? Or what’s your point?
Classic US foreign policy propaganda. It’s not Uyghurs, it’s specific fanatical jihadi separatists among Uyghurs who made a guest appearance among the other head choppers in Syria after the government fell and are openly looking for international support to do the same in China. You’re completely wrong if you think that all Uyghurs want to live under Sharia law in some Uyghurstan.
You’re basically an ISIS supporter.
The majority of the world, notably Islamic countries, who’ve been bombed by US and british planes for almost a century now, disagree with you. Only the countries aligned with the US empire are buying this line.
You can also just go to Xinjiang, and see for yourself, unlike the main person peddling this narrative, Adrian Zenz, an anti-semitic evangelical who works for the US government, and doesn’t speak a word of mandarin.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#whats-going-on-with-the-uyghurs
Countries don’t say anything, humans do.
Notably most Islamic countries are regimes pretty fine with letting some Muslims die for their profit.
Also notably most of the yellow on this map is economically dependent on China, especially in the light of it being a counterweight to the USA.
Also notably the majority of anything saying this or that doesn’t tell anything about the truth.
That is, your comment has no value on the subject, I just decided to show you some of your logical mistakes.
The fact that you only do this “all lives matter!” style equivocation in one direction.
Fuck ALL corporations. Fuck ALL governments. Is that clear enough?
Oh? So can I get a “fuck the government of Ukraine”? How about “fuck the government of Taiwan.” How about “Fuck the republican party AND the Democratic party, neither of them are your friend, they’re both out to squeeze you”? (The last one being very different from what you were saying during the election, where, for some reason, your “everyone is bad, maaaan!” stance was nowhere to be seen…)
Do you just believe people can’t be anarchists…? Cause that guy just seems to be an anarchist.
To be an anarchist you actually have to consistently hold anarchist positions. Not being a liberal 99% of the time and only bringing out the facade of anarchism when you need to justify acting like a western chauvinist.
You can’t be an anarchist and a fanatical supporter of the democratic party at the same time
Exactly. That is what bothers me about most anti Americans here in Europe. The US absolutely did many terrible things, but that does not automatically mean that the Russians are the good ones. They did many terrible things too.
Historically, Western Europe has been just as bad as the US, especially France, Germany, and the UK. Russia hasn’t been as bad historically, especially not when they were Socialist, when they were inarguably one of the most progressive countries in the world.
I’m talking about the time post world war two. And if you are telling me that the soviet occupations and invasions weren’t horrific, I can’t help you
i find it more horrific that the US supported head chopping jihadists in afghanistan to prevent a soviet aligned democratic goverment there. and in every other interventions, the US found themselves on the reactionaries side, and still continue to do so to this day with the headchopping wahhabis in Syria for example.
The period where the Soviet Union supported Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Vietnam, China, and countless other liberatory struggles? Where the Soviets sent the first human to space before the US? Where the hard effort in building up an industrialized society was beginning to pay off greatly despite the devastation suffered during World War II?
Yes, the Soviet Union was far more progressive than the US and Western Europe in that period, where the western countries were busy committing genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and more. I don’t need your “help” if your worldview fundamentally rests on excusing genocide and twisting a country that aided in the liberation of many countries as worse than that, somehow.
Where do all the ads come from? Usa. Thats why i’m a usa hater.
No one has ever said they were, it’s just a lazy strawman westerners use so they never have to justify always treating their countries as the good guys.
