• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Africa FUCKS China

Xi chauvinism at work is my guess. It's gotten to their heads they are better than the rest of the world and the world should learn from the ways of the CCP.

The World Is Awaking to the Ugly Realities of the Chinese Regime
Therese Shaheen
National Review
April 30, 2020, 6:30 pm
8dcb59a0daeb1e29bdc645476a81408d

Earlier this month, a McDonald’s restaurant in Guangzhou, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong, was forced to remove a sign warning that “black people are not allowed to enter.” Upon removing it, McDonald’s told NBC News in a statement that the sign was “not representative of our inclusive values.”
That sounds like what it almost certainly is: a product of the company’s communications department, called in to do damage control. And while we can accept that the McDonald’s corporation itself is not, on the whole, racist, the sign does unfortunately represent China’s values.

As NR’s Jim Geraghty has noted, the incident is an example of the “xenophobia and racism” on display just now in China. This phenomenon is not new to the PRC, but the government has an extra incentive to lean into it now, because it helps the government’s concerted campaign to deflect blame for the global coronavirus pandemic.

There is ample evidence of this. A recent Reuters report noted that ambassadors from several African nations recently engaged the Chinese foreign ministry to raise concerns about how their citizens are being mistreated in China. Passport holders from African countries are subject to extreme stop-and-search practices. Many who are coronavirus-negative are being forced into 30-day quarantines anyway. Foreigners from a range of countries who can document clean bills of health are being denied entry to places of business and other facilities simply because they are foreigners.

Much of this is taking place in Guangzhou, known to some as “Little Africa” because it has the largest African-immigrant population in China. To some extent, African immigration to China is a by-product of Xi Jinping’s effort to build a global network of trade and infrastructure investment that gives the regime a perceived geopolitical advantage over the West in the developing world. Ghanaians, Nigerians, and other immigrants to China are all too happy to take advantage of the work and educational opportunities China offers. But many of them have learned the hard way just how limited the country’s kindness is.

In fact, China’s ill-treatment of foreign-minority populations reflects how the Chinese government treats its own citizens. Muslim minority Uighurs are being held in so-called re-education camps intended to strip them of their religious and ethnic identity, and in many cases subjected to forced labor. In Tibet, which China has oppressed since the very beginning of Communist rule in 1949, things have gotten worse under Xi: Last year, Freedom House named Tibet the second-least-free territory on Earth, behind only war-torn Syria.

It would be natural to presume that such discrimination is a regrettable result of the dominance of the Han Chinese, who are more than 90 percent of China’s population and dominate its society. (By comparison, ethnic Uighurs, for example, make up less than 1 percent of the population.) The Han Chinese, with 1.3 billion members, are the largest ethnic group not just in the PRC but in the world. Antipathy, oppression, and discrimination toward minority ethnic groups in a country with such a dominant majority is regrettable but not surprising, and not unique to the PRC.

Beijing’s response to critics who note all of this is to try to drown them out by highlighting America’s own well-documented history of racial discrimination. But that’s the point: Our historical sins are well-documented, and they inform just about every aspect of our public policy. A free press and other institutions hold up our actions for the world to see. There is no mystery about how our country continues to deal with the effects of the institutionalized discrimination that persisted for nearly two centuries after our own founding, and for a century after we fought a war to end it.

That said, there is a quality to the pattern of behavior in the PRC that transcends ethnicity. Chinese racial discrimination is horrifying in its own right, of course. But it also suggests a farther-reaching chauvinism that is emerging as the defining characteristic of the Xi era.
Han Chinese make up the same percentage of the population in Hong Kong as on the mainland, and are 97 percent of the population in Taiwan. Neither Hong Kongers nor Taiwanese have suffered any less at Xi’s hands for that. Nor, for that matter, have the 400 million mostly Han Chinese living on less than $5 a day in the country outside China’s megacities, who face vicious discrimination from urban elites.

In some ways, the gulf between the rich in China’s cities and the poor in its rural areas has been institutionalized through the longstanding “hukou” system of internal registration, which hampers movement between regions and creates what amounts to an economic caste system. While Xi has made hukou reform a priority in order to create greater opportunity for urban migration and prosperity, the system continues to reinforce the divide between urban haves and rural have-nots. As the former become wealthier and more global in their perspective, the disdain they frequently show for those who are different — whether from Africa or rural China — is becoming more pronounced.

Xi-era chauvinism is beginning to create a backlash around the world. One example is the cooling ardor toward the Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s aforementioned effort to gain footholds in foreign markets. Many projects have caused host countries to take on excessive debt. In one instance, a strategic port in Sri Lanka was ceded to China when the debt burden became too high. Politicians in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and other countries have reversed earlier positions of support because of what they see as China’s discriminatory debt diplomacy.


This backlash is appearing even in European countries that once saw China as a potential counterbalance to the Trump administration. In Sweden, for instance, some cities have ended sister-city relationships with Chinese counterparts, and the country has closed its Confucius Institute schools, dealing a blow to one of Beijing’s other soft-power propaganda operations. European leaders, including NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenburg and French president Emmanuel Macron, have also called for better understanding of how Beijing handled the coronavirus pandemic and pushed back against China’s campaign to deflect blame for it.

In short, the world finally seems to be recovering from its decades-long love affair with the PRC, which peaked with the rise of Xi, who was initially viewed as a reformer who would bring China onto the world’s stage as an equal, responsible actor. The true nature of the regime is becoming more apparent, and the world doesn’t like what it sees: the dreadful treatment of ethnic minorities and the rural poor; the obvious interference in Taiwan’s recent presidential election; the belligerence toward Hong Kong as the “one country, two systems” agreement is systematically dismantled and pro-democracy leaders are arrested or just disappear; the bullying of emerging economies through debt diplomacy; and now what is very likely a global pandemic caused by Chinese negligence.

For the first time since the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre 30 years ago, the world has awakened to these ugly realities, and if anything good has emerged from this chaotic geopolitical era, that might be it. Here’s hoping that more aggressive action to counter Beijing comes next.
makes perfect sense. :thumbsup:

really out of touch with the rest of the world. not everyone is a slave to his money...
 
Then why all the muslim jihad killings in name of Allah?
They were deviated by the mischievous.
Islam is not a religion. No prayer rituals, no haj. No fasting, no clerics nor priests. It became a religion as leaders needed one to control the masses by usage of faith.
Just as chinese used communism to control theirs.
 
It would be natural to presume that such discrimination is a regrettable result of the dominance of the Han Chinese, who are more than 90 percent of China’s population and dominate its society. (By comparison, ethnic Uighurs, for example, make up less than 1 percent of the population.) The Han Chinese, with 1.3 billion members, are the largest ethnic group not just in the PRC but in the world. Antipathy, oppression, and discrimination toward minority ethnic groups in a country with such a dominant majority is regrettable but not surprising, and not unique to the PRC.
The minorities in Singapore and Taiwan suffers similar fate. Aborigines in Taiwan are forced to eat horrid chinese food with chopsticks, use chinese names and go to chinese schools. Why can't they have English Or japanese education? Older generation of Taiwanese still reminisce the days they were under Japanese rule. And japan is the most visited country by Taiwanese.
 
The whole world can gang up on China, China will still survive and thrive. Believe or not?
Survive? Possibly. Thrive? No. No tourists, no exports of goods and services , no demand for their produce. They'll be another N. Korea.
 
Yes. But only by torturing, dismembering, gouging, inserting their own citizens into submission.

That is in the past when china military was weak! We are talking about now! Your ah neh nation has been submitted to BE!
 
China's expensive bet on Africa has failed
Coronavirus crash in commodity prices has wasted $200 billion in investment and loans
Minxin Pei
MAY 01, 2020 03:00 JST
https%3A%2F%2Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%2Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%2Fimages%2F4%2F7%2F7%2F7%2F26797774-3-eng-GB%2FCropped-1588238216G20200430%20Sudan%20oil%20facility.jpg

A Chinese worker talks to his colleague at an oil production facility in Sudan in December 2010: China's foray into Africa coincided with the peak of the commodity supercycle. © Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Minxin Pei is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a nonresident senior fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

China's commercial activities in Africa, such as investments, infrastructure projects and bank lending, have long attracted scrutiny and criticism. Critics have accused Beijing of practicing a new form of economic colonialism to gain control of the continent's valuable natural resources by luring unsuspecting African nations into so-called debt traps.
While this perspective dominates the narrative about Beijing's economic ties with Africa, it likely exaggerates Chinese strategic foresight and overlooks the pitfalls of China's big bet on the continent.

As the prices of oil, copper and minerals found in Africa have plunged in the global economic meltdown, the prospects for China-funded projects look bleak. China is facing growing pressure to forgive the tens of billions of dollars of loans it has made to African countries since the early 2000s. The mistreatment of African residents in China during the outbreak has fueled cries of racism and prompted diplomatic protests against Beijing.
Even the crown jewel of China's economic engagement with Africa, the trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure program, is at risk. The coronavirus has dealt a body blow to the Chinese economy, with its economic output falling 6.8% in the first quarter.
It is doubtful that Beijing will have the resources to fund the BRI in the future. One telltale sign is the absence of references in the communiques of recent Politburo meetings of the Chinese Communist Party to BRI as a priority.
In retrospect, the unraveling of China's Africa project should not come as a surprise. Beijing's strategy has been based on flawed assumptions and was executed at the wrong moment.

Chinese leaders see Africa mainly as a source of natural resources. China's fast-paced growth since the early 1990s has generated a voracious demand for oil and subsoil minerals, and Africa appeared a perfect fit since dominant multinationals had a weak hold on the continent and Beijing could easily outbid them to gain equity stakes in mines and oil fields.
For unknown reasons, the Chinese government believed that, as an equity holder and creditor, it could better ensure secure access to critical raw materials there.
As a result, China has opened its checkbooks and become the most active nontraditional lender in Africa. According to the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University, China loaned $152 billion to 49 African countries between 2000 and 2018. The World Bank estimates that, as of 2017, the value of China's loans to sub-Saharan African countries was $64 billion, or more than 60% of the stock of bilateral debt.
Besides showering Africa with credit, China has bet big on direct investments, mainly through its state-owned enterprises. Between 2008 and 2018, Chinese FDI in Africa rose from $7.8 billion to $46 billion, according to official data.
On paper, China may seem to have got its money's worth. Merchandise trade between China and Africa rose from $107 billion to $204 billion in 2018, based on data provided by the Chinese government.
But the question is whether China could have expanded its trade with Africa and maintained its access to raw materials without committing nearly $200 billion in bilateral loans and FDI in a distant continent full of political and economic risks.
In all likelihood, China might not have paid more for the same raw materials had it chosen to purchase them on the open market. Beijing's hope that direct or semi-direct control of resources would provide greater security is illusory.
For one thing, once China extended the credit or made the direct investments in mines, oil fields or roads, it was at the mercy of the recipients, Africa's national governments and political elites. China has no power to prevent the nationalization of its investments or defaults on its loans.

https%3A%2F%2Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%2Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%2Fimages%2F_aliases%2Farticleimage%2F5%2F2%2F8%2F7%2F26797825-4-eng-GB%2FCropped-1588238392R20200430%20Macky%20Sall%20Xi%20Jinping.JPG
Xi Jinping talks with Senegal's President Macky Sall during his visit to Dakar in July 2018: once China extended the credit or made the direct investments, it was at the mercy of the recipients. © Reuters

If supply disruption occurs because of conflict in Africa or along China's long sea lines of communication, the theoretical advantage of direct control will be worthless because China, at least for the foreseeable future, lacks the military capabilities to protect its mines and railways in Africa or escort its merchant ships on a sustainable basis.
China's gamble in Africa also flopped thanks to bad timing. Its foray into the continent coincided with the peak of the most recent commodity supercycle, skyrocketing prices of raw materials, this time driven by Chinese demand. As a result, Chinese companies paid top price for assets that most probably have lost huge value after the collapse in commodity prices.
Now that the coronavirus outbreak is about to devastate Africa's fragile economies and societies, China needs a pragmatic exit strategy. Beijing must realize that it is unlikely to recover most of its sunken investments or loans because of the economic impact of the virus on Africa.
The only sensible policy flowing from such a reckoning is to write off its loans as a humanitarian gesture. But this dramatic step will be a bargain since it will earn Beijing goodwill, with the money that it has no realistic hope of recouping.
Wat is 200 billion to the chicoms when they have trillions in reserves? In addition those assets are there n commodities prices will increase. Chicoms have the deep pockets to weather the storm
 
They were deviated by the mischievous.
Islam is not a religion. No prayer rituals, no haj. No fasting, no clerics nor priests. It became a religion as leaders needed one to control the masses by usage of faith.
Just as chinese used communism to control theirs.
I think the word in bold can be substituted for something better, say devious / murderous / avaricious?
 
Yes! Nobody can eliminate china! China is self sufficient!

China prospered because it opened up and traded with the world. Without the world, china will revert back to poverty like before Deng's reforms. Like when they burned the treasure fleet. China without the world will be impoverished.

China will quickly eliminate itself once cut off from the world. No need foreign intervention.
 
You don't want to be fucked by Africa... even its musical instruments are shaped like a huge lanjiao. :biggrin:

If China does get fucked by Africa, it will first happen in Guangzhou and Shenzhen. :wink:

 
China prospered because it opened up and traded with the world. Without the world, china will revert back to poverty like before Deng's reforms. Like when they burned the treasure fleet. China without the world will be impoverished.

China will quickly eliminate itself once cut off from the world. No need foreign intervention.

In the era of cuz countries need to open up! But you see from the beginning till qing dynasty, china has been closed market and they still able to survive and strong and all around the world still need china goods!
 
In the era of cuz countries need to open up! But you see from the beginning till qing dynasty, china has been closed market and they still able to survive and strong and all around the world still need china goods!

I think it's a whole different ball game up to the qing dynasty than today. What was the population then? 50-100million?

Today it's 1.4billion. 14-28 times more mouths to feed. And lots more elderly. Thanks to the communist one child policy. Dictators always get it wrong in the end.

Yes china will probably survive if they eliminate one billion people and shrink to around 400 million. That's just survival mode.

So the CCP gets to decide which billion people will die in order to survive. China under the CCP will see a billion deaths when the country closes up.
 
Yes! Nobody can eliminate china! China is self sufficient!
Self sufficient my arse.
Ing from Russia, malaysua, Australia and US.
Coal from Indonesia and Australia
Pork and meat from Australia, new Zealand and US,
Fishes stolen from South China sea. But kept in very unkempt unhygeinic conditions on board.
China and Singapore still classified as developing nation status. That is why both got preferential treatment under WTO rules. They cheated.
 
Back
Top