white supremacists who came up with the verbiage you don’t like in the room right now?

Nah, just their legacy…

no real reason to split hairs

Not ignoring one of the largest crimes against humanity = splitting hairs… Interesting.

don’t want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?

You do realize you are the only person separating people based on skin color? My wife is German, I don’t hold her country’s past against her. But, if she was a Holocaust denier, or attempted to become a Nazi apologist, things would be different.

“OUR SLAVERY ISN’T AS BAD, AS THOSE YUCKY WHITES!”

The internalized guilt is strong with you…

I don’t know that Muslims are white tho… So that’s not very careful about language.

Islam is a religion you idiot, it’s not a race, or an ethnicity…Also, you are the only person legitimately utilizing skin color to categorize people. I don’t care what your pigmentation is, that’s not the thing that makes you a racist moron.

don’t generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way

We’re not talking about modern people, nor are we blaming modern people for their ancestors behaviour. We are examining the crimes historic people did to other historic people, which do vary in different degrees in scale and violence.

The racism you are accused of isn’t because of your people’s past, it’s because you are still utilizing the same racist classification system and justifications that led to their crimes in the first place.

would I prefer being an Asian woman being group raped by Asian men until death, would I rather be castrated and worked to death in persia, would I rather he worked to death an whipped on a plantation, would I rather be a house slave for the Ting (which by the way they said they were very nice to their slaves and I bet they was never a bad experience!), would I rather be a Chinese space to the Khan?

Lol, a lot of writing to admit you just don’t care about the suffering caused by chattel slavery in America. I didn’t claim that there weren’t horrific versions of slavery in east Asia, though you are exaggerating certain aspects. What I claimed is that there is a difference in scope and cruelty, compared between the two, which is just a fact.

none of them sound like a race is better than the other,

Lol, still about race for you huh.

you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it’s kinda silly!

Lol, ethnicity does not = race you fucking idiot.

The whole point of this is that race is construct that can’t be used to actually examine the ethnic prejudices that happened in a specific area at a specific time.

Racist

Says the person defending an argument developed by white supremacists…

Do I put a value difference between the Atlantic slave trade/chattel slavery and the sexual slavery of the Vietnamese women, or Korean women? No I guess I don’t! Every version of slavery is both abhorrent and devalues human life, and a well kept slave is functionally still a slave.

Lol, so the amount of people, the amount of violence, the amount of time it’s practiced, and for what reasons are all meaningless to you?

So if you had a choice of being from Africa and taken from their homeland and forced into perpetual slavery in the US, where your children could be whipped to death in front of you, or sold down the river for no reason. Or you could be in indebted servitude to a rich family in the tang dynasty who used you as a doorman, but you still got to go home to your family who weren’t enslaved at the end of the day.

Both choices would be equal for you? That’s just a false equivocation that is willfully ignorant to the actual human suffering that’s occurred.

This is just as bad as people claiming that the Irish had it just as bad in America as people in chattel slavery in the South because they were both technically “enslaved”.

you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.

Because it’s not even close… The chattel slavery that occurred in the Americas is widely regarded by historians as some of the worst forms of slavery in recorded history. By what ever criteria you are ranking it, whether it be by volume, lack of rights, deaths, or in human suffering.

This is not a controversial or even drastic claim. The technology and social hierarchy that allowed them to transport and organize that many people into chattel slavery was even possible prior to the transatlantic slave trade.

feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria

I’ve responded with a clear explanation to all of your ridiculously racist claims this whole time. Even providing sources that explain exactly how you came up with your assumptions. You on the other hand have ignored every question and have failed to explain how your claims are pertinent to the conversation.

Honestly just sounds like exceptionalism to me. Again, sounds like you are a racist.

Ahh yes, a rebuttal that disproves a highly inaccurate claim… Exceptionalism.

Again, how do I seem racist? I already said east asians can be racist, I’ve already said they’ve had slaves. The only thing I am denying is your inaccurate use of the word racism under specific context, and denying your clearly inaccurate claims African slave trade happening in East Asia during a specific dynasty.

You on the other hand have made generalized claims about race this whole time, in an effort to conflate all slavery as being equally bad.

You don’t seem like a racist, based on your claims you are a racist. Go kick rocks.

So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn’t engage in?

Slavery has occurred in nearly every society throughout human history, the abnormality which is unique to chattel slavery is the legal system that evolved to protect the owners right in totality. Even in ancient examples that most closely resemble the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas, there were still social contracts that prevented the enslaved from the levels of dire abuse African slaves experienced in the Americas.

Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?

Are you claiming that all slavery is equally bad? That being an indentured servant is the same as chattel slavery? Seems like a pretty convenient attitude for someone who is trying to distance themselves from the largest example of chattel slavery in recorded history.

think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently.

Lol, once again equating two totally separate societies and cultures as the same because racist from hundreds of years ago labeled anyone east of turkey as Asian. Cambodia is in South East Asia…

It’s crazy how you don’t see that trying to justify your position with race science is in fact racist. What exactly do you believe validates your examples of Arab slave trade and the Khmer being pertinent to a conversation about East Asia?

well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves.

Lol, no it really isn’t. You are utilizing your preconceptions about skin color and projecting it to a misinterpretation of a mystical story from the 9th century.

When someone from the tang dynasty is speaking about “westerns” they aren’t talking about Europeans, the Arab world, or Africa. They are usually referring to places immediately west of China or West China. In the case of the Kunlun, they are more than likely talking about modern day Malaysia and Cambodia.

Here is a good breakdown of the Kunlun in China, with sources.

Again, you are applying your preconceptions of racial science to a people that predated it, and have a vastly different understanding of things like skin color. The Kunlun weren’t all slaves, and the type of slavery that did happen was no where close to chattel slavery.

This is a great example of racism in action. You are generalizing an entire continent, the one with a majority of the world’s population, and conflating them to be the same peoples based on criteria that was developed by racial science. The reason this debate has gotten so misconstrued is because the system you utilize to categorize ethnic groups isn’t based on any legitimate or logical basis.

Racism is prejudice applied through the lens of racial science. There’s a similar prejudice that occurs in ethnic prejudice, that can lead to similarly devastating results as racism, but usually on a much smaller scale.

Racial prejudice isn’t based on any real criteria that can be consistently measured or predicted. Which can lead to people classifying an entire Continent of people as the same and lesser than. Instead of a conflict between two rival ethnic groups, it can lead to things like the Scramble for Africa.

I don’t know how you can’t see that as being relevant, and I honestly don’t know why you have a problem with me utilizing a more correct terminology. Utilizing ethnic prejudice is correct when race isnt a factor. Is this the first time you’ve heard of the terminology, or do you think it’s never appropriate? Why do you think both terms are used in academia if you don’t think there’s a delineation between the two?

(a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man)

The time I used was for chattel slavery, not for the transatlantic slave trade.

African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity

And you think the Arab Muslim world is relevant to a conversation about East Asia because your race science categorizes them all as Asians? Despite that most European countries have more culturally shared history than any East Asian country…

Where do you think the Chinese were getting these magical Kunlun slaves.

Lol, that’s from a mythical tale from the fucking tang dynasty… . If there actually were real Kunlun slaves, most historians agree that they were most likely from South East Asia.

the definition of chattel slavery isn’t the transatlantic slave trade, it’s using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide.

Never claimed it was? Chattel slavery isn’t just that they were treated as commodities, it that they were treated as personal property. Even in places where slaves were historically traded as a commodity they usually still had some rights. Whether that be you couldn’t break apart their family, enslave their children, or even enslave them in perpetuity.

Chattel slavery requires a system of laws protecting the rights of the owner, ensuring that he could treat slaves any way they see fit.

Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery.

First of all, the 18th century would be the 1700s not the 1800s as I originally stated. Secondly, the slavery that was akin to chattel slavery was introduced to India by the British when they invaded in the latter half of the 18th century.

Lastly, it’s kinda hilarious the only way you could state “Asians engaged in chattel slavery” is by utilizing terminology originating from racial science. We were talking about east Asia, not the Indian subcontinent.

Chattel slavery was not a Western only concept, you may ask yourselves why the Asian continent is not filled with the children of black slaves.

I mean that’s incorrect in so many ways… Chattel slavery was a Western concept, and African slaves never made their way to anywhere close to East Asia.

That’s because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.

Lol, source?

Whenever someone spends this much time trying to convince me that their feelings about other ethnic groups are not racist, because racism was invented by the West, I figure they are just trying to desperately hide their racism.

Lol, whatever you have to tell yourself to make believe Europe didn’t create one of the largest crimes against humanity ever with the transatlantic slave trade.

Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery?

Well, there’s the whole problem with specifying race again. What do you mean when you say Asian? Are we talking about east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or even south east Asia?

There was something akin to chattel slavery in India in the 1800s, but nothing as widespread or cruel as chattel slavery in the Americas. As far as east Asia, no there’s not a documented history of chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery is a very specific type of slavery that wasn’t prevalent until the 18th century.

Prejudice isn’t separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece

Lol, I didn’t say it was separate. All racist are prejudice, but not all prejudice is based on racism.

you just don’t like the word.

The word is fine, it’s your understanding of the word that is flawed.

Bro I think you might be racist.

Lol, against whom?

I think you might be trying to enact a revisionist view of history that lessens the actual meaning of racism. I think you are trying to equate all ethnic conflict to the systemic chattel slavery that race science enabled in the first place, making it seem less harmful than what it was.

you have a super secret definition of racism that doesn’t include people of similar ethnic groups not liking eachother because of past circumstances. Right?

Nope, just the scientifically correct version. Redefining the colloquial understanding of racism to exclude the history of racial discrimination and it’s foundation in slavery is immoral and incorrect.

It equivocates ethnic conflict such as your example of Japanese and Koreans as the same as the European racial science theory that vindicated chattle slavery based on skin tone.

A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist.

So any conflict between two ethnic groups is automatically the same as the European slave trade…? That totally makes sense

You are conflating ethnic conflict, which can happen for a multitude of reasons with racism, which is a prejudice specific to race.

you don’t want to define yourself as racist so you created a new category that doesn’t include you.

Lol, or…you are actively preserving racial science and projecting your cultures dark history unto people whom never partook in chattel slavery because not something as idiotic as melanin content.

There are specific terminologies for everything we talked about, you just refuse to part ways with race science because it’s so inherent to your upbringing.

If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that’s still racism.

The word you’re looking for is called prejudice. Prejudice is part of racism, but so is the belief in race itself. Ethnic prejudice can be just as violent, or as damaging to social cohesion, but it’s inherently different than racism.

Again referring to westerners as a block without nuance

Lol, first I was being pedantic and now I’m not being nuanced? Under the context of racial science, labeling it as a western ideology is correct and fairly specific. What exactly is it lacking in nuance?

Ethnicity is too, more by definition.

Ethnicity has a set definition in the social sciences. Simply calling something a social construct does not equate it to flawed social constructs like race. Unless you are claiming that things like language and culture are just as meaningless as someone’s skin color, then there are inherent differences between ethnicity and race.

China also has xenophobia and racism. Ask Tibet.

Xenophobia yes, racism no. If race has no pertinence to racism, why utilize the terminology? Why preserve the ideology of a long debunked science?

What race are the Chinese and Tibetan?

Ask Taiwan or hong Kong nationals. That’s not news to anyone.

Lol, you are getting even more wrong the more you type. People from HK and Taiwan are the same race, and ethnicity. You are now equating nationality to race…

I can tell you totally understand what youre talking about…

Is it so hard for you to understand that racial science was never established as an inherent truth in most of the world? That it’s only the west who utilize the word Asian to describe the majority of the world’s population.

Ethnic and religious conflict, and nationalism lead different groups into the same type of ethnic prejudices, but that is inherently different from racism within the study of social sciences.

I’m not sure what that has to do with my rebuttal? I was confronting the claim that is now deleted, that China has never had a problem with racism.

I’m not claiming people aren’t being racist or xenophobic about this game. I was just explaining the difference between the western concept of racism and the history of ethnic conflict in east Asia.

the Wikipedia definition wrong then? You should have it edited.

Lol, depending on context yeah. If you read further into the article you’d find that it’s not a black and white subject.

“While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science”

Because westerners are so obsessed with race as an inherent truth, ethnicity and race have evolved to be similes in the English language. This is similar to how sex and gender are often used as similes, and that works in most cases, but it’s not appropriate in scientific context.

Your pedantry

It’s not pedantry when the argument is specifically about differentiating between racism and ethnic conflict.

My first statement was a rebuttal to someone claiming that racism hasn’t ever been a problem in China.

As does our scientific understanding of what constitutes race and ethnicity and its all more social construct than anything well defined.

Race is entirely a social construct, equating it to ethnicity is just wildly inaccurate and does nothing but validate the theory of racial science.

Irish isn’t a race of people…that’s an ethnicity, therefore they experience ethnic prejudice.

Ok but seems like a distinction without a difference.

I mean the distinction is fairly self evident. I as an Asian person cannot hold racial prejudices against other Asians, but can have ethnic prejudices.

Neither racism, nor ethnic racism,

Man, you guys just don’t understand that race is not an actual idea people outside the west utilize. Race is exclusively a western concept used to generalize people outside of Europe.

have anything to do with video games

I didn’t say they were? I was responding to a claim that someone else made and then deleted.

There’s a pretty clear delineation from racism and ethnic prejudice. One is a classification system used to loosely categorize people by general region and skin tone. The other is actually based on ethnic groups, and tends to actually be based on historical context.

Defined under the social construct of racism, a Han Chinese person and a Manchurian are the same “race”, they’re just Asian or “yellow”.

Ethnic prejudice is often just as bad as racism, but is generally based on actual historical context instead of a defunct “science”, that was only created to justify slavery.

Enjoy your champagne racism.

Lol, you do realize that you are the one demanding the globe to view ethnic conflict through the lens of race "science "?

Racism isn’t exactly the right word, but China and the rest of east asia have thousands of years of historical ethnic prejudices. It’s just not interpreted as “racism” because it’s more complicated than the color of your skin, and that’s typically what westerners can wrap their heads around at any given point.

Lol, I’m not gonna bother breaking down your arguments again. You clearly aren’t interested in any kind of honest discourse. The constant flip flop between being purposely obtuse and then aggressively pedantic is a wild way of trying to get your point across.

It’s actually kind of impressive that you can work in a variety of different logical fallacies into so many of the responses while never addressing the original topic.

Have a great rest of your day.

China has been actively dumping US securities for years now. Given the openly hostile stance US is taking towards China, I fully expect that this trend will only accelerate going forward https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202303/1287406.shtml

And yet there is obviously still enough demand for US securities to allow the US to borrow more money every year.

oil is a small portion of Russian overall economy.

It’s like 30-40% of their federal revenue and funds the entirety of their national wealth fund… Which is what they are utilizing instead of issuing securities. I would hardly call it a small portion of their economy.

The whole point of buying securities is that you expect them to retain value, hence why it’s important for them to be backed by something tangible.

The whole point of buying securities is to have a reserve of foreign currency with high liquidity at large volumes. Gold is tangible, but it holds no inherent value, it isn’t exactly the easiest thing to move around the globe, and is a fairly easy market to disrupt if attempting to liquidate at significant volumes. There’s a reason everyone moved away from the gold standard in the first place.

That’s a process of issuing currency, you’re not borrowing anything from anybody.

Ahh, yes. Lending value and then being paid back that value with interest isn’t “borrowing”. I have some calls to make to some credit card companies…

Fluctuations in trade obviously impact domestic economy, but they can be weathered and they’re not catastrophic in the long run.

I think you’re moving the goal post here… Also, “can be weathered and they’re not catastrophic in the long run” requires supporting evidence.

That’s precisely what Russia illustrated at the start of the war when the west put the most severe sanctions it could come up with.

How? The Russian government moved to a war time economy, growth isn’t exactly a surprise in that scenario. The hard part is sticking the landing, what happens if they are succeeded or fail in Ukraine? It’s not like war actually creates material value that is tangible and lasting for the majority of citizens.

Misallocation of labour and resources as I’ve explained several different ways in this very thread.

And what causes the misallocation of labour and resources…? You are just utilizing cyclical logic.

Politics encompass more than simply allocation of resources. In this particular case, the politics were that Yeltsin decided he’d rather be the president of Russia than a deputy of USSR

So economic collapses are always caused by a misallocation of resources and productive forces… but not in the case of the USSR. Their economic collapse was solely because of Yeltsin. Got it…

economic decline was the core reason, then you wouldn’t have seen high level of public support for USSR.

We weren’t talking about the dissolution of the USSR, when I brought up them as an example I was solely talking about the economic crisis of the late 80’s and 90’s.

You’d see a situation that’s similar to what we see in US today where majority of the population no longer believes that their country is working in their interest.

You’re conflating voting to keep the USSR and “believing the country no longer working for their interest”. It’s not like 30% of the country is voting to change their nationality/economic system.

grew up in USSR, so I’m speaking from personal experience here. The kinds of horrors that are happening in US today, were completely beyond imagination.

A bit anecdotal don’t you think? I’m sure if I asked some nepo baby if America is doing well I’d get the same exact answer as someone who grew up in the projects.

The shortages started after the dissolution, and introduction of liberal reforms. One thing USSR did quite well was ensuring that everyone had a decent minimum standard of living.

Your link is from 83’, aka not the late 80s and early 90s. Here’s one from 1990

Again, we were originally talking about a specific monetary policy. You seem to be wanting to bring this all back to a gish gallop about the Soviet Union, and not even about their economic policy.

Again, that’s my original point that labor and resources aren’t being allocated in the interest of the majority which is leading to discontent and civil unrest among the public.

And how does civil unrest connect back to debt monetization? How is modern Russia allocating nearly half of their federal spending on the military and “secret” spending, serving the interest of the majority?

I’m not arguing against backing debt with securities though.

What was the whole point of the entire conversation?

What I’ve been saying is that Russia is in a good position to do so.

I don’t agree with your assessment. If they were able to sell securities they would be selling more securities, it’s kinda a no brainer. However, securities are susceptible to sanction activities. They’d rather use their gold reserves as a way to move around sanctions than to give the US another easily trackable and sanctionable resource.

The main item with high liquidity that’s not being heavily targeted by sanctions is oil and gas. But, utilizing those for securities would effect revenue already earmarked for the Fed and their national monetary fund.

I never claimed Russia is on the brink of collapse or anything. So long as oil stays above $60 a barrel, allowing them to fund their nwf and maintain wartime spending, they’ll probably be fine for a while. But that doesn’t mean they can solve indefinite deficit spending via “printing money like the US”.

It’s very obviously shrinking in the long run given that now there’s a whole alternate world economy forming around BRICS

If US debt is growing at an ever faster past, that logically demands that us securities are being sold at an ever higher pace…

China is one of the largest buyers of US securities. Having a large foreign exchange reserve is beneficial for export economics whose government mainly relies on vat taxes for revenue.

hence why sanctions against Russia failed in the first place. So, it’s pretty clear that Russia would have no problem backing their security with tangible stuff that countries need.

Sanctions failed because oil is still 80$ a barrel and the vast majority of governments are run by people wanting to line pockets.

It’s an example of a tangible asset Russia can back securities with

The whole point of buying securities is that they are liquid assets that can be traded as or like currency.

Borrowing money in a currency you yourself issue is a nonsensical concept.

It’s not really a radical concept…? Especially considering that every major economy does some form of debt monetization.

There is a difference between domestic market and international trade. The value of the currency domestically is not directly related to its trade value.

I think “Not only that, but currency being valued lower internationally actually plays in favor of the government in a country that’s primarily an exporter of goods.” Is kinda proof that there is a direct correlation. In a globalized economy domestic and international markets are inherently intertwined.

These collapses all directly relate to the decline in material conditions.

You don’t say…so what is causing the decline in material conditions?

Meanwhile, the dissolution of USSR was primarily political in nature.

Isn’t how we allocate productive forces always political in nature?

The economy of USSR was certainly in a far better shape than US is today where millions of people are currently starving, unable to get healthcare, or even afford housing.

You really think that the current US economy is doing worse than the Soviet Union in the late 80’s and early 90’s?

Food shortages were rampant in the 90s, even in Moscow. If we were utilizing the same metrics as America for “starving” (aka food insecurity) then the majority of the Soviet Union would have been “starving”.

Healthcare by the late 80s in the USSR had fallen tremendously, mostly because their transition to prioritizing outpatient care, which caused their hospital system started falling apart.

As far as housing… Yeah, America is always gonna win that particular shitty trophy. Though that’s not exactly because of an inability of production, moreso an inability to empathize with the working class.

I’m not claiming that America has a great economy, or that capitalism is the best economic system to distribute resources. Just that certain economic principals are relevant wether you have a command economy or not. China is a socialist state and they still back their debt with securities, because not doing so leads to currency instabilities in both the domestic and international sectors of the economy.

Collapses aren’t caused by loss of production capacity, they’re caused by misallocation of resources that leads to an unacceptable decline in the standard of living for the majority.

Oh, like 39% of the federal budget going to the military? You don’t think that might catch up with them at some point?

They’re very much printing money, meanwhile the demand for US bonds globally is in fact dropping.

Lol, I mean money is being printed in the literal sense. But, it’s still backed by securities.

As far as bond demand goes, it tends to dip and surge in popularity based on its yield.

There’s absolutely nothing preventing Russia from backing its currency with securities as well. In fact, Russia is in a much better position to do so because they’ve been stockpiling gold.

Securities are only valuable if the buyer believes they will be paid out once they have matured. Russia could start borrowing and utilizing securities, but they don’t exactly have a wide market to borrow from. Basically they’d have to borrow from China or maybe India, and those two likely wouldn’t be interested in gold reserves.

Gold isn’t a currency or even like a currency, it’s value declines the more it moves. It’s not exactly the best thing to back securities with, it’s more geared for purchasing when you have currency instabilities. More than likely they would have to back their securities with interest in oil/natural gass. However, that wouldn’t really help their problems too much, as that’s how they find their National Wealth Fund.

mean the fact that it can is literally the premise behind MMT.

Borrowing money is not the same as “printing money”.

very nature of currency is that it’s just a social contract. What actually matters is whether the country is able to allocate its productive forces effectively.

Yes, currency is a social contract, one that’s based on trust. How that currency performs and what it represents can influence that trust. Currency is not completely insulated from material realities, and the gap between the stated worth of the currency and the material realities of the country that determine that worth can determine how people outside the country will value it.

What actually matters is whether the country is able to allocate its productive forces effectively. As long as a country can continue to produce the things people need then the economy will be fine.

I mean… That’s a neat theory, but it kinda is easily disputed by nearly all economic collapses of the 19th century and onwards. If this is true, then did the Soviet Union’s economy explode simply due to an inability to allocate productive forces accordingly?

Has there been an economic collapse outside of a major war that was caused simply by a country losing its production capacity?