Just for kicks, I am going to annotate a CNN article reporting on Chinese celebrities dropping foreign sponsorships in response to the boycott of goods manufactured in Xinjiang. Let’s go!

Chinese celebrities rush to defend Beijing's Xinjiang policy by cutting ties with international brands

I suppose "rush to" carries a bit of editorializing -- huh, why are they rushing to do this? Is someone or something making them do it? Otherwise this headline is descriptive and factual. It's fine.

by Nectar Gan, cnn.com, March 26, 2021

Sometimes English names are related to one's Chinese name in some way -- see filmmaker Fruit Chan, whose name is a literal translation of Chen Guo (陈果). Sometimes it's just some random thing they came up with in middle school or high school, or an alternate name their parents gave them, particularly in southern China. Since Nectar Gan is based in Hong Kong, it could be any of these things.

Chinese celebrities are finding it increasingly difficult to stay out of politics.

Okay.

Due to China's tight restrictions on free speech, most of the country's stars have been outwardly apolitical by default.

Most American stars are outwardly apolitical by default too. It may just be standard wisdom that celebrities who want to be beloved and economically viable generally stay out of political controversies?

But as China embraces a new wave of apparent nationalism -- promoted by the ruling Communist Party and amplified by state media -- it seems staying silent is no longer a viable option.

Now we are in the thick of it! As a thought experiment, let's see what happens when we take this sentence cosnstruction and apply it to police violence and BLM in the US last summer:

But as America faces a new wave of apparent racial unrest -- set off by high profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, and amplified by Black Lives Matter protests -- it seems staying silent is no longer a viable option.

Is this a true statement in regards to last summer in the US? Prescriptively, it should have been true. It's equally accurate to say that a number of celebrities indeed felt compelled to acknowledge the protests. It is completely inaccurate however to say "staying silent" wasn't still a viable option for many stars, and that the majority didn't have their publicist fire off some milk toast statement that expressed concern for "both sides" and otherwise said nothing.

Likewise, the statement in the article feels true, to the extent that it describes social sentinent and pressure, but also is way too broad a generalization.

Now let's get to the nationalism bit! First, it's weird that nationalism is wiggle-worded as "apparent nationalism." Like, is it nationalism that is definitely a result of propaganda by the "ruling" party (also weird by the way -- as opposed to what other party, Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party)? Or does it just seems like nationalism but maybe for some reason isn't really nationalism at all? Is this wishful thinking from the HK reporter that the Chinese public isn't becoming more nationalistic?

Now, let's address that parenthetical. Does the reporter really think nationalism needs to be amplified by the CPC at this point? Is there no other plausible reason for increasing nationalism? The worldwide Covid backlash against China isn't an obvious enough reason enough for the current surge of Chinese nationalism? I mean, random passersby were taking selfies and clowning on the US when the embassy closed down in Chengdu last fall. And Chengdu geographically and culturally is as distanced from foreign politics as it gets. It ain't deep bro!

Over the past two days, Chinese actors, singers and models have spoken up en masse to defend Beijing's policy on Xinjiang, as a nationalist-fueled backlash erupted against some international clothing brands for expressing concerns over allegations of forced labor, and refusing to use cotton produced in the western region.

I'm not sure why you need to qualify the backlash as a "nationalist-fueled backlash" -- again, seems to be implying something.

Human rights groups have accused Beijing of detaining Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups in internment camps across Xinjiang, and using them for forced labor, which they claim is part of global tech and retail supply chains, either directly or indirectly.

Indeed, it is true that capitalism is exploitative and forced labor is "part of global tech and retail supply chains, either directly or indirectly." Wait, the author meant for the subject of that clause to be Uyghur labor, not "forced labor" generally? Well, they should have said that instead of garbling the grammar. Can't take it back now!

Recent sanctions from the United States and other Western countries over Xinjiang have sparked a renewed pushback from the Chinese government, which calls the camps "vocational training centers" designed to combat terrorism and religious extremism. China has repeatedly and vehemently denied accusations of forced labor in the camps.

Maybe I haven't been keeping up with the changing narratives. I don't remember any of those foreign news documentaries alleging forced labor in the camps on behalf of multinational corporations? I thought what people have been saying is that Uyghurs have been recruited and sent to various industrial centers for unskilled manufacturing jobs? And that the implication is that they are compelled to sign these contracts and they are exploitive? If anyone can clarify this for me, on the chance they are have been so foolish as to read this far?

By the way, I'm sure these manufacturing jobs are exploitative of the Uyghur migrant workers, just as they exploit every other migrant worker, but I was curious and peeked at one of the documents an activist website put up as proof of their exploitation and it sounded -- pretty fair and equitable? It specifically stipulates separate halal dining facilities, for example. This is no small thing -- mainland food as a rule is not vegetarian, and "non-vegetarian" food as a rule means pork. So I guess offering halal dining is what activists mean when they say there is forced segregation?

In December, the US government said it would block imports of cotton produced in Xinjiang over concerns it "may have been made by slave labor in some of the most egregious human rights violations existing today."

"May have been." Hmm. That's a hell of a hypothetical sentence. Can any of it be definitively identified as "totally was made by slave labor"?

However, in a striking move this week, more than 30 Chinese celebrities have ended their promotional partnerships or said they would cut ties with brands they accused of "smearing" cotton produced in Xinjiang, including H&M, Nike, Adidas, Puma and Calvin Klein.

Just imagine a culture where celebrities have moral convictions about the companies they represent.

The stars include A-list actress Yang Mi, top pop idol Wang Yibo, Uyghur actress Dilraba Dilmurat, Hong Kong Cantopop singer Eason Chan and Taiwanese cellist Ouyang Nana.

Incidentally, this is the first time I've heard of Dilraba Dilmurat. I guess there's a popular C-drama she is in, and I'd be lying if I said this didn't make me a little curious about it.

The scale of the celebrity exodus is unprecedented -- so much so that on Chinese social media, March 25 has been dubbed "contract termination day" among China's entertainment circles.

Sick.

Other celebrities also showed allegiance by sharing the hashtag "I support Xinjiang's cotton," which has been viewed nearly 5 billion times since it was posted Wednesday by party mouthpiece People's Daily on Weibo, China's heavily-censored version of Twitter.

Sick. Wait, what was that?

by party mouthpiece People's Daily on Weibo, China's heavily-censored version of Twitter.

They just said "I support Xinjiang's cotton" bro, calm down!

The collective support from celebrities is just the latest example of the role they are expected to play in an ever more nationalistic China -- that of vocal defenders of the country's actions, even if it means sacrificing their own business opportunities.

Maybe. But what if some of them do want to actually defend China? Is that really so impossible to believe?

While some of them are more than happy to speak out, either because of their genuine support for the government

Ah, there we go

or the pragmatic belief that doing so could benefit their careers,

Probably! Just like with Black Lives Matters. Funny how that works huh?

others simply cannot afford to stay silent under intense online pressure and public scrutiny.

Can they really not stay silent? What will happen if they don't, huh? Face public scorn and ridicule for getting paid by foreign companies parroting anti-Chinese platforms? Imagine living in a country where the public every now and then actually cares what their multinational capitalist exploiters do and say!

Okay, that's enough. Every example in the rest of the article is about spokespersons cutting ties with foreign companies over slights against China, or about the general rising tensions between Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland.

I mean, Chinese people have their guard up for anything they suspect carrries racist or derogatory sentiment -- for example, there was a recent movie that got "cancelled" because it had a Chinese American actor making a lame dad joke. >("Do you know what these are?" he says, pointing to his knees. "Chi-KNEES!") At the same time, this is totally justified given the last 170 or years of white supremacist status quo in regards to China.

All in all, it seems either naive or disingenuous to ascribe the current situation to propaganda and manipulation by the Chinese government and not, you know, actual feelings of Chinese people regarding how China has been treated on the international stage in recent years.