Thanks.

It really is scary...

It's getting more traction because it's more in the news nowadays and I think if we could make it easier for others they will more easily be persuaded to follow suit. So maybe not that practical, but every little bit helps. Meanwhile, the less of my money goes into building "re-education centres" the better.

This guy is pretty clued up about Chinese matters:

Well, they are alive. Therefore (compare the false holocaust-denial arguments) there is no genocide.

uhmm... The re-education camps are intended to destroy a culture. You don't need to kill to effectively cause genocide.

I try to avoid using the term too frequently, it can confuse more than clear up a situation.

Being treated that way is disgusting and inhumane and should not be tolerated. But to call that a "genocide" is not something I'm comfortable saying, unless China begins killing them en masse.

Disturbing, regardless.

The upcoming Polestar 3 will be manufactured in the USA. The earlier two versions are Chinese productions. Should you consider an electric car...

The re-education camps are intended to destroy a culture. You don't need to kill to effectively cause genocide. — Benkei

I read Cuthbert's post as ironic, but I could be wrong.

So, I want to boycott China because of Hong Kong and the Uighurs, and I've been working towards that for quite some time now. Some things I've noticed.

One, boycotting China is expensive, expect to spend at least 10% more on most things. — Benkei

The problem isn't just China. It's all those poor countries who at a terrible toll on their people and natural environment produce things that Westerners buy cheaply and treat poorly.
Instead, cast your boycotting net more widely, like I said elsewhere:

What we should campaign against is the desire to get more for less. Against greed. Against the desire to keep up the appearance of a rich or at least middle class person while not actually being one.

Countries that produce low or lower quality goods and export them cheaply to first world countries are feeding precisely these Western desires. If Westerners wouldn't be so damn greedy, those poor countries wouldn't ruin their own people and their own land, as there'd be no demand for those cheap low(er) quality goods and unethical means of production.

You can point out how dirty the industry in those mostly poor countries is, how unethical their means of production, how totalitarian their governments. But are you willing, and more importantly, are you able to live your current lifestyle without buying their products? — baker

The problem isn't just China. It's all those poor countries who at a terrible toll on their people and natural environment produce things that Westerners buy cheaply and treat poorly. — baker

Agreed. However, it's difficult to avoid Chinese products which is why I focus on it here. Brazilian is easy to avoid and Iran is already boycotted where I live by the government.

This is a very interesting website that apparently sells "Boycott China" t-shirts, face masks, and other stuff.

boycottchinanow.com

Does anyone know anything about them or others?

They have some at cafepress as well.

And Amazon.

One guy on NPR suggested America should have the goal of having a population of a billion people by century's end, just for this reason. — Foghorn

If you put North America and South America together, you get pretty close. It may not be a nice thought but what else do you suggest?

With the rise of China and other great powers, the old international order is falling apart and the world is reverting to the law of the jungle. Big fish eat small fish. You can avoid being eaten only by being bigger than the other guy.

If you put North America and South America together, you get pretty close. It may not be a nice thought but what else do you suggest? — Apollodorus

Dying before that happens. :-)

I have a bit of a warped view on this, as I live in Florida, where the population has grown 7X during my lifetime. The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. More people = more problems. I'm a woods hermit, it just ain't for me.

We've been watching old reruns of NYPD Blue on TV recently. Takes place in New York City of course. I'm continually amazed that some people choose to spend their entire lives there. Definitely a "to each their own situation".

I have a bit of a warped view on this, as I live in Florida, where the population has grown 7X during my lifetime. The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. More people = more problems. I'm a woods hermit, it just ain't for me. — Foghorn

I can see your point. Overpopulation in urban areas is going to be a big problem everywhere as everyone wants to live in megacities where the jobs and the nightlife are. There is a big shift from countryside to city, from south to north and from east to west across the globe.

Turkey is spreading in Europe, North Africa, and the Mid East, and teaming up with Iran, Pakistan, China, and North Korea. There is a new power bloc emerging that is changing the world order beyond recognition. I think next few decades is going to be interesting.

Overpopulation in urban areas is going to be a big problem everywhere as everyone wants to live in megacities where the jobs and the nightlife are. — Apollodorus

Yes, imho, the biggest under reported story of the 20th century is the urbanization of humanity. More and more people are being born in to life almost completely cut off from nature.

And, increasingly all most people know about obtaining food is how to swipe a credit card, which makes us extremely vulnerable to supply disruptions. Sweeping social chaos begins at the moment that a critical mass of people conclude they're not going to be able to replenish their food supply by legal means. And so many people in urban areas have almost no food on hand in their dwelling.

Here in Florida along the coasts they've widened the roads as much as they can. To widen further would require demolishing trillions of dollars worth of real estate. And they just keep on coming, about 1,000 people per day move to Florida, every day of the year, for decades.

Anyway, I'll soon be breaking out of here in my casket escape pod. :-)

Yes, imho, the biggest under reported story of the 20th century is the urbanization of humanity. More and more people are being born in to life almost completely cut off from nature. — Foghorn

Correct. Reminds me of Marx and Engels who in their Communist Manifesto wrote that:

"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued
a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Of course, for Marx and Engels that was exactly what they wanted, the total transformation of the countryside into cities because that was where the revolutionary working class, organized in "workers' battalions", and employed in immense state-owned industrial complexes, would be housed.

and has thus rescued
a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." — Apollodorus

Well, it has to be admitted that, the Chinese communists have rescued many millions from an ancient rural life which so many willingly abandoned.

My own perspective on such things is quite rich in illusions and delusions. I live on the edge of a major university city, with ready access to the surrounding countryside. I visit nature essentially as a tourist, coming home each night to my cozy city based suburban comforts.

When I was young I built a humble hippy house way out in the woods, and some friends and I tried to make it by being peanut farmers. That didn't last very long. Jimmy Carter we ain't. :-)

Well, it has to be admitted that, the Chinese communists have rescued many millions from an ancient rural life which so many willingly abandoned. — Foghorn

Unfortunately, millions were "rescued" by being starved to death when Mao insisted on putting Marxist intellectuals with no experience or knowledge of agriculture in charge of the countryside. Same happened under Stalin and others.

But, yes, I think we should enjoy suburbia while it lasts. Unless something drastic happens, there isn't much we can do to stop urbanization anyway.

Unfortunately, millions were "rescued" by being starved to death when Mao insisted on putting Marxist intellectuals with no experience or knowledge of agriculture in charge of the countryside. Same happened under Stalin and others. — Apollodorus

Agreed, it's a mixed record, on a very large scale.

@Benkei, I'm wondering if lessons from other campaigns could be re-used.
Maybe, say, child labor, or something? Don't really know enough about it though. (NCLC, UNICEF, UN, AI)

But, I am not really sure, because I don't always know where to get reliable news, as I am sure that there is so much going on behind the scenes of news headlines and stories. — Jack Cummins

True. But in a free society you should be able to get reliable news, like you do from the US or Europe. The fact that you can't get reliable news from China may already be a sign that there is something wrong.

"Officially, China is a unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under the leadership of the CCP" - Wikipedia

So, I suppose we could start with the fact that China is a dictatorship where no political parties are allowed except the ruling Communist Party and where ethnic and religious minorities are often suppressed:

Chinese Christians Held in Secretive Brainwashing Camps – Radio Free Asia

China’s persecution of Christians intensified in 2020 – Christian Reporter

The Vatican Remains Silent On The Persecution Of Christians In China – CRISIS Magazine

Tibet: Behind the façade – Free Tibet

It may be that not all of it is true, but it may equally be that it's actually worse. A dictatorship knows how to divide and suppress opposition and it has the means to do it. How else do you reckon the same party has been in power since 1949?

As they say, there is no smoke without fire. If thousands of people in Hong Kong are risking their lives demonstrating against Chinese interference, then it seems safe to assume that it is even worse on the mainland.

I know people who were born in China, and it is on that basis that I wonder about the slant of the media. Of course, I am not wishing to overlook any injustices of China or any nation. But, I do think that we have to consider the way in which America, and England, has tried to gain domination.

The war on terrorism involved America having control of the Middle East, and I believe that we are now moving into the possibility of power over China. Of course, it is easy to see oppression in other nations, but I think that an underlying aspect behind the scenes of politics, and manufactured news, is the fight for oil, which is running out rapidly.

The war on terrorism involved America having control of the Middle East, and I believe that we are now moving into the possibility of power over China. Of course, it is easy to see oppression in other nations, but I think that an underlying aspect behind the scenes of politics, and manufactured news, is the fight for oil, which is running out rapidly. — Jack Cummins

I agree that resources like oil are important. But imagine the ramifications of oil fields falling into the hands of religious fanatics or madmen like Islamic State. The results would be as catastrophic as world war. The same would happen if China acquired control of Middle Eastern oil production as well as infiltrating and taking over western economies, etc. I think in any conflict it would seem wiser to side with your own people than with the enemy.

I also know people born in China and some of them can be pretty defensive when you raise any problems with the regime. All people have a sense of national pride and criticism of the regime isn't something people are used to in China, quite apart from the fact that they probably have relatives back home, so they need to be careful what they say. Or criticism of the government may be mistaken for racism, etc. I think the issue tends to be a bit more complex than is generally realized. This makes it all the more difficult to form a clear picture.

I believe that the issues we are discussing are so complex. Beyond the issues of seeing what is going on in the news critically, I believe in opposing injustice and oppression. The oppression and injustice does require people to make a stand but dangers of political conflict, and nuclear threats make the conflicts even more ominous. It all feels like such a dangerous juggling act.

The oppression and injustice does require people to make a stand but dangers of political conflict, and nuclear threats make the conflicts even more ominous. It all feels like such a dangerous juggling act. — Jack Cummins

The thing is that China's leadership is flexing its military and economic muscles whilst also pursuing an unusually aggressive foreign policy. Although the leaders call themselves communists, the system is really communist-controlled state capitalism and under the current leader it has become a form of national socialism with militaristic and expansionist ambitions.

What is encouraging the regime at the moment is that it has identified a low point in the Western world's economies that it seeks to exploit as much as possible. The West's frictions with Putin have also driven Russia closer to China which places China in an unprecedented position of power internationally.

The West could take action, for example, by limiting China's access to international credit and investment but the political will for that isn't there yet. China realizes the danger and aims to further strengthen its position economically and militarily while it can. It seems difficult in the current climate to see how conflict can be avoided. But a policy of appeasement that allows China to become even stronger is not a realistic solution IMO.

Nice analysis, seems insightful, thanks.

It seems to me that the reality is that the world's largest nation is going to be a dominant player on the world stage. That said, there are threats to the stability of China which may reduce it's influence.

The Chinese Communists have accomplished a miracle in bringing historic numbers of people out of poverty. This has to be acknowledged. However, what this means is that they have dramatically raised the expectations of a dramatic number of people, and now those expectations need to be met for the regime to survive.

True, that's why I described the argument as 'false'. Just to make my opinion perfectly clear, there is genocide occurring in China against the Uyghurs.

Apologies. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I still miss things with English not being my native language.

Benkei, no, no, at least mostly my fault - online discussion does not signal irony well...!

It seems to me that the reality is that the world's largest nation is going to be a dominant player on the world stage. That said, there are threats to the stability of China which may reduce it's influence. — Foghorn

There may be some internal tensions within China that the West may be able to exploit to its own advantage - depending on the political will to do so. But a dictatorship like China can deal with domestic tension as long as it can keep some of the population on its side and chances are the Communist Party can do this for the foreseeable future.

The way I see it, the West, especially the European Union, has been constantly expanding from a Western European Union to the south and east of the Continent. Further economic and political expansion is planned (a) southward into North Africa and the Middle East (see the Union for the Mediterranean) and (b) eastward into Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and (ultimately) Russia.

This is driving Russia into the arms of China, which puts China in a very strong position on the geostrategic chessboard. It was of course the West that brought China to its current position of regional power by building up its economy, in the first place. The West's pressure on Russia is good for China but bad for Russia and bad for the West. If things carry on like this, it's a win-win situation for China and lose-lose for the West. Somehow, I don't see Biden or Angela Merkel cracking this nut.