why do chinese not care about diversity?

[Soul Crusher]

They don't want to prevent all that, they are just tribal and want to retain their own tribe's dominant position. Cause their thinking harks back to decades ago, to the sort of folks who supported going all over the world and encroaching on other peoples' land. If they were genuinely for preventing social tension and racism they would want to stay in their own patch of dirt and not go around imposing themselves on others.

I sure do. And I guarantee you when you explain it to anyone with a brain they will want to prevent everything I mentioned as well.

Seems to me people just want to secure borders and social stability.

Who is imposing themselves on others?

What's funny is that it's the libs that want the third world to go around and encroach on other people's land and impose themselves on others.

 

[Beechwood]

WHen talking to Chinese, my experience is that the Chinese view themselves as diversified. There are a country of many different ethnic groups. Their views on diversity though are obviously different from how most in the west views the topic.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah, that's what I mean look at Germany with its lowest crime rate in 25 years.
They are doomed. It is time we get someone like Trump. Because Merkel has not been sword dancing with the Saudis once. How can we make Germany great again if we don't put the Saudi's and Israel before the Fatherland?
Also, I don't like that we have no nepotism is Germany. Everyone knows nepotism is the glue that keeps a legit government functioning.

Just imagine how much crime there would be if those migrants weren't there...

 

[panamaican]

all good points, my point about 'colonization' was mainly to show that since Imperialism is all but gone (perhaps the Chinese really being the only ones trying now? and even that's arguable, it's more FDI) most of the 'first world nations' effects have either dwindled or straight up left those regions (talking people, not infrastructure) look at Zimbabwe for a perfect example. None of those countries are even remotely integrated anymore.

Now we still have the opposite of that, which is why the UK has so many people from Pakistan/India, Hong Kong/China, etc...And then obviously all of Latin America is an ethnic result of this, but there aren't a whole lotta white Spaniards left hanging around, it's just resulted in a permanent new mestizo ethnic category if anything.

Since WWII however, there is literally zero concerted effort to integrate any of those countries, which is for obvious reasons. Why would anyone seriously WANT to move to Africa and deal w/ all it's problems? Same w/ most of Latin America, and most of Asia tbh. Western countries only go in to economically rape those regions, they have nothing to gain by moving there at this point....
edit: I negated the French and UK overseas territories when I said Imperialism has ended, my bad, as that can probably be seen as such by many.

I completely disagree from a historical perspective. First, there are a lot white Spaniards in Latin America and Germans and others. But they've also intermarried to the point where no one is really just one thing anymore. As for places like Pakistan/India, whites moved into those nations. Integrated into the society and thus bridged the gap between their originating nation and the Asian nation. As that integration of society and economies grew, naturally the flow of people started going both ways. People ignore this because they think of people migrating in unreasonable short time frames when the proper flow of people takes decades at a minimum.

so to flesh it out. The British colonize a place like India, gradually sending people over there. This starts to strengthen the transportation and economic ties between the 2 places. Gradually, some Indians move from India to Britain. It starts as a handful of individuals, eventually becomes a handful of families and eventually becomes a sustainable community.

Now, obviously, the flow of Indians is only going to be towards Britain and not the other way around. The British that wanted to move into India would have done so in the early stages, the colonizing stages so to speak. At that time, Indians weren't moving to Britain. So you had a large British influx into India in the beginning, they establish the path of travel and then some Indians follow that path to Britain.

That takes generations. Looking at only these population movements for only the last 2-3 generations misses what I consider an important part of the conversation. And most of us miss it because we think only in terms of our life spans or less.

 

[ShinkanPo]

By the standards of the Western nations, China is a shithole nation. That's not an elevation of other shithole nations, it's an opinion of China relative to broader standards. It's no better than any of the other shithole nations, except that it's size protects against some issues since they can leverage their massive population in ways that smaller nations cannot. Now, that might not be a popular thing to say but it's the truth.

Over 25% of the population does not have access to safe drinking water. In 2012, only 4% of the adult population had a college degree. It's still extremely poor.

So forth and so on, it's a shitty country to live in for most of it's population.

And the more develop Cities are now turning into full pledge surveillance states that will introduce government monitored security cams even inside private offices or even residences.

But why do you think there are some people who shill on China? Like in the past few years I notice a certain number of non-Chinese specially other Asians who think China is the new way and China will liberate the world from the big Western bollies.

Why is it there are PRC apologists?

 

[panamaican]

And the more develop Cities are now turning into full pledge surveillance states that will introduce government monitored security cams even inside private offices or even residences.

But why do you think there are some people who shill on China? Like in the past few years I notice a certain number of non-Chinese specially other Asians who think China is the new way and China will liberate the world from the big Western bollies.

Why is it there are PRC apologists?

Because they have disdain for the policies of the West and so they glorify anything that's different so they can virtue signal just how much they dislike Western policy.

 

[HomerThompson]

Anyway, the reason that the Chinese don't care about diversity is that they're godless Communists.

Who knows why they continuously make choices that screw over large parts of their population or disregard the rights of others.

Already covered that, bud.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I completely disagree from a historical perspective. First, there are a lot white Spaniards in Latin America and Germans and others. But they've also intermarried to the point where no one is really just one thing anymore. As for places like Pakistan/India, whites moved into those nations. Integrated into the society and thus bridged the gap between their originating nation and the Asian nation. As that integration of society and economies grew, naturally the flow of people started going both ways. People ignore this because they think of people migrating in unreasonable short time frames when the proper flow of people takes decades at a minimum.

so to flesh it out. The British colonize a place like India, gradually sending people over there. This starts to strengthen the transportation and economic ties between the 2 places. Gradually, some Indians move from India to Britain. It starts as a handful of individuals, eventually becomes a handful of families and eventually becomes a sustainable community.

Now, obviously, the flow of Indians is only going to be towards Britain and not the other way around. The British that wanted to move into India would have done so in the early stages, the colonizing stages so to speak. At that time, Indians weren't moving to Britain. So you had a large British influx into India in the beginning, they establish the path of travel and then some Indians follow that path to Britain.

That takes generations. Looking at only these population movements for only the last 2-3 generations misses what I consider an important part of the conversation. And most of us miss it because we think only in terms of our life spans or less.

I disagree entirely with this, but whatever.

People did not move to those places in huge numbers, w/ perhaps the lone exception of S. Africa (which is why is still has a higher share of white people than other former colonies). The only places they did were Canada, US and Australia and what do you know those places are still either majority white or plurality white. If what you were saying was true, then places like Jamaica would have much higher percentages of white people, or the Virgin Islands, but they don't b/c slave/migrant labor was used. They weren't settled, they were used for resources.....and the settlers only barely partially integrated, they left when the situation got out of control (barring like post Nazi Germans in Patagonia b/c obviously that's different)

That' entirely different then permanently integrating into a society, which is what we are seeing now. It's not being ignored out of receny bias or something, it's two entirely different situations. What the Chinese are doing in Africa is akin to what the Europeans did, just in modern times w/ more technology so it requires even LESS first world people on ground.

 

[panamaican]

I disagree entirely with this, but whatever.

People did not move to those places in huge numbers, w/ perhaps the lone exception of S. Africa (which is why is still has a higher share of white people than other former colonies). The only places they did were Canada, US and Australia and what do you know those places are still either majority white or plurality white. If what you were saying was true, then places like Jamaica would have much higher percentages of white people, or the Virgin Islands, but they don't b/c slave/migrant labor was used. They weren't settled, they were used for resources.....and the settlers only barely partially integrated, they left when the situation got out of control (barring like post Nazi Germans in Patagonia b/c obviously that's different)

That' entirely different then permanently integrating into a society, which is what we are seeing now. It's not being ignored out of receny bias or something, it's two entirely different situations. What the Chinese are doing in Africa is akin to what the Europeans did, just in modern times w/ more technology so it requires even LESS first world people on ground.

Like I said, I think it's a false distinction. It suggests that integration isn't integration if it comes with a power differential. But that's not true. It's still integrating a society, even if one group are the decision makers. They're are living together, working together, intermixing, etc. and it is permanent.

And what the Chinese are doing isn't like what the Europeans did. The Chinese are structuring relationships between 2 governments. The 2 countries remain distinct political entities, even though they are increasingly dependent economically and thus politically. The Europeans did not do that, they made the new environments legally part of the old, they did not remain separate countries trading with each other.

See, if some random African nation wants to stop working with China, they don't need China's permission and they won't need to fight a war to become their own country. European colonies had no such autonomy, they were part and parcel of the European nation.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Like I said, I think it's a false distinction. It suggests that integration isn't integration if it comes with a power differential. But that's not true. It's still integrating a society, even if one group are the decision makers. They're are living together, working together, intermixing, etc. and it is permanent.

And what the Chinese are doing isn't like what the Europeans did. The Chinese are structuring relationships between 2 governments. The 2 countries remain distinct political entities, even though they are increasingly dependent economically and thus politically. The Europeans did not do that, they made the new environments legally part of the old, they did not remain separate countries trading with each other.

See, if some random African nation wants to stop working with China, they don't need China's permission and they won't need to fight a war to become their own country. European colonies had no such autonomy, they were part and parcel of the European nation.

The Chinese are pulling virtually all revenues out of there, hardly any are being invested back in.....call if what you want, this isn't 1894 that's modern pillaging.

The colonizers didn't stay though, that's the point. They are no longer integrated. Go to Somalia or Eritrea and tell me what you see, if they had stayed these countries wouldn't universally be shitholes....

 

[The Reed]

Because Asian people tend to have high IQ's.

 

[MicroBrew]

I sure do. And I guarantee you when you explain it to anyone with a brain they will want to prevent everything I mentioned as well.

Seems to me people just want to secure borders and social stability.

Who is imposing themselves on others?

What's funny is that it's the libs that want the third world to go around and encroach on other people's land and impose themselves on others.

We are talking about America here right, not the problem Western Europe has with refugees, especially MidEastern ones.

So , assuming we are talking about America, since this is a US forum and the sort of people who long for the kind of nationalistic sentiment the Chinese, Japanese , Koreans, Saudis, Israelis etc.. practice, then the primary bone of contention these US nationalists have is with Blacks and Natives. Seeing as how natives are indigenous and Blacks were forced to come here, how is it the 3rd world imposing itself on the West. And just to be clear when I say "indigenous" I am referring to most Mexican and Central Americans since they have significant to mostly indigenous ancestry.

 

[original doom]

so what you're telling me is illegal immigration from mexico or taking in all the worlds refugees will make us a technological power house some day?

genius!

nope. china takes the reigns and america gets a taco.

 

[Soul Crusher]

We are talking about America here right, not the problem Western Europe has with refugees, especially MidEastern ones.

So , assuming we are talking about America, since this is a US forum and the sort of people who long for the kind of nationalistic sentiment the Chinese, Japanese , Koreans, Saudis, Israelis etc.. practice, then the primary bone of contention these US nationalists have is with Blacks and Natives. Seeing as how natives are indigenous and Blacks were forced to come here, how is it the 3rd world imposing itself on the West. And just to be clear when I say "indigenous" I am referring to most Mexican and Central Americans since they have significant to mostly indigenous ancestry.

This is how:

http://www.policemag.com/blog/gangs/story/2012/04/african-immigrant-gangs.aspx
African gangs in the United States are nothing new. But they are becoming a more prevalent concern for law enforcement in cities that have significant African immigrant populations.

In the last decade Prince George's County, Md., saw an increase in the African immigrant population primarily from Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Liberia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Senegal, and Gambia.

West African countries, especially Nigeria, have been documented as transshipments centers for Golden Crescent heroin. After the heroin arrives in the U.S., it is sold only to one or two American distributors in a given area.

lol at Mexicans and people living in central America being native. They're not. They're a new group of people created by the Spanish.

 

[original doom]

Because caring about diversity is a luxury to have.
The Chinese have a lot more serious issues to care about.
You could ask why do the Chinese not care about unemployment insurance, the police state, a fair justice system, corruption, workers rights, a free press, free internet, pollution and environmental issues those are all things they have not achieved yet as a culture.
If you look at the most developed countries in the World Canada, Australia, Sweden, Netherland, Germany etc.
Those countries don't have any of those above issues anymore because they have developed a society in which they work fine.
Diversity and equality are things you care about when you don't have many other issues.
It's an achivment.

well you are correct, its a luxury.

the fact that you admit this doesnt bode well foe your countries future.

 

[BassAckwards]

they are diverse; just not on the smae level as we are. imo, china isn't capable of being on the same level of diversity as the US. the people dont want it, they arent mentally prepared for it, nor does the government want it.

 

[Kframe]

hello V-2,

i didn't mention that earlier, but i agree.

the lack of diversity, by necessity, just limits their talent pool - to their detriment.

when Abdul Fattah Jandali fled the strife in Lebanon and was looking for a country to immigrate to, i really doubt he considered China.

and i'm glad he came here to the US instead.

- IGIT

Off topic, but can I just say I really appreciate your attitude and polite manner.

 

[Seaside]

Because they know race is real and differences etc. They also realize culture is real and that inherited traits can pass on. So they dont want people from certain parts of world to ruin there collective gene pool or be in there society and they also dont want alien religions or completely foreign religions which are arab supreamcist or jew or hindi supremacist to be allowed to compete against their own ethnonationalism and historic culture.

In fact the whole of asia seems to be thinking this and some eastern european states. The africans do the same in the eastern horn, and the arabs in north africa do the same etc. central americas and latin america has its own version to less intense or as race base as say china.

 

[Soul Crusher]

they are diverse; just not on the smae level as we are. imo, china isn't capable of being on the same level of diversity as the US. the people dont want it, they arent mentally prepared for it, nor does the government want it.

No one was prepared for this warped experiment. Even though we now know the damage it causes, the loony left still wants to go full steam ahead into the storm.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

in a long enough timeline, none of the continents are even going to be in the same place, let alone geographic boundaries or current notions of race. You have to sit back and laugh at how petty this racial squabbling is in the big picture.

as long as you are in front of a computer, with food from all over the world in your fridge, your temperature set to exactly where you wanted and a comfy assed bed, yes, then you can laugh at the silliness of this.