In other words, it endows one chosen race of immigrants with special qualities and status that makes it "superior" to others. And this special quality of "superiority" (skin color) is not earned but rather gifted.
It's very difficult for a non-Chinese person to get citizenship in China. Chinese people like interacting with people of other races, but it goes without saying that China is for the Chinese.
Racism doesn't require a sense of superiority, but rather a preference for race(s). I'm not offended that I can't get citizenship in China. Do you think they think they're better than you?
Racism doesn't require a sense of superiority, but rather a preference for race(s).
Yes and Hitler obviously preferred aryans --- but there is obviously more to the story.
"White nationalism" is clearly not merely a statement of preference. It is the belief and objective that white people should dominate society. Why? On what basis? Because Jesus was white (he wasn't)?
"White nationalism" is not about superiority --- it is just a "preference" for oppressing others in order to achieve dominance. Thanks for the clarification/word play.
> Do you think they think they're better than you?
That was not a rhetorical question.
Yes and Hitler obviously preferred aryans --- but there is obviously more to the story.
True. There are different levels of racism. Some are enough to maintain an ethnicity, and others go way beyond that.
"White nationalism" is not about superiority --- it is just a "preference" for oppressing others in order to achieve dominance. Thanks for the clarification/word play.
Are Chinese nationalists oppressive because they don't just open the borders? It's clear that you have a different standard for white people.
Are Chinese nationalists oppressive because they don't just open the borders?
No. Simply closing their border is not oppressive but just like in the US, it is not enough to produce an ethnocentric society.
It's clear that you have a different standard for white people.
No, the standard is the same. And to illustrate, you've picked a nearly perfect analog for US "white nationalists" with the Han Chinese.
What China is doing to the Uyghurs and what "white nationalists" in the US want for "non-whites" is oppression. This is the only way to achieve their ethnocentric objectives.
In both cases, the objective is built around ethnic superiority and is equally racist and reprehensible and amoral and inhumane.
Can you answer the question: do you think the Chinese (or any nationality) think they're better than you when they won't let you become a citizen?
No. Simply closing their border is not oppressive but just like in the US, it is not enough to produce an ethnocentric society.
It's enough to maintain one.
This is the only way to achieve their ethnocentric objectives.
In that part of China, sure.
In both cases, the objective is built around ethnic superiority and is equally racist and reprehensible and amoral and inhumane.
Name one ethnicity that couldn't be construed as such. Respecting the rights of individuals is not how ethnicities are constructed. Liberalism destroys ethnicities, yet liberals have decided not to be evenhanded about it because it's not politically expedient. That's how you produce more intense forms of racism.
Comments
a racial definition of national identity
In other words, it endows one chosen race of immigrants with special qualities and status that makes it "superior" to others. And this special quality of "superiority" (skin color) is not earned but rather gifted.
Sounds kinda racist to me.
It's very difficult for a non-Chinese person to get citizenship in China. Chinese people like interacting with people of other races, but it goes without saying that China is for the Chinese.
Racism doesn't require a sense of superiority, but rather a preference for race(s). I'm not offended that I can't get citizenship in China. Do you think they think they're better than you?
Racism doesn't require a sense of superiority, but rather a preference for race(s).
Yes and Hitler obviously preferred aryans --- but there is obviously more to the story.
"White nationalism" is clearly not merely a statement of preference. It is the belief and objective that white people should dominate society. Why? On what basis? Because Jesus was white (he wasn't)?
"White nationalism" is not about superiority --- it is just a "preference" for oppressing others in order to achieve dominance. Thanks for the clarification/word play.
That was not a rhetorical question.
True. There are different levels of racism. Some are enough to maintain an ethnicity, and others go way beyond that.
Are Chinese nationalists oppressive because they don't just open the borders? It's clear that you have a different standard for white people.
Are Chinese nationalists oppressive because they don't just open the borders?
No. Simply closing their border is not oppressive but just like in the US, it is not enough to produce an ethnocentric society.
It's clear that you have a different standard for white people.
No, the standard is the same. And to illustrate, you've picked a nearly perfect analog for US "white nationalists" with the Han Chinese.
What China is doing to the Uyghurs and what "white nationalists" in the US want for "non-whites" is oppression. This is the only way to achieve their ethnocentric objectives.
In both cases, the objective is built around ethnic superiority and is equally racist and reprehensible and amoral and inhumane.
Can you answer the question: do you think the Chinese (or any nationality) think they're better than you when they won't let you become a citizen?
It's enough to maintain one.
In that part of China, sure.
Name one ethnicity that couldn't be construed as such. Respecting the rights of individuals is not how ethnicities are constructed. Liberalism destroys ethnicities, yet liberals have decided not to be evenhanded about it because it's not politically expedient. That's how you produce more intense forms of racism.