There are a lot of directions to explore in looking into the question of supposed Chinese racism against white people.

For instance, racism is a systemic oppression based on ethnically-delineated class hierarchies, and so China, a nation historically oppressed by white colonial powers can't have any meaningful systemic oppression of "white" people (and that puts aside that whiteness is a claim to colonial power, and not an ethnic group, and thus not capable of being oppressed on the basis of ethnicity in our current reality).

If only looking at prejudices or bigotry and not systemic oppression, then I would say there's more racism towards Indian people (and Koreans) in the mainstream of Chinese bigotry, but let's assume for a second that there is merit to an assertion that there is a current of anti-white sentiment (though with the caveat that I struggle to find any concrete examples of that being a prevalent sentiment in either the Chinese population or the nation-state).

As an aside, while the Chinese population is primarily Han, there are 200 million ethnic minorities within China, which is more than half the entire population of the US, and more than the entire population of all but five countries (one of which is China itself). So China, by virtue of its massive population, also has a massive population of ethnic minorities that have distinct linguistic and cultural identities. To greater or lesser effect, China has governmental, educational, and cultural policies that are intended to promote the peaceful coexistence of its diverse populations, which is already so far beyond the carceral slave-state of racial capitalist America that even questioning China's racism while living in the US is wildly chauvinist and Orientalist.

Anyway, back to the idea of nationalism as a form of anti-imperialism. Let's try to imagine that there is an anti-white (read: anti-colonizer) sentiment in China. It would be impossible to pinpoint a judicial or legislative bias against white people, as China has dealt incredibly favourably towards majority white nations where it wasn't being outright exploited by them.

This leaves us with finding that sentiment in educational and cultural practices. This is where your research led you to question the potential for Chinese nationalism to be "racist" in its relation to colonial nations.

Is anti-imperialist nationalism comparable to the nationalism of the colonizer?

I think a key part of understanding this is the way that the colonizers leverage anti-nationalism against the colonized. We see it first-hand in, for instance, Palestine. To the colonizer, there was never such a nation as Palestine. This discursive strategy is employed to destabilize the cohesion of the Palestinian Resistance. The first stage in maintaining sovereignty is to assert a national identity that binds the oppressed in a common vision of liberation.

This is echoed in colonial situations globally: look no further than Turtle Island. The denial of the national character of Indigenous nations is a crucial element of supplanting their national sovereignty and installing a regime of racist nationalism that enfolds and oppresses them. Thus Indigenous nationalism is a resistance strategy to maintain an inter-generational through-line of culture and tradition that has survived the assaults of the colonizer and continues to be worth struggling for.

During the so-called Scramble for Africa, European powers were resurrecting Western (Greek) histories that denied the very possibility of an authentically African national character, going so far as asserting that Egypt was nothing more than a colony, and dissecting African nations into disparate, incoherent, and uncivilized tribes (see Sheikh Anta Diop's Nations negres et culture).

So we can see how desperately colonizers deny nationalism to the colonized, which already begins to give shape to the potential for nationalism to function as an anti-colonial resistance strategy.

In Aimé Césaire's Discourse on Colonialism he acknowledges that the nation was a bourgeois, European invention, but at the same time argues that the development of nationalities, that is to say, diverse, self-governing, sovereign nations free from colonial rule, were essential to the liberation of the people and the security of the world. While nation-states as a European function of racist border control are a relatively new tool, nations as a cultural binding tie between people and peoples is a long-standing reality.

Fanon elaborates on the nationalist character of the National Liberation Front, which was integral to the liberation of Algeria. That nationalism was at the heart of Algeria's awakening and its subsequent war of liberation. An important facet of liberatory nationalism, though, is that the nation comprises of all who would be equal parts of the nation (see A Dying Colonialism). It's a nationalism based on shared cultural ideals and solidarity; commitment to the equality and liberation of all was enough to grant Algerian nationality to even the European French who would willingly give up their position as oppressor in Fanon's portrait.

This is, again, where you need to look no further than Turtle Island to see the possibilities of a nationalism that isn't reliant on the violent, racist concept of the nation-state: before colonization, Indigenous nations lived within the same physical boundaries. And this isn't unique to the Western hemisphere. There are examples of multi-national locales around the world; places where those with independent national identities can co-exist through treaty, respecting that the members of disparate nations are sovereign and bound by their nation's laws and customs, while also enforcing a common law of coexistence to govern interactions between nations (For a simple, albeit weak, example of this, you can see the Québecois nation living within Canada, though because of Canada's core as a colonial enterprise this is largely ineffectual outside of symbolic gestures and some mild legislative concessions).

Now why do I mention all of this? Because these are examples that might be a little more familiar, and a little more acceptable to a Western progressive who is largely ignorant of China. Also to answer your question about whether all nationalism is bad a little more broadly.

However, if we circle back to my aside about China's ethnic minorities we start to see a model approaching what I've outlined (and one practiced by Indigenous societies in places around the globe at various points in time, including Indigenous peoples within modern China). Within the larger set of legislative and governing bodies that ensure coexistence and mutual prosperity, China has local and ethnic governing bodies that ensure laws that respect the cultural and traditional sovereignty of minority groups. I want to stress here that I say it approaches the model, because China is still a nation-state, and ethnic minorities within China are not distinct and sovereign nations.

There are quite a few reasons for this, including a different historical context for governance, but a major one is the importance of Chinese nationalism. Chinese nationalism has undergone many seismic shifts in its long history--a history plagued with competing dynasties eradicating and replacing the governing bodies, where ethnic groups have variously assumed majority power at different times.

Narrowing our lens to the Qing dynasty to the present--that is to say, the period of capitalism's birth and the global networks of European enslavement and colonisation--China's history has been one of devastation at the hands of the white foreigners. From plunder, to outright colonies, to massive extermination campaigns, to deliberate poisonings, enslavement, labour exploitation, large-scale sexual assault, and despite all that depravity a race science that promoted (and still promotes to this day) China as "the sick man of Asia" and responsible for most of the world's ills (literally, blaming them for SARS-CoV-2, SARS, small pox, the plague, etc.), Europe has been an absolute disaster for China.

Is an education based on highlighting the truth of Europe's (still ensconced) colonial and racist beliefs and actions one that promotes "xenophobia?" I would contend that xenophobia at its outset is the wrong term, as it is not a general aversion to "foreigners" that you are discussing (take for instance the xenophobia of racist Anglo nations who decry even other Europeans as unwelcome migrants), but merely a directed dislike of the perpetrators of untold violence (both on their own people and globally).

Even putting aside their personal history with Europeans, Chinese nationalism is, as I said, essential to guarding the peaceful coexistence and prosperity of all those who fall under Chinese jurisdiction. There is a world order, a hegemonic mode of production, that demands imperial wars and waste for profit. One that has attacked--more or less successfully--every socialist project in the world. One that feasts on its own people when it isn't getting enough blood abroad (and there will never be enough blood to sate it). One that to this day exploits China while portraying them as backwards and uncivilized and deserving of exploitation, that demonizes their chosen methods of liberation, and that would claw it all back in a heartbeat.

China has had to maintain a delicate balancing act with the West (one that at times has been more successful than others), and is currently responsible for 60% of all poverty eliminated globally since the 90s. That has come through Chinese nationalism--overcoming a position as colonial subject by empowering the people to feel that to be Chinese is something worth struggling for. That pride of self and nation is an important tie that is binding 1.4 billion people together in the largest project to improve life that the world has ever seen.

I can't even add an email to my account. In the settings the email field is there, but if I put one in and press save nothing happens. There's no prompt or field for me to enter my password there, so it's not like that's what's stopping it. It's a sad mystery.

As cool as the Labrys is is, because its symbology is tied to Amazonians, it's used mostly by lesbian separatists and trans-exclusionary lesbian groups (which is ironic since it was designed by a man). The background colour of that flag is also violet, not lavender, as a reference to Sappho and not the lavender menace.

Lightseeker on IQiYi is a historical drama about Mao Zedong during the Republican period (starts in 1917) that my wife and I started watching recently, we've only seen a couple episodes but it's pretty great so far.

This is how I realize I do not know my password. Rest in peace, MuinteoirSaoirse <3

Well we will always disagree because I fundamentally am pro-choice, and not pro forced abortions. So no point discussing this with you further.

Nothing wrong with wanting to learn more. For your question about pathology, I think there's an important element missing. What you list are medical characteristics that are firstly, not visible, and secondly, not used as a method of systemically oppressing people. These are not medical pathologies that are used a way to pathologize people in a social context.

To be more clear, especially in the Georgian and Victorian era, there became in (Western Anglo) society a hyperfixation on the body politic and impurities therein. This was a result of the European Enlightenment's legacy leading society to embrace the scientific method as an arbiter of ultimate, objective truth (and yes, that is contradictory to the scientific method's purpose to pursue unknowns and accept changes in knowledge-bases, but bourgeois science is wielded as a political tool).

Some of the most major ways that this was leveraged was the introduction of "public health" measures. In England, for instance, sweeping anti-sex worker laws were instituted under the guise of protecting public health from the assumed-diseased sex workers who were tainting the body politic. This was aided because there was a sexually transmitted infection problem; however the focus was not on hygiene practices, it was on blaming specifically sex workers in order to immiserate already-precarious and impoverished women who were using sex work as a method of participating in the burgeoning wage-labour market from which they were largely banned as part of the enclosures and the institution of capitalism (see Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation and Michel Foucault's Birth of the Clinic and History of Sexuality)

Another way that public health measures were used to leverage fears of blood impurities in the body politic was the resurgence of anti-miscegenation laws that posited inter-racial reproduction as a form of "tainting" of the blood of white society. You'll find a lot of literature at the time concerned with the purity of white blood.

The reason I bring this up specifically is because Black people especially have been painted as a threat to the body politic since America's inception, and this grew more important to the ruling class after the ostensible abolition of slavery. With the failure of anti-miscegenation laws, a new way for the ruling class to demonize the impurity of Black bodies, to assert that Black people are threats to public health, Nixon's (and later, Raegan's) War on Drugs, and, subsequently, the HIV/AIDS crisis, which was portrayed as a "Black disease" and left to run rampant through communities of colour on a national level, and to devastate largely Black nations on a global scale.

Why do I bring this up?

"Black people make up roughly 13 percent of the American population, but about 51 percent of America's fat population." (Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness by Da'shaun Harrison).

BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet in Belgium, who played a key role in the foundations of eugenics. His work in trying to determine l'homme moyen (the average man) is what led to the creation of the BMI. “For Quetelet, the average body presented an ideal beauty; the normal, conceived of average, emerged as an ideal type to be desired. It was Quetelet that formulated the BMI, initially through the measurement of typical weights among French and Scottish conscripts. Instead of labelling the peak of the bell-curve as merely normal, he labelled it ‘ideal’, with those deviating either ‘overweight’ or ‘underweight’ instead of heavier than average or lighter than average." (Erna Kubergovic, The Eugenics Archive)

“By 1985, the National Institutes of Health had revised their definition of “obesity” to be tied to individual patients’ BMIs. And with that, this perennially imperfect measurement was enshrined in U.S. public policy. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health once again changed their definitions of “overweight” and “obese,” substantially lowering the threshold to be medically considered fat." ... “By the turn of the millennium, the BMI’s simple arithmetic had become a de rigueur part of doctor visits. Charts depicting startling spikes in Americans’ overall fatness took us by storm, all the while failing to acknowledge the changes in definition that, in large part, contributed to those spikes. At best, this failure in reporting is misleading. At worst, it stokes resentment against bodies that have already borne the blame for so much, and fuels medical mistreatment of fat patients.” (Aubrey Gordon, The Bizarre and Racist History of the BMI)

In May 2004, the CDC published a report concluding that obesity was killing 400 000 Americans a year, and it was becoming America's number one preventable death--more than tobacco. This is based on a BMI screening where anyone "overweight" is classified as obese. This began the national War on Obesity, and led to our current climate of understanding obesity to be a public health epidemic plaguing America. It also led to an explosion in the diet and health industry.

But was the report solid?

"Dr. Terry Pechacek, who was the associate director for science in the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, wrote in an email to his colleagues that he was “worried that the scientific credibility of the CDC likely could be damaged by the manner in which this paper and valid, credible, and repeated scientific questions about its methodology have been handled.” After stating that he had warned two of the report’s authors along with another senior scientist, Pechacek wrote, “I would never clear this paper if I had been given the opportunity to provide a formal review.”" (Belly of the Beast, Da'shaun Harrison).

"CDC researchers did not calculate the 400,000 deaths by checking to see if the weight of each person was a factor in his or her [or their] death. Rather, they estimated a figure by comparing the death rates of thin and heavy people using data that were nearly thirty years old. Although heavier people tend to die more frequently than people in mid-range weights, it is by no means clear that their weight is the cause of their higher death rates. It is far more likely that their weight is simply a proxy for other, more important factors such as their diet, exercise, or family medical history. The researchers, however, simply assumed that obesity was the primary cause of death, even though there was no clear scientific rationale for this supposition.” (Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic, by J. Eric Oliver)

So what does that leave us with? A system of devaluing humans not only in the social realm, but in the medical realm, built on a system of classification of weight not based on health, but based on standard deviations from a mean human. A system that largely and disproportionately affects Black people and is used to position someone as inherently unhealthy regardless of actual medical fact. A system that allows those whose appearances don't fit the white European standard to be labelled as a threat to public health, masquerading a public health measure to secure the body politic.

In a lot of the fat activism that I am privy to, the standard-used term is fat, however because of how pervasive anti-fat/fatphobic sentiment is in our society, there is no real universal choice in English. Plenty of people would incredibly insulted to be called fat, I'm sure.

I agree that language should be decided by the people impacted, however there is also the issue that not everyone affected sees language the same way (more personally, I run into trouble in this area when discussing many queer/trans issues, as there is a lot of fraught linguistic tensions that come from various contexts for language use and differing levels of self-identification and reclamation of language).

In general the best practice is to let people guide you with the language they use to self-describe. This is tough when the language is being used to describe others, of course, such as in this original post.

A lot of it is also about context--which is truly difficult, especially online, because it often boils down to a "vibes check" on whether the usage of language is intended to be insulting. Since in this post StillNoLeft self-describes as fat and even provided a nice read on why people choose to use fat I would think it's fair to assume she wasn't being insulting, but was using fat neutrally.

In fat activism clinical terms like obese and overweight are specifically disliked because they are inherently judgmental, as they pathologize fatness and hold within them that there is an ideal weight. For someone to be overweight there must be a correct weight that they are over, which is antithetical to fat-acceptance activism.

(And of course, unhealthy is a terrible choice of word because you aren't privy to whether or not someone is healthy based on their size, so to call someone unhealthy simply for being fat is to play into the body politic of fat as a societal disease)

If someone is young enough that they can't decide for themselves then the failure was their impregnation to begin with, and then we're talking about tackling an entirely separate issue. This conversation is about teenagers not small children, however at any age a child can get pregnant they should be old enough for you to explain why they shouldn't have a kid without needing to coerce them. And the percentage of people that young who get pregnant wanting to carry the child to term if they have proper education and access to abortion is just...miniscule. Especially considering at that age there would be a whole slew of medical complications that would likely require intervention for medical reasons, and not purely constructed social reasons, which is what the discussion has been about.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is up to you to tell "some kid" (a teenager) what is best for them and their body. I am staunchly pro choice not pro forced abortion, so we will never agree. We don't need to discuss this further.

Well we will always disagree because I fundamentally am pro-choice, and not pro forced abortions. So no point discussing this with you further.

The problem with this is that it is still based on an idea that parents know what's best for their children, that other people should have agency over someone's body, and that minors (an arbitrary number that can extend from 15 to 20 depending on where in the world you are) are unfit to make life-changing decisions for themselves. The idea that because someone is a minor they should be coerced into an abortion is, as I said, something I simply will never agree with. You made a sweeping generalization that a "kid should not be having a kid" as if that applies to every single situation in which a minor is pregnant.

At what age does someone have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy? Because ultimately this boils down to you personally feeling like minors are kids and are not able to have kids. Which includes so many assumptions: is an 18 year old in New Zealand (a minor) someone whose parents should coerce them into an abortion? But that same 18 year old can have a kid in the US because they're not a minor?

Edit: also saying that right now, because of the current conditions of society, teenagers can't have kids because they don't have supports but in a different society they could is weak as hell. Right now, because of the current conditions of society, [insert any marginalized person] can't have kids because they don't have supports. Come on, this argument sucks.

Their brains aren't developed enough is not the counter-point you think, and is exactly what I was talking about.

When does a brain become developed enough to have agency? 17? (still a minor). 18? (still a minor in many countries). 19? (still a minor in a couple countries). 20? What about people who are slow to "develop"?

At what level of disability is a brain not developed enough to have agency?

At what level of neurodivergence?

This is the exact eugenics angle I was getting at.

You don't coerce abortions in teenagers, you provide them with educations and supports, and yes, access to abortions and an understanding of how they work, and you destigmatize them so they can choose to abort if they desire/realize that they would be unable to have a kid.

Explaining to someone why they shouldn't have a kid and what other options may be preferable is not the same as coercion

Edit: their brains aren't developed to make good decisions is also the exact argument used by chuddy parents to prevent kids from seeking gender affirming care or even being openly queer.

I think this is an abysmal thought, and I simply can't agree with you. I work with plenty of people who have been children of teenage pregnancies, as well as people who have had pregnancies while teenagers, and I simply can't countenance any argument that they should have been coerced into terminating the pregnancy.

Someone's agency isn't just invalid simply because they haven't reached an arbitrarily determined age of majority. Coercion into abortion is an awful thing to do.

The actual solution is sex education, access to abortion where desired, and a society that prioritizes healthy relationships and ensuring resources to live. Not pressuring someone into an abortion they don't want because you're paternalistically deciding for them whether or not they can have children. And the argument that they don't have the means to provide is firstly, not as clear cut as that, and secondly, an argument that our society shouldn't allow children not to have resources. Not some individualistic punishment that forces abortion on broke people.

I will also add that saying someone should be coerced into abortion because they can't provide "any type of life or future for their kid" is the same eugenics reasoning people in poverty (primarily racially marginalized people) and disabled people have been coerced into abortions through the medical industry.

This paternalistic argument that parents should have agency over their children enough to force abortion is about as reprehensible as saying they should be able to force pregnancy.

It's also the same argument parents use about why they should get to control their children's bodies when it comes to depriving them of sexual agency and medical autonomy (for instance, vaccinations, blood transfusions, puberty blockers, hormone replacement, etc). Teenagers are people, not property.

Well, I wouldn't put it past him, I'm sure he's got a lot of awful thoughts in that head of his. The message that is meant to be taken by his audience though is one of minors being vulnerable to the evil doctor conspiracy to force abortions.

I think he phrased it that way because there is a real problem with parents coercing their pregnant teenagers into getting abortions, and he wanted to use that actual occurrence as a boogeyman to paint all abortions as a form of coercion and violence against autonomy. This is an important fight for anti-abortionists because people who believe in choice are able to (rightfully) point out how important bodily autonomy is.

This ignores, of course, the overwhelming number of people whose bodily autonomy is being refused by banning abortions, and also that the entire premise is built around coercion in bias of remaining pregnant, which is equally as repugnant as coercion in bias of terminating pregnancy (but with potential for vastly greater and more harmful consequences).

Plenty of teenagers (minors) have sex, consensually, with their also-teenage boyfriends, and as a result pregnancy occurs. Teenage pregnancy (the pregnancy of a minor) is not inherently sexual assault.

The saddest part is she didn't even misgender anyone. She has just been riled at the mere thought of misgendering being something a person might care about.

"Because the suffering matters. We were beat to shit in the streets so these toddlers can whine about being misgendered.

These people are fucking weak and gonna learn real soon what actual oppression tastes like."

She just has fantasies of being on the oppressor's side and trans kids getting beaten because she feels like somehow trans people have all been exempt from oppression until now. Putting aside her obvious transmisia, this is a grown woman who is so scared about being included in the anti-trans backlash (because she is gender nonconforming) that she is trying to position herself with the oppressors and has convinced herself that it's actually the trans kids who are to blame. And her outlet is impotent rage on a website full of strangers who are having a conversation about a more tolerant and caring future.

Truly such a sad existence.

Doing everything she can to explain how much she hates trans people without just saying she is a proud supporter of LGB drop the T.