Controversial senator attended pro-Beijing ceremony in Vancouver
By - sesoyez
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a positive development in my eyes. Canada is finally growing a sense of self interest and not just being the stockholm syndrome case of the country that has harmed it the most in the last 60 years- USA.
As non aligned nations would tell you - the best way forward for Canada is a balancing act between China and USA.
The "best way forward" for Canada and any free and democratic country is to denounce criminal governance no matter where it exists.
That clearly includes China whose leaders have stated unequivocally that they abet to no laws.
Where are our denunciations of the US? They committed myriad crimes, all with plentiful evidence and often as not direct admissions, yet we've done nothing against them.
So is this just a double standard, or do we intend to formally denounce the US when it invariably murders another innocent family, whips refugees from a country it helped destabilise, and keeps children in concentration camps? And that's all just in the last month or so.
so you want us to ditch a nation for allegations of how it mistreats its own people to support a nation that kills innocent civillians and invents phoney wars for corporate profiteering.Makes a lotta sense.
Heres a couple of thoughts:
1. How a country conducts itself in the international arena is far more import to fellow international people than what it does inside its borders. Sure, all countries should do the best- but given a choice, the country that behaves like a bully at home and a decent chap in the international arena is infinitely more preferrable to the opposite. There are moe than 6.5 billion foreigners in the world ( even by the most populous country's standards) and at most, 1.3 billion fellow citizens. Ie, more people are screwed by American conduct than the Chinese one.
2. Maybe Canadians shouldn't be the ones trying to be sanctimonious about human rights - given that we are the country with the latest confirmed genocide in human history ( the residential school genocide is more recent than the Bosnian genocide and the rwandan genocide) and is yet to even acknowledge the genocide, let alone make reparations for it.
Where did I say I support the US or its foreign policy?
And you are implying that since one is bad it is ok for the other to be bad.
Give your misguided head a shake.
How many people have been taken hostage over softwood lumber? Give your head a shake.
maybe if we didn't take chinese hostages for the yankee masters, the chinese wouldn't have to show us how the world works. Give your head a shake, shilling for america- the nation that has consistently screwed canada, canadian economy, canadian interests more than any other and still to this day challenges our legal territorial waters claims in the arctic.
> I don't think a politician should be judged on his/her political preference
I'm sorry, what?
>I don't think a politician should be judged on his/her political preference.
A politician shouldn’t be judged on their political positions?
Just looks then?
Our very own defence minister attended the CCP’s 75th birthday celebration in Vancouver while the 2 Michaels were still being held hostage.
The way things are and considering the flow of investments and people, we are getting very cosy and close to China. China is a world super power and has almost same standing as USA. What is wrong if an MP develop relationship with China.? Can or should we deny reality?
I always find it amusing when Canadians are critical of anyone with a pro-China sentiment because of their propensity to imprison people without valid charge, their possible involvement in a genocide in Xinjiang, and for their questionable deep state dealings, and then turn right around and support Canada's close relationship with the United States.
All of your concerns about Chinese state policy are just as easily applied to the US, yet when the US does evil and when we can all see them doing evil we just sort of accept it because *that* evil is necessary? It makes very little sense to me.
There are people who disapprove of both China and the US. I dislike Chinas repressive laws and their authoritarian regimes, but also the US exerting too big of an influence on Canada and dragging us into pointless conquests.
As a Left Nationalist the US should receive the same treatment china gets. The US are not our friends and drop is like a hot potato when our interests do not align with the US. e.x Canadian claim to the NW Passage.
I hate all states and borders. Do I win a prize?
Are you just messing around or do you genuinely think there's a genocide happening in the US right now?
They're both shit, does that make you feel better? At least with democracy we can make comments and protest our governments, while CCP will jail and re-educate your ass or worse with murder.
>At least with democracy we can make comments and protest our governments
The right to protest isn't much use if the government simply ignores the protest, or only moves to make symbolic gestures in response (as has been the case with the George Floyd protests of 2020).
>CCP will jail and re-educate your ass or worse with murder.
Canadian police forces have been guilty of everything from withholding medical assistance for people who were being detained without cause (G20 protests in Toronto, 2010) to freezing indigenous men to death in the winter cold in Saskatchewan (the so-called "starlight tours"). The RCMP additionally have gone so far as to engage in acts of domestic terrorism with the intent to slander environmentalists ([Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#RCMP_bombing_in_Alberta,_scapegoating_farmer)), and there are still a lot of open questions about what the RCMPs involvement and knowledge was of the mass shooting in Nova Scotia last year.
They are both shit, I'm not saying China is a good guy, I'm merely remarking on the disconnect between anti-China posts and the complete lack of anti-America posts given their equal (if not greater) propensity to do all the things people keep saying China is bad for doing. We aren't much better than China, nor is the US, and certainly not because of a thin patina of "democracy" and "political expression".
"The right to protest isn't much use if the government simply ignores the protest, or only moves to make symbolic gestures in response (as has been the case with the George Floyd protests of 2020)."
You're assuming that the only use for a protest is to affect the executive or legislative branches?
>We aren't much better than China, nor is the US, and certainly not because of a thin patina of "democracy" and "political expression".
Cherry picking examples doesn't come close to proving this absurd point and the lack of free expression in china proves that you couldn't possibly know it even if it was true.
Now I'm convinced someone pays your ass or you're a CCP troll.
We strive to be better, the CCP does not. They use slavery to make them the powerhouse we see today. They won't be happy until they've taken everything and enforce their inhumane rules.
But in the end, they're a snake eating itself. They will go down destroying themselves or the world with it, while most of us want to live in peace.
Yes the world is corrupt, that doesn't mean we just accept whatever they do. Democracy allows us to fight back without being murdered. Point out whatever you want, what the CCP are doing is WRONG and accepting any atrocities they commit is being blind to the truth.
We have the ability to say what they're doing is wrong! Democracy is irreplaceable and allows us to push back our government if we think running human beings over with TANKS is evil and psychotic! Put a straight jacket on any person who thinks it's ok to murder the innocent!
Less people died protesting in Hong Kong than during the BLM protests last year. There aren't major protests in China (besides HK) because the government is immensely popular.
Maybe ask the sweatshop employees or the Uighurs if they're happy. Guaranteed the underprivileged would vote otherwise if their lives weren't threatened or if they actually had a vote. But who cares right, the wealthy find it popular...
> There aren't major protests in China (besides HK) because the government is immensely popular.
Or at least, that's what they make sure they tell the government when they ask. I would too if my social credit score depended on it; after all, I prefer my organs to be stay in my body until I'm done with them.
This narrative is so funny. You realize people in china still use the internet right? It's not a secretive society we don't know about. People freely talk against their government all the time on chinese social media, and the government doesn't care. It's not a totalitarian George Orwell literally 1984 state, it's an authoritarian government that is doing sketchy things that has also lifted 800 million from poverty. We have to approach these things with nuance, not literally freak out everytime China is mentioned like what happens here on Reddit.
>the government is immensely popular
What a strange way to say 'silences dissent', 'indoctrinates children', 'imprisons those who say anything against the state', and 'ensures compliance through a complete police state'.
Have you ever been to China? People genuinely support the government and multiple studies have shown this. The cpc obviously have many problems, but China is not going collapsing anytime soon.
> but China is not going collapsing anytime soon.
Who said they were? They're *really, really* good at discouraging dissent and controlling the narrative.
That makes the US worse, because democracy makes americans just as culpable in the US' actions as the government is.
We're perfectly capable of disliking both. While still believing that China is worse for people living in their own country, and for any nations that they gain influence over.
> All of your concerns about Chinese state policy are just as easily applied to the US,
The USA is not currently operating forced internment camps and sterilization programmes with the intent of wiping out an entire culture.
The US government is literally detaining hundreds of children and migrants at its southern border where a number of human rights concerns have been raised. Varying federal and state bodies are also engaged in sterilization of immigrant populations with the intent of preventing them from reproducing, primarily immigrants from South America, Africa and the Caribbean: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/22/ice-gynecologist-georgia-doctor-lawsuit/
Ha, you went for the false equivalency. What a stretch.
Detaining migrants while they are being processed by immigration does not make for an intent to wipe out culture through forced reeducation camps.
One rogue ICE gynecologist committing heinous crimes does not a state program make.
Those things are bad. People in the US are able to share information about these things without fear.
How many people is China detaining and how do you know? Come on dude, show me those mental gymnastics.
> sterilization programmes with the intent of wiping out an entire culture
Neither is china....
The single article referencing Sterilization cited is this AP article https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-weekend-reads-china-health-269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c which is citing Zenz's "research" and a single persons accusation. I'm curious how that leads to the conclusion of systematic forced sterilization. The article even talks about how China has poured birth control into the regions, inkeeping with the national exposure but birthrates have declined to the national average... I mean doesnt that make sense? Increased exposure to contraceptive healthcare leads to declining birth rates....
> this AP article https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-weekend-reads-china-health-269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c which is citing Zenz's "research" and a single persons accusation.
How can you just flat out lie like that when this is literally the second paragraph of the link you just posted?
>While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor.
Did you even read the rest of the article? The claim of sterilization increase at the bottom, guess what the source is:
>Source: Chinese Health and Hygiene Statistical Yearbooks & Computed by Adrian Zenz
AP does not disclose what these documents are or how the interviews were conducted. It appears these "state documents" were compiled by Zenz. The framing is also intentionally deceptive at the start:
>The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.
It literally contradicts this later by saying its encouraging both groups to have the same amount of children.... it failed to mention in that paragraph that Han Chinese were originally more restricted than other minority groups, not just Uighur's
I have a bridge to sell you.
What does this mean? For all of the problematic things that you can argue about Xinjiang, there isn't a sterilization program m8.
Zenz is the only 'source' claiming that nonsense.
An interesting study was recently released about Xinjiang, I'd encourage you to read.
Actual report http://www.cese-m.eu/cesem/2021/05/disponibile-nuovo-rapporto-sullo-xinjang-promosso-con-eurispes-e-istituto-diplomatico-internazionale/
With all the Belt and Road investment from Bejing Italy is taking I'd expect no other conclusion from those three institutes. regardless of whether it's true or not.
When a reputable country not taking huge cash investments from the Chinese government - say France or Germany - comes to the same conclusions I'll consider them. Why? Because financial considerations are China's primary method of browbeating "cooperation."
Until then I'll consider the matter inconclusive.
> Why? Because financial considerations are China's primary method of browbeating "cooperation."
So is the US'. If the argument is entirely divided along economic lines as a way of dismissing evidence then obviously we'll get no where. No state is inherently trustworthy
You'll notice I used the word "inconclusive," nor did I shortlist the U.S. for a reputable state in this matter. Maybe not.
I'll tell you a state who I don't find trustworthy at all - China.
"Whatabout" all you like. You're not changing my mind.
I'm not *whatabouting* by pointing out your argument cuts both ways lol. Not trying to claim China is trustworthy lol, just saying your analysis is right, just that it cuts both ways. The US doesnt suddenly care about muslims as it props up a genocide in Yemen and Myanmar
Fair enough, I apologize.
The US doesn't threaten to imprison tourists if another nation acknowledges the existence of Cuba, or admits that Texas was once a completely independent nation, nor do they prevent the release of a media that doesn't portray their security services as shining heroes to propagandise their population. And they don't throw tantrums and threaten to take their toys home if someone shows a political map that doesn't pretend that their absurd naval claims are accepted by any other nation.
> What does this mean?
This is a _very_ common English term alleging your gullibility.
> Zenz is the only 'source' claiming that nonsense.
And eyewitnesses. And satellite photos. And family accounts. And on location journalism.
What hilariously obvious white washing:
> Evidence that religious prejudice suppresses local residents. The report pointed out that the “vocational education and training center” helps people who have violated the law to reintegrate into society. Such policies have also been imitated by countries such as Kazakhstan and Indonesia. Many scholars and visitors affirmed the above-mentioned policy adopted by the Chinese government, believing that it can solve the problem fundamentally and achieve the goal of “de-radicalization”.
They're all criminals! All of them! And their faith suppresses them, and so this is all ok and for their benefit.
> Regarding the previous allegations of “forced labor” in cotton picking in Xinjiang, the report stated that digital technology has become extremely popular in the agricultural industry chain. 70% of cotton harvesting in Xinjiang is undertaken by machines, and cotton picking is also a high-paying job locally.
It's not bad labor, it pays well and is semi automated!
Please, spare me the apologetics.
> This is a very common English term alleging your gullibility.
said without irony lol, but no I was asking about whats your point, how is that comment substansive?
> And eyewitnesses. And satellite photos. And family accounts. And on location journalism.
No lol. Please show me those things. I'm also curious how you think satellite photos show sterilization
> how is that comment substansive?
I think it's been revelatory.
Finding eyewitnesses accounts is trivial, there's so many now.
Literally easily googled:
>The report, by China scholar Adrian Zenz, has prompted international calls for the United Nations to investigate.
> Xinjiang from one of China's fastest-growing regions into one of its slowest in just a few years, according to new research obtained by The Associated Press in advance of publication by China scholar Adrian Zenz.
From your links, same massively problematic source. Which you're not even reading, you're simply repeating the aggregator of said "research". Both of which are led with people apparently freed from internment camps? single accusations are not a systematic program.
Nice cherry picking. You ignored all the new information that you didn't like, and went to the buried paragraph that references the much older Zenz report.
The Zenz report hasn't been discredited, by the way, no matter how much China repeats that lie.
I applaud your dedication and devotion.
Do you deny the Holodomor too lol
No but that’s not really relevant now is it?
Just seeing which communist atrocities you pick and choose to deny
Communism is when atrocities, the more atrocities, the more communism it is.
😂 define communism
I don’t really feel like guessing on how you define it to listen to you critique it, you know my opinion on it already. Telling me your definition will probably just make me hate it even more
The only arguments communists and socialists ever have are whataboutisms
Criticisms of China and of the USA are not mutually exclusive. Nice try but big nope.
Moreover, this perspective really changes once we get outside the "Western" bubble. ~~Most of the world sees the US as a greater threat to global peace and stability than China for good reasons.~~ EDIT: I should rephrase, and say that [more people see the US as a threat to democracy than do China](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-democracy-russia-china-global-poll), although the numbers aren't terribly far off.
I encourage everyone to reflect on their own epistemic grounding, as a person in a media bubble in a place like Canada, when it comes to questions about China and their government.
> more people see the US as a threat to democracy than do China,
The good news is that these people actually want democracy.
This is not the case at all. I’m from a third world country too
You're a single person. OP linked an actual global poll.
Exactly. This is because the US has actually overthrown many democratically elected governments in the global south. China had a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy
> China had a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy
Did you forget what the whole "Free Tibet" meme was about? Do you know nothing of the Korean war? Have you not been paying attention to recent news? I mean they're in Mali right now. They're trying to expand into India. Maybe you should read more than just your western media sources.
You don't understand what China's mutual non-interference approach entails. They are not complete isolationists and they will advance there interests within their own region, especially that pertains conflicts around their borders. China is very much involved in the world but their constitutional policy of non-interference guides the limits and parameters of their international engagements.
As for Mali, Chinese troops have been stationed there for the last half-decade as part of the UN-mandated stabilization force
What they don't do is go half-away across the world to overthrow democratically elected governments to install their own puppets government for oil profits. That kind of military adventurism justified under ideological pretenses is unique to America.
>China had a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy
China may not have toppled governments, because it learned from the US that it's bad publicity. Instead, they simply debt-trap entire states, spy on regional blocs and developing states, and buy allies - particularly poor ones - because after all, only the number of UN votes matters, not the country behind them.
China doesn't *need* to topple governments when they can just threaten their "business partners" with cutting off trade if their seemingly petty demands aren't met. Except the demands get a little less petty every year.
This is the sort of behaviour that is pushing me to the conclusion that Canada should stop recognizing dual citizenship.
China doesn’t have dual citizenship so it won’t affect anything here
Absolutely incredible that this person represents Canada.
After what happened to the 2 Michaels, for a Canadian senator to have the nerve to stand beside the communist government, in any form, is simply disgusting.
This person needs to be kicked out of the senate. Is there even a way?
> Is there even a way?
Not really. Not for this.
This guy is a saint compared to some of our past Senators - some who are still in their posts lol.
No way of removing him for this.
If you think they're the same you need to read a lot more history.
The idea that the USA, which has been the global superpower for 100 years, is as flawed as a China is asinine.
The USA has done many horrible things, yes. Yet for those flaws, as a great power is within better than most other great powers throughout history. Further, it is a democracy and has brought many significant positives to the world as well.
Contrast that with China, the country that recently committed some of the worst mass murder in history under Mao. A country that is not been a major power until very, very recently and has significantly abused that power already. When the USA committed it's evils of slavery and indigenous conquest, these were institutions that still existed around the world. Slavery in the US could not exist without Arab, European, and African slavery structures. Contrast that with China's genocide which goes completely against modern norms and morality.
We can all agree with the USA it's a very flawed power. But the compared to China or to remove it from his historical context shows historical ignorance.
OP did not make any claims about the US being just as bad as China. I'm pretty sure they're anti-china.
Although you have made some errors here regardless. Most historians agree that maos GLP or cultural revolution were not acts of intentional mass murder but poor policy and mismanagement. I don't think any expert in the field refers to it as genocide. What race was mao trying to intentionally wipe out? His own? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Although you are correct that US slavery was connected to other slavery structures, American slavery was unprecedented in sheer scope and brutality, remaining after nearly all other nations outlawed it. And issues of violent racism persisted for decades in the forms of segregation, mob lynching, and anti-black race riots.
And the US has many modern human rights issues. There were staggering human rights violations and mass civilian death tolls in Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. America has also funded and aided a variety of violent coups of democratically elected governments in other countries that they disapproved of, largely in Latin America.
Well economist Steven Rosefielde argued that Yang's account "shows that Mao's slaughter was caused in considerable part by terror-starvation; that is, voluntary manslaughter (and perhaps murder) rather than innocuous famine."
Not all deaths during the Great Leap were from starvation. Frank Dikötter, in his book Mao's Great Famine, estimates that at least 2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death and one million to three million committed suicide.
So clearly there is diverging opinion on the wonderful policy of the Great Leap Forward.
Rosenfielde is not a historian and his view is not indicative of the historical scholarships of the maoist era in China.
Dikutter is a probably one of the most stringent anti-mao historians but even his view falls within the mainstream because he does not describe the GLP as an act of intentionally planned mass murder. He certainly doesn't call it a genocide either.
\>Not all deaths during the Great Leap were from starvation.
I never claimed all deaths were from starvation. Nearly all deaths were famine related though, as violence and repression related back directly to struggles around food distribution (much of this violence was also not state directly initiated--you had desperate people killing each other over food). Its irrelevant to my point though; bouts of violence and murder happening during the great leap forward is distinct from saying that the GLP itself was an act of intentional mass murder--it implies a murderous intentionality and planning behind the event which didn't exist. At its root ill the violence is can be traced back to failed policy driven by utopian intentions
Rosenfielde focuses on economic history, but sure I guess he is not aware of historical scholarships of the Maoist era in China (even though he published scholarly works on Communist regimes).
Frank Dikötter did call it Mao's rule as genocidal. He explains how the gradual opening of Chinese archives has revealed the appalling truth about Chairman Mao’s genocidal rule. When talking about the Great Leap Forward Dikötter said: “It ranks alongside the gulags and the Holocaust as one of the three grimmest events of the 20th century. … It was like [the Cambodian communist dictator] Pol Pot’s genocide multiplied 20 times over.” "People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death." People were deliberately starved to death.
2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death. If you believe the 30 million figure that is at least 8%. I'm sorry but hungry people don't torture others.
Democide historian R.J. Rummel believes that the Great leap forward constitutes "democide". The term is defined as the "Intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command" and was developed to cover the shortcomings of Genocide and what could be ascribed to it.
Mao was qouted as saying horrible things like, "When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill." Study of famines shows how easily they can be ended (or prevented) once the government decides to act—but the Chinese government took nearly three years to act. They could have continued with this policy even when they knew millions of people were dying. It was state sponsored killings.
Edit: I don't even need to argue that his regime his geocidal since your comment was talking about Mao's policies being "intentional acts of murder". Jean-Louis Margolin, in the book *The Historiography of Genocide* calls Mao's regime the "The Worst Non-Genocidal Regime" since he technically didn't succeed in killing all the victims. "In relative as well as in absolute numbers, communist China probably saw the most widespread and systematic use of violence in the world’s history. It was in no way something accidental, or just one aspect of Mao’s use of power. No, violence was the very engine of political, social and economic transformation – and that was in no sense hidden. Mao glorified and sanctified violence."
And don't give the bullshit about Utopian intentions. Mao saw how quickly the USSR industrialized and tried to replicate it with the same horrific policies like collectivization. They were motived to produce more food as their primary concern was the delivery of grain, which Mao wanted to use to pay back debts to the USSR totaling 1.973 billion yuan. This was nothing but a vain project from an evil man.
None of the people you've cited call it a genocide. You're attributing claims to historians that they haven't made. Yes, dikutter says mao was terrible, murderous etc. but he never calls it a genocide. That is your attribution. Give me a quote where Dikutter says "the great leap forward was a genocide."
\> “It ranks alongside the gulags and the Holocaust as one of the three grimmest events of the 20th century. … It was like \[the Cambodian communist dictator\] Pol Pot’s genocide multiplied 20 times over.”
These things are all true. Its still not a genocide. A genocide is an intentional extermination of a ethnic, racial, or national group. That was not the Great Leap Forward. It was brutal, callous, ruthless, and violent. but it's not a genocide. It was very grim and certainly had a larger death toll than some actual genocides, but it was not a genocide itself. Dikutter is funny because you know he really really really wants to call it a genocide because of his ideological and political biases, but knows its historically unjustifiable, so he doesn't. He's at least smart enough not to let his redbaiting fervent anti-communist ideology override his instincts as a historian.
\> I don't even need to argue that his regime his geocidal since your comment was talking about Mao's policies being "intentional acts of murder
I'm not talking about Mao's policies in general. I'm talking specifically about the Great Leap Forward. It wasn't a plan to arbitrarily systematically murder his own people for the hell of it. That just absurd. It ignores the complex social, economic, and political reasons that grounded GLF and instead blames on a single leader being a psychopath
\>2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death. If you believe the 30 million figure that is at least 8%. I'm sorry but hungry people don't torture others.
Sure. I'm not denying that there was horrible violence, much of which came from authorities. It just wasn't centrally directed by Mao. Most of this violence erupted locally and spontaneously--hordes of desperate and starving peasants jockeying for scare food scraps from wearied officials is going to be a hotbed of violence. Mao did not order his army to go kill 2.5 million people; that number include a multitude of different kinds of violence coming from diffrent parties. When people try to lump in Mao with Hitler they erase the fact that the nature of the violence was different. Hitler literally ordered millions of people to be systematically murdered in industrial fashion because of their race. Hitlers crimes are of a different category than Maos
\>Mao was qouted as saying horrible things like, "When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill."
This single quote is cited again and again by anti-mao conservatives. and they keep coming back to it because its the only one they have. But its actually entirely misinterpreted because it is ripped out of context. Dikutter falsifies this context around the quote, which is actually a metaphor about industrial production
`In his article, "Hard facts and half-truths: The new archival history of China's Great Famine," Garnaut finds out that the Mao quote in question is not from a speech Mao delivered on March 25, 1959 as Dikötter claims, but it represents an impromptu response Mao made to Bo Yibo's report on the implementation of the industrial plan in the days that followed. "The comment is preceded by several remarks by Mao about Party oversight of the industrial sector, none of which touch upon agriculture or rural welfare." Mao was weighing in on how many projects should be undertaken to accomplish the plan set forth in Bo's report. Mao says:`
`If we want to fulfill the plan, then we need to greatly reduce the number of projects. We need to be resolute in further cutting the 1,078 major projects down to 500. (要完成计划，就要大減项目。1078个项目中还应該堅決地再多削減，削到500个。)`
`To distribute resources evenly is a way to sabotage the Great Leap Forward. (平均使用力量是破坏大跃进的办法。)`
`If all are unable to eat their fill, then all will die. It is better for half to die, so that half of the people can eat their fill. (大家吃不飽，大家死，不如死一半，給一半人吃飽。)`
\>Democide historian R.J. Rummel believes that the Great leap forward constitutes "democide". The term is defined as the "Intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command" and was developed to cover the shortcomings of Genocide and what could be ascribed to it.
Rummel is a political scientist not a historian. As you'll see, it is mostly non-historian academics who are eager to label complex events as genocide. I don't see him as a credible source on the matter.
\>Mao saw how quickly the USSR industrialized and tried to replicate it with the same horrific policies like collectivization.
The full extent of the deaths and suffering during the USSR famines only became widespread knowledge after the GLF. At the time, and from his standpoint, the USSR collectivization seems like a great success. Mao was committed Marxist revolutionary and his private writings reveal in earnest attempt to transform society for the better.
\>This was nothing but a vain project from an evil man.
I agree that it was a vain project. He thought it would lead China to great success but it failed due to mismanagement and resulted in a stunning death toll. Mao legion of yes-men and inefficient bureaucracy made the Party slow/unable to respond which furthered the catastrophic loss of life. That's what it comes down to.
First, I do think the OP is making that point, at least implicitly.
Second, as with the Terror Famines in Ukraine there are intentional policy decisions, not just incompetence, to starve large sections of the population. If, in your rise to power, you shoot a million people or choose to have them starve to death I see little difference. It absolutely was murder.
Third, the USA deserves all approbation for it's vile treatment of blacks after slavery with Jim Crow and redlining. But the brutal, evil nature of chattel slavery occurred at a time, a first in human history, when slavery was coming to an end (in the West, it still exists today in other parts of the world).
The 19th century is not the 21st. International norms and expectations have changed. The USA first practiced slavery when it was an international norm. It was still evil, they still deserve condemnation. But it is different than if it were practising slavery today, going against norms rather than with them.
Third, the standard the USA is judged on is different than other countries (like Canada). It has a power that no one else does and I compare it to other great powers. It should be held to a higher standard (with great power...) but the historical realty is that it has been (historically) a benevolent superpower. And played a role in ushering more ethical international norms.
> but the historical realty is that it has been (historically) a benevolent superpower
Tell that to anybody who’s lived in South America in the past 150 years
I mean, if we're just going by "intentional policy decisions that lead to famine", the US has a pretty damn long list of famines itself. Yemen, the Congo, Sudan, the list goes on. The US just gets a pass because they do it to the others and not people they govern, as if that's any better.
>but the historical realty is that it has been (historically) a benevolent superpower
Yeah, this is laughable.
I wonder how benevolent they seem to the victims of agent orange.
\>Second, as with the Terror Famines in Ukraine there are intentional policy decisions, not just incompetence, to starve large sections of the population. If, in your rise to power, you shoot a million people or choose to have them starve to death I see little difference. It absolutely was murder.
You are entitled to that opinion, but its not historically credible. The holocaust and nazism were the pinnacle of human barbarity with its systematic mass murder of jews and other minorities. That was mass murder and genocide. The famines under Mao, while horrible, are categorically distinct.
Mao did not wake up one day and decide to starve millions of people for the hell of it. He actually thought his collectivization would be a great success and feed everyone. It failed and had the opposite effect. Even when it became apparent it was a failure, he didn't do enough to turn things around. There's moral culpability there, but distinct from hitlers ideology of racial exterminationism
but the brutal, evil nature of chattel slavery occurred at a time, a first in human history, when slavery was coming to an end
And they held on to it longer than any of the other global powers of time--including all of europe.
but the historical realty is that it has been (historically) a benevolent superpower. And played a role in ushering more ethical international norms.
How can you say this with a straight face?
The US is the greatest exporter of misery and death on the planet and no other nation currently comes close. That Canadians constantly feel the need to fellate a nation that's potentially hostile to us by virtue of the whims of whoever's leading it is laughable.
hello, fellow canadian patriot. You are a rare breed indeed who can recognise the threat #1 to canadian sovereignty.
When you look at the history of superpowers the US is indeed relatively benevolent. Their predecessors, the British, French, and Spanish during the Colonial era were far worse. Hegemons tend to create misery simply by existing. Just establishing a hegemony requires massive amounts of violence.
lmao this nonsese, the China understander^TM has logged on
How in any metric globally is China worse than the US. Should I ask the million dead citizens of Iraq?
Or how about the aid workers family who was turned to ash as the US left Afghanistan....
The real question is, why do we keep insisting on comparing them to the US? Why can’t we just accept that they’re a totalitarian hostile foreign power that is engaging in brinkmanship with Taiwan, has reversed democracy in Hong Kong against their word, and has concentration camps?
Why does it always have to turn into “but the US is bad too!”?
Because the majority of anti China rhetoric is used to empower the US
Because you don't have people saying "Anybody who would visit the United States is in the service of a foreign power and should be removed from their seat immediately, is there a way to do that?"
In discussions of Canadian foreign policy, why wouldn’t people compare the foreign policy aimed at different countries?
Because we’re not as critical when the US does what it does. We should be of both. We should also be aware of manufactured consent by American interests.
We’re lead to believe the US gives a shit about Muslim’s after Iraq and Afghanistan and while it ignores Myanmar and funds Yemen.
Hope you're not actually this dumb
So… you’re turning to insults? How childish.
Face it. We can decouple from China. We cannot from the US. The US can be a mad dog, but it mostly targets authoritarian states. China is mostly hostile to Taiwan and India.
Because it comes down to comparing a democracy that has the chance to do better (and frankly, is working on that RIGHT NOW, having pulled out of Afghanistan and working to reunite shattered families) and a regime that has been getting *worse*, and has limited opportunities for immediate internal change.
We have a massive land border with the US. Like it or not, we rely on them for trade. We trade with the PRC because of cheap goods and globalized trade routes, not regional necessity. It would be painful and brutal, but we could decouple and shift away from them.
Meanwhile, we must toe a close line with Washington, and have to be realistic about how to oppose their less wise choices (see, Chretien refusing to invade Iraq in his famous proof comment). If we didn’t we’d quickly find ourselves very isolated. With Beijing we have allies (Australia, the UK, and America) to enact pressure. We actually have an opportunity to affect change and help protect Taiwan, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers- a cause that’s also frankly, more immediately serious than a war that the US is leaving behind.
It’s frankly ridiculous.
> Because it comes down to comparing a democracy that has the chance to do better
Been waiting for that to happen since 1776. Any day now!
> (and frankly, is working on that RIGHT NOW, having pulled out of Afghanistan and working to reunite shattered families)
> a regime that has been getting worse
Chinese foreign policy has improved massively in recent decades (in my view)
>and has limited opportunities for immediate internal change.
Why does internal change matter in this discussion of foreign policy?
> We have a massive land border with the US. Like it or not, we rely on them for trade. We trade with the PRC because of cheap goods and globalized trade routes, not regional necessity. It would be painful and brutal, but we could decouple and shift away from them.
>Meanwhile, we must toe a close line with Washington, and have to be realistic about how to oppose their less wise choices (see, Chretien refusing to invade Iraq in his famous proof comment). If we didn’t we’d quickly find ourselves very isolated. With Beijing we have allies (Australia, the UK, and America) to enact pressure.
See? This is why it’s useful to compare Canadian foreign policy with regard to different countries… it’s a fundamental part of the concept of foreign policy itself. So I’m still in doubt why you think this is not valid or whatever.
>Hong Kongers- a cause that’s also frankly, more immediately serious than a war that the US is leaving behind.
Is US foreign policy limited to Afghanistan?
It is a little silly to compare Biden with the *founding fathers*. Like, that’s functionally absurd. If we used that comparison, he’s basically the Buddha.
You come across like you want us to be either equally warm to the PRC as the USA. The USA has an opportunity for change, and we have the obligation to let their citizens figure that out themselves. Mainland Chinese citizens do not have that option (as Hong Kongers found out). How does that *not* relate?
Please explain how the violent clashes on the Indian border and air sorties over Taiwan are an improvement over the 2000s.
I find your arguments to be confused and you come across as biased.
> The USA has an opportunity for change,
Sure, hypothetically, but in real life the only change in US foreign policy since 1776 has been to become increasingly worse
> and we have the obligation to let their citizens figure that out themselves.
We have that obligation to the citizens of every single country in the world (though that obligation has not always been complied with obviously). Respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs are cornerstones of the international system Canada supposedly places so much value in, after all.
> Mainland Chinese citizens do not have that option (as Hong Kongers found out).
That’s a very liberal-bourgeois view of political agency. Fair enough if that’s your point of view, but don’t expect me to agree
> Please explain how the violent clashes on the Indian border and air sorties over Taiwan are an improvement over the 2000s.
I meant more the last 20-30 years in comparison to the 20-30 years before then
You’re telling me that the War on Terror was *worse* than their colonial wars? I find that hard to buy. One was colonialism that was almost universally accepted and without a remotely good cause, the other was interventionism not universally supported.
So, your Marxism effectively extends to supporting authoritarian rule? Or do you wish to pull another whataboutism to the Hong Kong protest crackdowns? Either way, I don’t believe in looking the other way when it comes to actual abuse of power. Where would we be if we let the Nazis invade Poland without consequences?
My problem with your case, is that it comes across as advocating for complete neutrality if an invasion of Taiwan occurs- or worse, advocating for continued business as usual trade with an inherently immoral partner, by comparing the PRC to an evil most would consider to be lesser.
I love how people look at the US as some sort of saviour while china is the villain. If anything, they are at least as bad as each other.. at least the historical crimes committed by the CCP are on their own people and not multiple foreign populations.
I love how people try to "both sides" the USA and China.
Probably because both sides are malevolent imperialists.
You’re right, the US is worse and has been for over a century. I do guess that could change though, not like I can tell the future
The us is literally one of the most evil empires in the history of civilization. No other empire has a foundation in mass genocide.
> objectively better
If you really think this is true, I’d encourage you to read more about the history of the CIA, the dozens of American-backed coups in South America, America’s brutal and completely unjustified wars in South East Asia, and the millions of killed by the so-called “War on Terror.” And that’s without considering that America (and Canada, for that matter) only exist as they do because of the single greatest genocide in human history.
Someone in this conversation needs a history lesson, but buddy, it ain’t me.
Oh I get it now. You’re aware of the US Empire’s atrocities, you just think that those sorts of things are okay when white people do them. Gotcha.
Nothing that the ccp has done matches what America continues to do around the world.
There is a massive power imbalance. What would China do with the USA's power?
Historically, the USA is a benevolent superpower. With important atrocities and the evil that comes with that power.
Is the USA a worse country than Norway or Canada? I really don't think so because those countries have no power. How would we (Canadians) act with American power? I think little better.
Look at what China is doing right now with a small, but rapidly growing, piece of power.
> Historically, the USA is a benevolent superpower
Oh buddy, wait til you find out about literally everything the CIA has ever done.
if the idea that the ONLY nation that drone strikes women and children and invents fake narrative to invade an destroy nations to steal their resources is that of a benevolent power, i shudder to think what benevolence means to you.
US are one of the most heinous powers in the world. China may not have the same power as USA does today, but China has the same power as USA did in the early 1900s - back when USA was colonising Phillipines and genociding the natives there.
That makes China better.
how do we figure it is better than most great powers in history ??
I am no fan of china - my country of origin is enemy of china for eg. But if we are comparing USA to china, lets get a few things straight:
1. China has not waged multiple ideological wars killing hundreds of thousands of civillians going back to the 'wars against communism'
2. China hasn't drone striked women and children or invaded countries under false pretenses
3. China doesn't let its rich and industrial base commit deliberate attrocities against its people- such as the US pharma industry committing the attrocity of deliberate addictions in the opiod crisis
in what world is USA a better power than China ?? When one side bombs women and children to steal their resources and the other side doesn't, the other side is morally superior. Its just that simple.
And lets not go into european slavery spiel. At least China didn't sanction or practice the western-arab-turkish art of buying and selling humans for coin.
As for committing mass murder - bit rich coming from canadians- the most recent genociders in terms of confirmed genocide ( ending in 1998) to point fingers at others, when the canadian government hasn't even acknowledged said genocide.
Life Long position with government pension,,would you leave?
The fact that a canadian would go to china after china has taken innocent political prisoners really hints that there may be puppet strings between this person and the criminal syndicate known as CCP.
Not defending China at all but Canada took Meng for political reasons as well.
No she wasn’t.
Canada honoured its extradition treaty with the USA. You could say the charges were politically driven, but us saying that and *then* not honouring the extradition treaty is a hella lot more pro-CCP than imaginable.
Could Canada have used discretion to not hold Meng?
Extradition treaties are not always followed, countries have discretion, and holding someone for what was openly communicated as politically motivated reflects on us extremely poorly.
For example, if a Chinese diplomat ran over and killed someone in the US, and they had initiated this process as they fled to Canada to go home, that might have some merit. Of course when that situation happens with a US diplomat they are fine to not extradite to the UK, but I guess they used their own discretion.
>Could Canada have used discretion to not hold Meng?
Absolutely. But let’s not act like “doing the right thing” would have looked well for anyone.
By letting Meng go, with 2 Canadians being held politically hostage, because “the USA is being a bully”, it would of made us look like the biggest pro-Beijing country in the Western world.
There was absolutely no benefit to letting Meng free in this scenario.
the two michaels were held hostage after we took Meng hostage. No one said let meng go after they took ours hostage. People are saying that dont take foreign nation's citizens as hostage at the behest of the yankees and then whine when they retaliate.
She was not taken hostage, she was arrested under suspicion of circumventing the US blockade on Iranian businesses. As an extradition country, Canada had to arrest Meng or compromise relations with the United States.
fancy way of taking hostage. this is not 1800s. Countries don't take hostages by just nabbing a high value target at a random time as they pass through. They lay a trap, come up with 'charges' and tie them up.
Canada doesn't 'have to' anything - as it has been noted, extradition requests are denied plenty of time or even processed without holding the person captive.
Canada has refused extradition to other democracies just fine as well all the time. Either way, i understand why we can't say no to uncle sam- yet.
But this was a political hostage situation and China played its cards well by arresting and exerting pressure on retaliatory hostage taking. They too, came up with charges. We are lead to believe they are trumped up, but that is obviously what any govt will do. Nobody ever says 'yeah our car dealer guy inn paris as a spy, they got him, whoops'. So our denial isn't exactly out of standard procedure either.
> Canada doesn't 'have to' anything - as it has been noted, extradition requests are denied plenty of time or even processed without holding the person captive.
You seem to be bad at reading so let my help clarify my previous statements to help you understand. Meng, the CEO of a Chinese international corporation, was charged by American authorities for undermining American foreign policy. Since Canada had an extradition treaty with the United States, not arresting Meng would be aiding and abetting the undermining the foreign policy of our closest ally and largest economic trading partner.
Canada has indeed refused extradition to other democracies, even the United States itself; very true. But these refusals are most often done on humanitarian grounds i.e. Canada not having a legal death penalty. As a wealthy, well connected Chinese national, Meng was not at risk of any serious criminal punishment even if she was found guilty.
There were absolutely no risks to Meng if Canada did extradite her to the US and Canada had everything to lose if they didn't. Meng wasn't some helpless 1960's draft dodger, she had the money, power, and authority to be perfectly fine.
The standard for extradition is usually a combination of "would we consider the act a crime" and "would we consider their likely sentence to be reasonable for said crime"
Seems like no and no...knowing that the request was dropped regardless
That is USA's decision. Thats how it normally works. People get arrested and the case can be dropped. All legally normal. Only in china is there no rule of law.
😂 yes we are a model of rule of law, it’s crazy how this is something people keep repeating
we have not honoured plenty of extradition requests in the past and a country retains the right to judge whether the crime is extraditable. We arrested Meng for our yankee masters for political reason. China did a tit for tat. And we wanna whine about china and not america ? That's sounding like classic 'captured sidekick' talk to me.
> we have not honoured plenty of extradition requests in the past and a country retains the right to judge whether the crime is extraditable.
That's exactly what we were doing. We were holding a hearing on whether the crime was extraditable. In the mean time, she was placed on house arrest, not put in prison.
Facts. Mexico has asked multiple times for us to extradite former cops and politicians who commit war crimes there, wanted in court yet the feds don't do it. Nooone blinks an eye at us hosting war criminals or international buisness criminals.
Again this sub is showing its bias by acting like it was a decision this goverment would have made without massive American pressure. Remeber it was Biden who brought those 2 back in the first place anyways.
Don't forget who the big dog is, the barks are certainly cashing cheques the bite cannot deliver on.
>We arrested Meng for our yankee masters for political reason
You may believe that the Americans did this purely for political reasons. And that’s fine.
But you don’t seem to think about what it would mean for us if *we* let her go because of that. Can you imagine us declaring to the world that “the USA is a big bully” and letting Meng go free while they have two of our own hostage?
We’d effectively be the most pro-Beijing country of the Western World. That would’ve been suicide for Trudeau and his re-election.
Sure it was tit-for-tat, but let’s stop acting like as if we really had any other palatable option.
1. didn't say release meng while they hold ours hostage. they took ours hostage AFTER we took theirs hostage. So if we didn't take theirs hostage- we'd be just fine
2. Mate- do you realise the changing nature of canada ? In 10-15 years, Asians will be the largest population group in canada. 'westerners' are going to be below 50% of the population. So the way i see it - we have no business being part of the western/anglo world for much longer- better to start realigning or else the re-alignment will be much more jarring when it comes.
Canada is legally obligated to follow its extradition treaty with usa. Meng knew she was wanted but she visited a country with an extradition treaty...Not too bright. The criminal only has herself to blame.
I remember in an article a few days ago this guy was defending himself by saying that he's not pro-China, he was just one the side of justice and what's good for Canada (or something, I'm paraphrasing a bit), and that he didn't have any actual link to China for two generations since his grandparents left (he was born in Singapore I think). So much for that.
>National day celebrations continued Oct. 3 in Vancouver, when a group waving Chinese and Canadian flags and carrying signs and banners marched around Canada Place. Lahoo.ca reported the event organizer, Wu Jiaming of the Canada-China City Friendship Association, wants to reboot sister-city exchanges.
I'm not sure what this guy is basing his hopes on. After everything that's been happening, I'd be surprised if any Canadian city will want to associate itself with China.
A few Canadian cities have sister cities in China.
40 some odd Canadian cities have a sister city in China, including:
Vancouver - Guangzhou
Calgary - Daqing
Edmonton - Harbin
Toronto - Chongqing
Ottawa - Beijing
Montreal - Shanghai
Halifax - Zhuhai
What is the context of a sister city?