Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssnistfajen | Hacker News Reader

I miss the Internet in early-2000's China. Not as many sites were blocked and everyone was much more open-minded as the undereducated chauvinists did not yet acquire reliable Internet access. Nowadays everyone has a smartphone and it has enabled the chauvinists and other radicals to voice their opinions online, only this time they are actually emboldened by the nation which has risen in the last 30 years to become a serious competitor against the current superpower nation that is the US.

China has achieved amazing progress thanks to market reforms and entrepreneurship but certain aspects are continuously regressing under Xi's term which will last for the forseeable future. Private sector confidence is at an all-time low due to state media editorials calling for more state control and boosting state-owned corporations. There has been more and more censorship orders aimed at reducing "Western influence" regardless of whether they are politics-related. More and more Chinese citizens are travelling abroad yet their beliefs in the "Chinese system" only gets re-affirmed by mistakenly thinking that China's success is completely dependent on authoritarianism. I don't agree with fervently supporting the current regime which is oppressive, brutal, antidemocratic, and still corrupt; nor do I agree with painting an entire nation and its people as some sort of evil reincarnate for the sake of a new Cold War. I don't have the knowledge or capability to offer a solution and I am just overall disappointed at the current state of affairs.

View on HN

"More and more Chinese citizens are travelling abroad yet their beliefs in the "Chinese system" only gets re-affirmed by mistakenly thinking that China's success is completely dependent on authoritarianism."

This is by far the scariest part.

Even people who knowingly try to 'escape the system' still support it, as though 'the party = China'.

I believe this problem exists a little bit in Europe where so many believe the EU = Europe, they use the terms interchangeably.

> More and more Chinese citizens are travelling abroad yet their beliefs in the "Chinese system" only gets re-affirmed

To provide a more nuanced view, there are different reasons for this:

- some see problems in other countries that China does not have

- some faced racism or xenophobia. For the more privileged ones, it might be the first time in their lives to get discriminated against, and they respond by becoming extra nationalistic.

- some simply don't see a way to participate in the western system, so they pragmatically buy into the Chinese system. Keep in mind that while it's hard today for a foreign company to operate in China, it's also not easy for a Chinese company to succeed in western markets, especially more competitive ones like US.

- some are being nationalistic for publicity.

I don't have many Chinese friends who would speak in this frank a manner with me, but the two that I do have definitely think like this. They see problems and bigotry that they never had to deal with until they got here, and I think that is what created the knee-jerk reaction to believe they need the Chinese state.

(The worst part is that one is Taiwanese! Not even Chinese. And she thinks of it as insurance. She feels like things for her in the West could turn sour in a hurry, so she needs an "out" so to speak.)

I generally don't share those things with my American friends either, many probably don't understand, and for those who do, it just unnecessarily makes them feel guilty about things they have no control over.

So applaud you to be interested in those nuances and being empathetic!

There's a difference between seeing China as a 'natural homeland' and totally supporting the CCP and all it's inanity.

I don't doubt for a second that people might be 'very proud' of their culture. For better or worse - that's normal. But to be proud of the bad stuff, even when they are literally living abroad for those reasons - now that is just weird.

What problems are those? Because seriously, not only Chinese or Taiwanese, even Canadian or European had to deal with problems in US that is US specific only, and not a thing they have to dealt with at home. Example, Health Coverage and Tax.

> I believe this problem exists a little bit in Europe where so many believe the EU = Europe, they use the terms interchangeably.

I'm genuinely curious, in what sense EU = Europe is wrong? Granted, not all European countries are members of EU, but EU is a big block with several significant majorities among their constituents - a big population, economy, living style, culture, history, especially if UK could be included.

Why it's significantly wrong to approximate Europe as EU?

All of Europe doesn't have a homogeneous culture or history is one major issue.

Neither does China

They have the same government though, and far less diversity.

When I lived in France, I had a buddy doing his PhD in French history. He was from Hong Kong. The difference between him and a Chinese mainlander is at species level. The people who grew up in the large mainland cities are educated, writing code for the phones discussed in this thread, and architecting skyscrapers - they speak multiple languages and wear suits. The ex-farmers in those cities poop in the middle of the street, out in the open. others then pump that poop out of the sewers, boil it, and use the floating oil on top to cook with and sell to restaurant.

I would agree that Europe is more diverse that China. Eastern Europe + Russia is not more diverse than China. Neither is Western Europe + Iceland. And China is 10 times more diverse than the states.

source: Russian born, US raised. Also lived in Spain, France, Japan. Been to Every EU and European country, and ~80 countries total. Wife is Chinese, not from the mainland.

> The difference between him and a Chinese mainlander is at species level.

In computer terms, their hardware (race) is essentially identical in capability, disregarding minor individual defects. At the software level (culture) there is tremendous variance.

I often wonder what percentage of these disagreements are because of a misunderstanding of what level of the system is being discussed &/or that fact that substantial numbers of people don't/can't differentiate between race & culture.

"in what sense EU = Europe is wrong"

That one would even ask this is scary!

Well ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.

A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).

Have a look at Junkers statements regarding the Treaty of Lisbon referendums. Those words should have sparked a revolution, and he should have been jailed long ago.

If there were alternative systems to the EU, for example, a trading block that was powerful enough to counter the EU i.e. UK, Norway, Switzerland ... then people would see that they don't have to be 'pro EU' to be 'pro European' and there would be alternatives.

The EU is one country away from having to face this, because Norway, Switzerland and UK are not quite strong enough, but with one more ... then we'd see some kind of alternative.

There would be 'competitive federalization' models and people would then have choice.

Right now, it's a dictatorship of the elite, and there's no way at all to get the Executive branch to budge on any issues.

Even literally voting 'no' on the Treaty of Lisbon was not enough. You can literally vote them down and they will march forward with their plan.

While many of the objections you list resonate widely (even though I personally don't share most of them), I would also point out the obvious - that for all of its problems, it is because of the conscious, organized (and yes, largely elite-driven) effort to integrate European countries in a framework of shared interests that eventually became the EU that the centuries long practice of constant, bloody conflict that culminated in WW2 was finally broken. This was an explicit aim articulated by all sides after the war and in that aim the EU has been extraordinarily successful.

That is not to say the EU isn't in a deep, existential crisis, because in many ways it is. I would simply caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this case, because the fundamental achievement of the EU is something far more important than overly disconnected bureaucrats with a penchant for arbitrary regulation.

It was really the EEC that has created this environment - not the EU as we know it, i.e. Treaty of Lisbon.

So you're arguing on my behalf: an 'EEC-like' Union would be very popular all around, and as you point out yourself 'helps with stability'.

A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability.

I think the EU should be 'thrown out' only because it cannot be reformed, but that a set of treaties could preserve the best parts of it - particularly those issues related to trade, some degree of tax harmonization and the ability to create some EU-level policies or regulations.

It's sad frankly because the EU is actually 'mostly good' - but it has existential flaws.

It's going to be a tough few decades in Europe.

> A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability.

That really depends on the countries involved and the form of the union. Even in your version of events, with a reversion to an EEC-like state, I expect we would eventually see closer political union between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and whoever else wanted to join.

You also need to figure out what to do about the Eurozone. You cannot indefinitely sustain a monetary union without closer fiscal integration, which I assume you oppose, but dissolving it has its own issues both in the short and long term (there's a reason it was created in the first place, and that reason is not solely to facilitate closer political integration - even though that was indeed a goal).

It's not 'scary'. The term Europe has become a metonym for the EU[1]. In the media and in public discourse.

The EU parliament is elected and have the final say on laws. While I agree it's way too bureaucratic, it's still a voluntary club and there are check and balances.

The simple fact is that the EU is a remarkable achievement. That Europe could emerge from the smouldering tribal ruins of the early 20th century and build a continent-wide union of prosperity and peace is incredible. It ain't perfect but it also ain't the boogyman some morons make it out to be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

+ The EU Parliament has very little influence on law making in the EU.

They do not create, write or formulate law - they have only the ability to reject it. Yes - they can work with the Executive to evolve legislation, however in practice, this is not really the case with most legislation. I'd argue that individual nations, via the Council etc. have more influence than Parliament.

Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable.

2) The EU - post Treaty of Lisbon - is not a 'remarkable thing' - it's a failing system. From 1950-2000 it was more or less an economic Union, less so a political one.

Surely, European nations coming together post WW2 is 'remarkable' - but much of that is simply the 'new world order' , and of course the EEC.

Most European nations would be happy to participate in an EEC-like union of some kind - which was the basis of the 'remarkable era' that you describe.

Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'.

The number of shape-shifting arguments that pro-EU folks have to get into to side step the democratic illegitimacy of the Executive is utterly astonishing.

Nobody seems to be able to provide a basic, decent argument for why in fact those who make the laws in Europe are not elected.

Most political leaders have to bend with the political wind, that's usually a good thing. Jean-Claude Junker et. al. do not care one bit what Europeans think, because they don't have to.

> Once again: the EU Executive is totally unelected, and fundamentally unnacountable.

So, presumably you're talking about the Commission here, right? So, the EU structure is pretty weird, and I would agree with you that a much more democratic structure is possible and indeed preferable.

But it's not an unelected executive. It's an executive entirely controlled by the Council of Ministers. They are the people who really don't want more EU-level democracy (like a parliament which can enact laws), because it weakens their power as national governments.

Instead, they argue about stuff for years in Council, they win loads of concessions, and then they go home and blame "Europe" for the decisions which they (claim to) disagree with. (Are you here, Mr Cameron?)

Like the EU tend to do a good job of acting like they're evil, but it tends to come from the wildly divergent interests of the states, the commission and the parliament.

A lot of the real nastiness got exposed by the financial crises, and it's a terrible shame that we don't have eurobonds for financing capital investment across the EU, but again, that's not because the EU are "evil", it's because the Germans won't let it happen (the French wanted it desperately).

I think what I dislike the most about Brexit, is that it distorts the EU balance of power. Britain often acted as a swing state between France and Germany, and without that influence, things are going to get strange.

> Put another way: if Europe was right now, in a fully EEC-like Union, much like NAFTA, with visa-free travel, easy work visas, relatively frictionless borders, and some level of political cooperation - would Europeans vote to enact a political union? (Especially one in which the laws were made by an unelected group?) the answer would be a resounding 'No'.

They voted to create the EU in the first place, which is why the EU exists. They can vote to leave the EU, and one country has. But most countries haven't, and won't.

None of what you wrote says EU can't be seen as an equivavalent for Europe. Original poster was just arguing since many countries are part of EU, it's okay to do so - which is not unreasonable.

To comment on your statements, the EU certainly united Europe more then anything in the past has achieved. At the same time it offers a scapegoat that nationalists can use to further their agenda- and some fall for that.

No, it's only scary if you bought into pro-Brexit propaganda. Just like people say America instead of USA - they might say EU instead of Europe.

No, it's scary that intelligent people accept not having an elected body which formulates the law of the land. And scary that anyone who questions that is accused of falling for 'propaganda'.

> A system wherein there is 'no way out' i.e. they will punish anyone who leave (i.e. Brexit).

Cry me a river. The EU has been nothing but patient with the clusterf*ck that has been UK's leadership trying to both leave the EU and take all it can from the EU, and actually due to pure incompetence, doing neither.

Do you want to know what punishment for leaving a union really is? You should maybe ask the south and the confederates how their secession went down.

> ... a completely unelected Executive making laws for one. A completely unresponsive government - they do make some neat laws, but they are fully elitist, they have a total disdain for anything populist.

You mean like a QUEEN?

Sometimes is almost too sad the level of pro-brexit "arguments" thrown around.

There is no system in the world where all the decisions are made by "elected executives". There is nothing more elitist than a monarchy.

Using HN for political flamewar will get you banned here. Please review the site rules and post civilly and substantively or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The queen does nothing. She's just there for appearances.

I think a lot of people (including me) want China to join the club of first world countries, not just economically, but also in terms of respect of human rights. How do you get there? By banning chinese products and heavily penalizing them? Or by inviting them to get their people richer and more educated?

There's actually a very interesting kurzgesagt video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ

"I think a lot of people (including me) want China to join the club of first world countries, not just economically, but also in terms of respect of human rights. "

-- Really? A lot? I don't think so. My experience is Chinese middle class rarely care about human rights issues. Most of them are extremely cold blood. As long as their own family is not hurt, they don't care about human rights issues at all. As long as they can get rich and stay rich, they will praise the authoritarian regime.

I didn’t read baby’s comment as meaning a lot of Chinese people want better human rights in China, I read it as a lot of people everywhere want that.

This is what I meant, thanks.

> My experience is Chinese middle class rarely care about human rights issues.

Isn't this true for middle classes in most countries? Would there be any tangible benefit if the Chinese middle class made a symbolic show of supporting human rights (as is often done in the west), while their leaders continued to use their tax yuan to prop up polluting industries, bad working conditions, Uighur mass detentions?

I'd say the 1960s Civil Rights movement in the US was primarily successful because it mobilized the middle class.

I agree that that period was an outlier in terms of large-scale activism post-WW2. However, there was also the small matter of 50,000 dead draftees in Vietnam that propelled public anger. The US government had a vested interest in making policy changes that kept the peace, especially with the threat of an expansionist USSR on the horizon.

You are getting the dates badly wrong. Voting rights act was 1965, opposition to the war was limited until Tet Offensive.

That's a rather native view, that unfortunately was shared by a lot of folks in the West. Ref: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/01/how-the-west-go...

> I think a lot of people (including me) want China to join the club of first world countries, not just economically, but also in terms of respect of human rights. How do you get there?

Nobody knows because it hasn't been done. China, like Russia, is powerful enough that it will only become a free country if its rulers want to.

I belive there were signs of a lot of Erdogan support among Turkish folks living abroad.

For a long time I sort of assumed that the advantages of living in a democracy are sort of self evident (provided you live there), I apparently was wrong.

Ignoring Turkish folks and Erdogan, the notion that living in a democracy has clear advantages is really propaganda.

I've lived in an absolute monarchy with human rights violations. I can also list a number of democracies with human rights violations, as well as very poor infrastructure, poor economy, violence, etc.

For many in the latter countries, they'll easily trade their democracy to get food, education for kids, and security.

Some democracies do well. Others don't. It's not an indicator of quality of life, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs is largely applicable.

Good point.

I guess I should specify that I was thinking of the "good democracies". I get there can be things people don't like about any of them, but I figured the trade offs between those and totalitarianism was self evident if you lived in one, I guess I was wrong.

>but I figured the trade offs between those and totalitarianism was self evident if you lived in one, I guess I was wrong.

Have you lived in that totalitarianism, though? And are you aware of their perceptions of the shortcomings in your society?

Speaking more broadly, though, how great you think life is under certain circumstances is a function of your model of the world, and thus your ideology (once you get beyond food, shelter and security).

Another aspect I've found: People who come from a country with a lot of "problems" have developed their minds to be relatively tolerant/immune to them. But small issues in the country they move to are large for them, as they've not built mental defenses against them. Don't underestimate this aspect. I recall once when I was in school a conversation between two foreign students (from different countries). A was complaining about B's culture, and was itemizing the headaches. B countered with all the problems A's culture had. A responded with "Yeah, but I know how to deal with all those problems!"

kind of hard to imagine people living in Germany and thinking "oh, this erdogan guy has the right idea"

Your comment is completely irrelevant to mine, given how I explicitly am not talking about Erdogan, Germany, or Turkish people in Germany.

> For a long time I sort of assumed that the advantages of living in a democracy are sort of self evident (provided you live there), I apparently was wrong.

If you are a cynic, the best part about democracies is there is a much lower chance of violent overthrows - much easier to just wait it out and vote the current leaders out next election; barring an extremely corrupt leader whose existence is irreparably damaging the country - and that’s pretty much one of the few good things about it.

Leaders trade absolute power for not having to watch their backs as closely.

no, the scariest part is this: anywhere in this world there are people are scared of different ideas and believes; there are people believe by the power of their perfect system no other opinion worthy of existence.

now you may start to explain any idea other than yours not really ideas.

Ah yes, the relativism argument. Surprise!

Almost nobody believes the West is perfect (or any other system) is perfect.

Shoot - I'll bet you could get a lot of people to buy into an authoritarian system that maintained peace.

But the issue of Han nationalism which extends to the extermination of Tibetans, to the incarceration of 100's of thousands of Uighers etc., to the total lack of democracy ... combined with the fact that the system is still hugely corrupt ...

I mean, it would be one thing if China were at least a well ordered machine, but it's not, there's corruption from top to bottom which completely undermines any legitimacy in whatever 'system' they have.

Summary: 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. 2) Most people would prefer the rule of law, basic democracy, and low levels of corruption, and at least basic human rights. Those are almost universal.

> 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect.

You should have stopped there.

Basic democracy is so ambiguous really anything qualifies, and by all accounts, China has basic democracy. In fact, they have infinitely more democracy pre-revolution France did.

And the fact that even in the world of today, more than 2000 years after the Greeks, democracy is not universal prove your second point is not such a sure thing as you wanted it to be.

> Since no one is capable of forming his own opinion without the benefit of a multitude of opinions held by others, the rule of public opinion endangers even the opinion of those few who may have the strength not to share it. This is one of the reasons for the curiously sterile negativism of all opinions which oppose a popularly acclaimed tyranny. [...] public opinion, by virtue of its unanimity, provokes a unanimous opposition and thus kills true opinions everywhere.

-- Hannah Arendt

> Even people who knowingly try to 'escape the system' still support it, as though 'the party = China'.

Why do you think the CCP is so prickly about Taiwan? And to a lesser degree Hong Kong?

They're living proof that other systems can work well for "China."

Taiwan's relative economic and cultural power has declined significantly due to the PRC's growth. The ROC acted as an ideological counterweight to the PRC for many years but now the Taiwanese are too busy arguing with each other whether to even retain the "Chinese" identity. It's like some of them bought into the "CCP = the only China" idea as well.

The ROC persisted under the premise that they were the temporarily dispossessed but still legitimate government of all of China. They're not, and they haven't been for decades, but they can't take the next logical step of reconstituting a Republic of Taiwan because PRC has threatened war in that scenario. America has a legal obligation to defend Taiwan, but PRC has threatened to use nuclear weapons to respond to any US intervention--"In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei".

There's a clear long-term goal of destabilizing ROC and encouraging unification from the PRC side.

It’s tragic because culturally I’ve heard Taiwan is more similar to China of old: KMT refugees fled to Taiwan from nearly every part of China, bringing their food and culture with them. And there was no cultural revolution in Taiwan, so they retain more of the politeness and traditions.

Speaking as a Chinese working in the States

>>> More and more Chinese citizens are travelling abroad yet their beliefs in the "Chinese system" only gets re-affirmed by mistakenly thinking that China's success is completely dependent on authoritarianism

Not true, most of the well educated people won't have this simplified view of any political system. It's actually the reverse you see very common in the Western media, that China being a non-democratic nation, is an evil and destined to fail.

Define well educated. I’ve met highly intelligent university students from China who did believe in the Chinese system and authoritarian regime.

The west highlights the authoritarian nature of China, not the fact that it is non-democratic.

It was “different” back then. CNN was blocked in 2002 but New York Times wasn’t. One of the reasons I started reading the New York Times actually.

The internet was much more open in 2008 than 2002 (neither nytimes or cnn or anything else major was blocked), but after the olympics China reversed course. Most major news sites are now blocked, but unlike 2002, CNN isn’t. Go figure.

I think the high point of Chinese liberalization in recent history must have been the late 80s, but that is pre-internet.

Wait, 1989 was not a good year for Chinese liberalization...

I think the high point was really under Hu Jintao. The transition from Hu to Xi was a very tumultuous period. Xi, unlike his predecessors, had a very contentious transition and had to fend off numerous fractions inside the CCCP. After surviving that, based partly on the backing of the PLA (his father was a PLA general), he really, really consolidated power. He now has a path forward to be president for life. His ideas are now literally part of the Chinese constitution, elevating him to the same level as Mao. Liberalization is, in some ways, the opposite of centralization. Therefore, liberalization must be stemmed.

Hu Jintao, on the other hand, didn't really have that much power. There was always Jiang and his fraction. When power is divested, liberalization is more likely.

Agreed that 2008-2012 was relatively much more liberal. Hosting the Olympics boosted China's confidence as a prosperous and prominent nation on the world stage. There were growing grass root movements against corruption and restrictive cultural policies. Technology tools available around that time were not sophisticated enough to effectively carry out censorship. Google had quit the Mainland Chinese market but most of their services were still accessible without VPNs (which were easily obtainable and almost always worked with minimal tweaks) via google.com.hk. Weibo was filled with great social commentary and critique. It got optimistic enough that some individuals hoped that Xi Jinping as the incoming president will actually carry out political liberalization. Obviously it did not take long for him to show his true colours.

You have to understand the liberalization that led up to June 4th 1989 was pretty unprecedented. That it resulted in a horrible knee jerk is really sad.

China was liberalizing at an unprecedented rate in the 80s, to the point that the government didn't immediately react when a bunch of students gathered in Tiananmen square to protest. That could not have happened in 2008 and definitely not 2012.

Hu Jintao was not a reformer, not even close. Power was divested for sure, but the general direction of his reign was a show of opening before the olympics and then quick repression. Xi consolidated power, but did not "reverse course" on liberalization, it was already going in that direction.

>but after the olympics China reversed course

This also happened in Russia 4 years and in Germany in 1936. It seems like the prestige of the upcoming games is holding the tide of authoritarian rule, which then surges unrestrained.

“Holding the games in China magnifies everything that is wrong with Olympic sports: the triumph of money, power and nationalism over amateurism, sportsmanship and international understanding.”

I don’t think this quote relates to China alone. And more recently, Brazil seems to be taking some dangerous turns.

https://isthmus.com/opinion/opinion/the-totalitarian-olympic...

I miss the Internet in early-2000's China. Not as many sites were blocked and everyone was much more open-minded as the undereducated chauvinists did not yet acquire reliable Internet access

This sentiment is just Eternal September for the Internet writ large. It also over-blows/cherry picks the "bad" activities on the internet.

Those "undereducated chauvinists" pay for us techies to actually make a living through the internet because they use the services we build.

Gotta take the bad with the good.

The lesson of the "Chinese system" is that the average guy will happily support an arguably "oppressive, brutal, antidemocratic, and ... corrupt" government if it's the one option that keeps delivering continued economic growth and development-- there's very little use for being properly "democratic" when you lack the other prerequisites of strong growth. (To be sure, these do include things like a robust civil society, but 'civil society' can take many forms - and Chinese society isn't exactly known for its lack of guanxi!) Authoritarian governments are a dime a dozen outside the developed West (and this is with many of them being outwardly democratic), so there's no way that this is the 'key issue' that so many fans of 'Western values' want it to be. Like it or not, the Chinese leadership is definitely doing something right.

It works until the gravy train stops then you have a problem.

Democracy has many problems but it’s fairly robust vs discontent. Got a problem? Try to vote out the people you believe caused it. It keeps violent overthrows at bay - most of the time.

Yea the most clever part about democracy is that the system builds political revolution right into it, so no matter who is in charge the system stays.

I see it very differently, the lesson of Chinese System is that everyone will only work for this own interest. Especially the Chinese. And will be precisely why we have democracy in the first place. To balance the interest of all parties. Once the average guy no longer get the benefits from the Chinese System, they will, like any other system, revolt.

Although I am not sure if this will happen in my life time.

"Everyone will only work for their own interest" when they're poor and underdeveloped, and especially when the stakes (becoming a fully-developed country vs. getting stuck in the middle-income trap like so many other places in the world) are so high. There's very little that's surprising about that. But to talk about "balancing the interests of all parties" is a distraction at present. Growing the pie is still the priority in people's minds, splitting it in a properly "balanced" way can happen later.

This is very true. Mao almost killed the Communist Party. So long as the Party can provide stability and prosperity they will stay in power. But I fail to see the problem here? Most people just want to live their lives- not sit in caves and have philosophical debates about human rights and democracy.

I mostly agree with your points and sentiment, although I do want to offer a few things I observed to compliment your post.

China evolved from generally pro-west in the 1990s to mixed pro/anti western camps of today.

The early pro-west stance were mostly driven by intellectuals who have seen the stark contrast between capitalist America and communist China. They worshiped everything American, both good and bad. You can still see the lingering effect of western worship in many aspects of Chinese society today.

The pro-west stance is losing ground because people are no longer starving, and realized that they don't like to be treated as second class citizens, especially in their own country. Sometimes the backlash has swung the pendulum too far and caused some resentment towards foreigners.

To end it in a brighter note, I think the populace of China is becoming more aware of nuances of things outside of China, thanks to large amount of Chinese people returning to the homeland after living abroad. This will help prevent the pendulum from swinging too far into nationalism/anti-foreigner nazi state.

> hey don't like to be treated as second class citizens, especially in their own country

Which form did that take? Were there westerners living in China treating locals like second-class citizens?

Some foreigners might have a little bit of superiority complex, but it's mostly coming from other Chinese treating foreigners better, due to foreign worship and in some cases institutional rules favoring foreigners, although the later is becoming rare.

Just to give a few examples:

- up until late 2000s, border customs dedicated extra manpower to make entering China easier for foreigners, while Chinese citizens returning home are stuck in long lines.

- not sure about now, but for a period of time, foreigners get preferential treatment in the police system, as in, crimes against foreigners gets more attention, and foreigner committing crimes gets more lenient treatment.

- foreigners sometimes get paid significantly more than locals, especially in the education system, this is still true today.

I remember my Chinese english teachers in middle school (in early/mid 2000's) complained to us students how they had to regularly stay up until midnight to grade assignments/exams and prepare teaching materials, while foreign teachers get paid double the salary to only teach < 10 hours a week. Older foreign teachers made more of an effort at actually teaching us how to converse like native speakers, while some younger ones were just young adults on gap years and did nothing but teach us how to play hangman/bingo. Chinese schools would hire any native English speaker with a pulse and schools in less-metropolitan cities still do this today.

Funny that I have the same feelings for aspects of the outside internet, such as "the old 4chan." But then I think that's like celebrating an echo chamber of sorts. Bigoted and stupid people (or people that I disagree with strongly) weren't invented by access to public platforms, they always existed.

And this is a problem how? The only people who get to decide what China does are the Chinese people themselves. If they are happy with it that's all that matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com