[Archio]

You absolutely can separate the two, and it has nothing to do with colonialism. The reason you can is because in a society where freedom of expression is curtailed, there is (and always will be) a difference between what an authoritarian government declares and the opinions of its people, even if many people agree with the authoritarian government. Only the people that agree will reasonably feel comfortable expressing their opinions.

Where does the idea that "criticism of a government is criticism of its people because a government is made up of its people" logically follow? Is criticism of the American government (which I do regularly) criticism of my own American people? What about North Korea?

[bllguo]

> Is criticism of the American government (which I do regularly) criticism of my own American people?

of course? how does this _not_ logically follow? if you're going to extol the virtues of being able to select your own leaders you damn well ought to feel responsible for inflicting bad leaders on the world. you literally mentioned this yourself. civilians of authoritarian countries have far more claim to a pass than Americans.

[Archio]

You're missing the point. 70% of Americans voted for the president in the last U.S. election. Regardless of whether or not my candidate won out, I don't view criticism of my government's policy as a personal assault on myself as an American.

Let's say you have a valid, blistering disagreement with an element of American foreign policy. Do I view this as criticism of my government? Yes. Might I disagree? Sure.

What I don't do is claim that criticism of my government's decisions and myself personally cannot be separated (as the original poster argues) or claim that others are "inciting inter-cultural contempt" as the article cites.

[pphysch]

> The reason you can is because in a society where freedom of expression is curtailed, there is (and always will be) a difference between what an authoritarian government declares and the opinions of its people, even if many people agree with the authoritarian government.

This is very abstract. Can you give a real world example of what you mean? What country should China closer resemble in your ideal world?

[Archio]

This is the thing. I'm not claiming to have an "ideal" version of China, or claiming that I have an understanding of what all Chinese people "really want". It's a country with over a billion people, within which I'm sure there is a vast spectrum of opinions.

I would agree you if you argue it would be condescending to claim for any given issue that while the CCP argues X, people in China disagree and want Y. However, I think it's equally as condescending to claim that the opinions, behaviors, and ideologies of the CCP are fully condoned and endorsed by all of the Chinese people (and THEREFORE, criticism of one is criticism of the other). Conflating a government and its people in this way is specious for any country, but especially problematic for those where public criticism of government is unequivocally risky.

[pphysch]

> However, I think it's equally as condescending to claim that the opinions, behaviors, and ideologies of the CCP are fully condoned and endorsed by all of the Chinese people

You can empirically test this. Harvard University did, and found that upwards of 90% of the Chinese people support their government. And why wouldn't they? QoL has skyrocketed for hundreds of millions of Chinese over the last 40 years.

[Archio]

So what? George W. Bush's approval rate was even higher after 9/11, is each American personally responsible for his legacy?

10% of the Chinese populace is still over a hundred million people, am I to judge each of them as people according to the actions of their government (since apparently the two cannot be separated)?