Won’t be long before three children are mandatory.
The poverty/immigration dance - if you reduce poverty, women have less children. Eventually you reach the point where you need to allow immigration to provide enough workers to keep your aging population from starving. Immigration is an existential threat if your country is based on a single ethnic identity (e.g. Han). Immigrants are poorer and therefore have more babies, and at some point will become the ethnic majority, or at least a sizable minority, large enough to cause problems (and economically vital so you can't just round them up and deport them).
Getting middle-class people to have more babies is difficult.
Edit: of course, this isn't a problem if you don't base your country's identity on an ethnic identity.
From the wikipedia page: > aimed at the creation of a new and large Romanian population by restricting abortion and contraception.
Same idea, different mechanics
And woe betide anyone who dares be less than harmonious about being ruled by their Han big brother.
You should understand that translations often lose some cultural context, so when you have a prejudice against the English word "harmonious", understand that the Chinese equivalent is used much more freely in everyday speech. "Solidarity" might have been a better translation.
--
Reply to the comment below:
> I recall that, in the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, China celebrated its ethnic minorities by having Han children dress up as them [..]
In a big place like China or the US, there are always going to incidents like this. Furthermore, most news stories will exaggerate the headlines or twist the details, so I am not even sure if this particular incident is as you described. What matters is what the policies are doing for the larger scale of individuals. You can't judge anything about this larger scale by looking at a few incidents, especially when Western media have a vested interest in showing you these news items and ignoring the vast majority of what is going on. (To be fair, the vast majority is quite boring.)
"Ask the people themselves" is used typically in these discussions as a weasel phrase, as if Western liberal democracies are truly "asking the people themselves". You have mass media bombarding the general population all the time with pre-ordained narratives. Nobody votes in elections with an independent analysis. So sure, it depends on what you mean by "ask the people themselves". There's lots of content on social media including from ethnic minorities, people are generally happy with their lives and the amount of freedom they have. Are you going to pick holes in that? Why not pick holes in what's happening with mass media de-jure "independent" de-facto manipulative elections in the West?
The point was not to make fun of the word choice “harmonious”, but rather to point out that CCP-led China is functionally an ethnostate that bluntly prefers and privileges one identity over the others.
There is no "paranoid presumption", that's literally what the comment I'm replying to was doing.
So, look at reality instead of sitting on your high horse, believing that all defenses of China are "paranoid".
> The point was not to make fun of the word choice “harmonious”, but rather to point out [..]
Again, read the comment. You are denying reality. They literally said nothing concrete, only imply negative connotations about the word "harmonious".
And yes, the poster ribbed on the word harmonious, but again, that wasn’t the point. The meat of the post was about being ruled by big brother Han. Interestingly, you didn’t object to that bit at all!
I don't think "harmonious" or "solidarity" or whatever other positive word you come up with would be an accurate representation of the relations of ethnic minorities. Especially if you were to ask the ethnic minorities themselves to come up with a word.
Which to me seemed remarkably tone deaf (nothing like reminding Tibetans to celebrate their "liberation" and its mastermind Mao), but presumably worrying about how the message would land was not among the KPIs of the cadre responsible.
China's identity isn't based on a single ethnic identity - the various restrictions (such as the now-3-child-policy, and permanent immigration between cities) apply to everyone. In fact ethnic minorities generally get preferential treatment - e.g. looser restrictions, affirmative action in various places such as state examinations - because it's recognised that a majority ethnic groups have disproportionate power.
---
Reply to the comment below:
> As long as you don't stick out, or criticize the government positively quite frequently.
The ways in which this statement is both true and false in its details, is not particularly different from the West.
In China, there are local protests quite regularly, and local governments respond.
In Hong Kong the protests were incredibly violent and disruptive. You cite the crackdowns by the government, but you don't cite the actions by the protestors and opposition legislators, that also attack innocents and filibuster the legislature for years, much more disruptively and disrespectfully than anything that's happened in the West, including shouting "Fuck China" during legislative oath-taking.
In China, mass organised protest against the national government is not tolerated, but nobody cares if you write some stuff on social media. In the West, in the rare case that actual mass protests ever get too rowdy they are shutdown quite brutally by the police. In China the government stops the situation before it gets to that point. In the West, anyone that sticks out enough to really be a bother, like Julian Assange, gets shut down very brutally too.
In both cases, these types of mass protests don't generally change anything in the political system. And in both cases, most ordinary people actually really just don't care to do these things, because the situation is fine in both China and the West - certainly not like the levels of the revolutions in the 1800s or the wars in the early 1900s. So when you criticise China for not allowing these things, this comes from a position of privilege, you have forgotten what it's like to be hungry. Not being hungry matters more, and China has found an efficient way to do that, so I am happy for them (and "us" as far as I can claim that). Maybe later things will become more relaxed, but it's not a particularly big priority.
> brutal suppression they do in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, or Inner Mongolia A-OK?
Most of the "evidence" regarding Xinjiang is fabricated, the Hong Kong stories are exaggerated and one-sided. I'd be against any actual specific cases of brutal suppression that's going on. But that still wouldn't make me "anti-China" in the same way you're not "anti-US" or "anti-West" presumably (I am not either). But that's what Western media portrayals seem to be trying to do - saying that, oh China is doing some bad things, they are evil, they need to be stopped. China is not evil, the world is a complex place.
> we all know it was would be like Putin and Medvedev, with Xi still controlling,
Nobody really knows the details of these things high up, it's all conjecture. It's sure convenient that Democrat and Republican policies, compared to the rest of the world, are very similar. How do you know they're not essentially in cahoots and just putting up a show of being "opposites" for the rest of the world?
Is there a typo somewhere or are you really saying there is no consequence for posting on social media in China? Because that's certainly not the case[1,2,3], unless all of Western media is misleading about this.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-23990674
[2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-now-sending-twitter-us...
[3]: http://www.internetfreedom.org/Background.html#Firewall_of_S...
Totalitarian: "relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
Is China centralized? Yes, it has a top down system, top-down industrial policy, top-down internet policy, state owned enterprises (30% of economy), state-owned media, etc.
Is China dictatorial? You can talk all you want about the Politburo Standing Committee sharing power, but Xi Jinping essentially holds total power (now for life with no term expiration), and even if Li Keqiang took power, we all know it was would be like Putin and Medvedev, with Xi still controlling, otherwise there would have been no reason for removing term limits for Xi. Xi controls the PLA loyalty, and he could arrest Li Keqiang or people from his faction if he wanted.
"you can live your life quite normally and happily."
As long as you don't stick out, or criticize the government. Ask the Hong Kongnese. Or if you prefer, ask Feng Ti Mo, who was invited for a cup of Tea with the gestapo because she sang the Chinese National Anthem in a way that displeased the government, and is now forced to carry Communist Youth League content on her streaming channels. Or ask Jack Ma, who offered a milquetoast criticism of out-of-date financial regulatory framework in China and found himself with a Tea date with the gestapo. (The analogy here would be Colin Kalpernick being held by the CIA, and then forced to make pro-Trump speeches at football openings, or Elon Musk criticizing the SEC, and being told the SpaceX IPO is cancelled)
In other words, sit down, shut up, keep your head down, and you'll be ok.
Oh, and woe unto you if you want to access internet outside of China, and waste time everyday trying to find which VPN server you can connect to that isn't blocked. The sum total knowledge of mankind is now available to most people on the planet, but foolishly blocked in the Mainland.
"In fact ethnic minorities generally get preferential treatment - e.g. looser restrictions, affirmative action in various places such as state examinations". Yes, and I hear and see Han complaining all the time about Uighurs, Tibetans, and Miao, etc getting preferential treatment on the Gaokao, which is very much like whites and asians in the US complaining about affirmative action.
But does that make up for the abuse? Does the US government setting up Affirmative Action programs make up for a terrible criminal justice system biased against African Americans, or police brutality against African Americans? So the Chinese government has affirmative action for ethnic minorities, that makes any other brutal suppression they do in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, or Inner Mongolia A-OK?
Is repression over anyone criticizing the central government publicly (and being loud enough to be noticed) made up for by marvelous infrastructure projects? Is this the price of high speed rail? Is it not possible to have freedom to compare Xi Jinping with Winnie the Pooh, and also have High Speed Rail and Shiny new airports?
Look, I don't hate China, otherwise I wouldn't have traveled all over it, learned Mandarin, and lived there. But I criticize US government policy HARSHLY, especially foreign policy, and I believe people have a right to criticize their government, and that China would be a much better agent for positive change in the world if it could shed the legacy of Mao, and move on to become a more open society, even going back to Deng-era policies would be better than the neo-fascist/nationalism that Xi is promoting these days.
The last 4 years saw rising nationalism in the US, and it has also been rising in Europe and in China. This is not good. We're trying to tame out nationalist Trump-wing here, and IMHO, Xi's pursuit of stroking nationalist sentiment is creating additional danger.
It all needs to stop.
He is still needed? Maybe, because you said:
> The last 4 years saw rising nationalism in the US, and it has also been rising in Europe and in China. This is not good.
It is not good. Eventually the future for the mainland is bright, with good material condition and freedom. The situation is not ready yet. You can not "impose" democracy, the population must be ready.
But I believe all is done right and set for the generation being born now ("3 children per family") to be the happiest in the world.
The US came frighteningly close to instability during the Great Depression until FDR launched massive infrastructure projects, created social security, built 40,000 schools, created the GI Bill, etc.
But there is a such thing as overdoing it. I don't believe the current censorship is actually creating stability. Most educated Chinese know what's going on, can use VPNs, and the creativity of using anti-censorship terms on Weibo, shows people still want to criticize the government. (for example, mentioning Chloe Zhao was banned, so Chinese netizens started using her pinyin initials or English initials like CZ to refer to her, and the algorithms didn't pick it up)
Scarily enough, Xi has created such an atmosphere of nationalism, that "cancel culture" on behalf of "patriots" these days is enough to ruin someone, you don't even need the government to censor. If you criticize the government or China online these days, netizens will crush you.
See here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-xi-jinpings-china-nationalis...
From afar (I have never been to china), I have to admit with a cold shiver, that the chinese control over the media might be working as intended. Usually, wealth and security encourage laicistic world views but like you said, nationalistic tendencies are on the rise everywhere and very useful for totalitarian regimes.
Maybe, the CCP even manages, with stronger measures, to rule away the demographic crisis, they are heading for and western governments will be even more jelly. It’s very concerning.
Such people shout "There is no Democracy in America!," and then decide to run to China for god knows what reason.
Coming to China for purpose other than to make quick cash, and run will leave you very disappointed.
China is really what it is.
I have Chinese friends here in Berlin who still won't talk about Chinese politics within hearing range of their phones. If this isn't a totalitarian regime, what is?
My direct experience contradicts your statements. What are you basing them on?
> I have been told over and again (by Chinese people) that China is Han.
You are either selectively reporting, or selectively misremembering things based on your own existing prejudices. I have certainly talked to more Chinese people than you, and nobody has ever said this.
I lived in Berlin for 3.5 years, I found plenty of racism there as well; also in the UK and US where it's more subtle.
I'd assume your Chinese friends are a non-representative sample of Chinese people - likely, you are friends with them because they ran into issues with the government, and hence had similar interests and were attracted to the same events and locations. China has 1.4 billion people, this is bound to happen.
---
Reply to the comments below:
> little point in discussing anything China-related in Western internet forums.
Thanks for the advice, I am indeed trying to take it in moderation. I think it's important to try to maintain some level of healthy discourse though, the anti-China propaganda is taking the world down a dark path.
> Curious on what you think of what China is doing to the Uyghur people. Do you believe that this is fabricated by all these media outlets?
Yes, they are all citing the same fake reports written by a few people working non-independently, driven ultimately by geopolitical strategy and taking advantage of liberal media's existing prejudices to portray China as "evil". See https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang - a collection of a large number of sources from many different people, working independently.
That's not my experience of the Chinese, however. China is not working to eliminate racism. It doesn't have these ideals. As a white person I will never be accepted as a Chinese person by the Chinese, because in Chinese people's eyes, Chinese == Han (from my experience). This isn't unusual in Asia - Cambodians only recognise Khmer people, Japan only recognises ethnic Japanese people, and so on. I have white friends who have lived in Cambodia for decades, speak the language perfectly, have Cambodian families, but who can never become citizens and will never be accepted as "Cambodian" because of their race.
This isn't true of Australians (for example). Australia doesn't equate Australian = caucasian [0]. You can emigrate to Australia, and become a citizen, and the vast majority of Australians will accept you as an Australian because of that. Being Australian is not about race, but more about culture and commitment. Australia's sense of identity is not linked to its ethnic identity in the same way that SE Asian countries are.
[0] There are always some racist dickheads who will disagree with this. Sorry for that.
As a fellow Chinese raised in the West, I know it's hard to resist getting drawn into such thread. I try to avoid posting/reacting as much as I can, and sincerely advise the same to you. You're probably not going to change anybody's mind and just wasting your own time.
Yes, the Chinese government has done some bad things in it's time, but plainly not everything they do has bad intentions. And bejesus, people in glass houses and all that.
It seems very much like the USA's anti-China propaganda machine is working well - particularly telling since I would have assumed that the average US HN reader was educated.
As chinese there's a sense that we should keep our head down in favor of the harmony. But I've come to realize this isn't enough we should let the truth speak louder. Keep fighting the good fight.
What are people ignorant about here? There's been several countries/states that deny China and confirms what everyone believes (Taiwan, Hong Kong).
Do you believe that this is fabricated by all these media outlets? I would think that genocide of a particular ethnicity would count as totalitarian and racist.
Not sure you can really force people to have kids. I doubt that chinese women would accept this.
When China faced a population explosion, it didn’t create a complex mix of incentives and marketing to nudge people into having smaller families: it outlawed larger families. It seems reasonable to suggest that is a policy lever they will reach for again in the face of another demographic crisis. What am I missing?