Agreed. The xinjiang intern- uhh... vocational education and training centers are an issue that that's specific to the internal affairs of China. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the world. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Chinese people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
1. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I implied china was located in the americans. My comment was specifically worded to not imply that.
2. Does america's influence on the world not exist? Why does your original claim of "Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people" only apply if it's on the same continent? Is it better to impose your views on people half way across the world?
America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period. It also has not had a hegemonic influence on nations such as China, unlike it has had over Canada and most of the American continent. Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there. Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
>America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period.
So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
>Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there.
Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
>Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
> So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
The U.S. didn't even influence China until the normalization of relations under Nixon, in 1972. Furthermore, the relation was always less unequal between the two, than it was and is between the U.S. and other countries in the Americas.
> Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
European powers have historically been very bad at handling African genocides. Even as recently as the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, France initially supported the government of the Génocidaires, and did not aid the victimized Tutsis. Given Europe's awful track record in this area, it is impossible to say how constructive intervention could be.
> You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
I apologize for underrating your grasp of geography.
