133

China’s Great Wall of Villages: China has moved thousands of people to new settlements on its frontiers. It calls them “border guardians.” (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 month ago

So China plays literally The Settlers.

[-] Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Aah, The Settlers 2 is amazing! Might need to reinstall next week to play a bit...

[-] Madnessx9@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yup one of the best games I've played

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

Operation Human Shield?

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 month ago

So Mongolia is not a threat?

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

They’re the exception.

[-] metaStatic@kbin.earth 6 points 1 month ago

I understood that reference

[-] Glowstick@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Just based on the title it sounds sensible to me. I assume there's some incentive that makes the people want to do this

[-] themadcodger@kbin.earth 43 points 1 month ago

China is paying them to live there. They're also inside disputed territories.

[-] Bob_Robertson_IX@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Isn't this what the United States did, just without the genocide?

yes, I know they too have committed genocide but I'm referring specifically to this action

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 21 points 1 month ago

I mean yes, only the US did it more than a hundred years ago. A more modern comparison would be Israel, and, well... yeah.

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah, and it also somewhat happens as a consequence of building military infrastructure there too. Military bases need people to staff them, and those people need food, water, entertainment etc etc

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Canada too (1953). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation

I'm sure it is wrong, but it also the way geopolitics is played.

[+] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -50 points 1 month ago

China bad? This is so obviously framed as aggression by China. This smells of pro-war propaganda, reprogramming people to expect a coming war with China. Be weary of the sneaky China man on your borders! Next they'll tell us Taiwan should join Nato.

Meanwhile the New York Times is supporting Trump and thus supporting fascism.

[-] Visstix@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month ago

I mean building villages in areas claimed by other countries is kind of a dick move huh.

[-] Blackout@kbin.run 2 points 1 month ago

If you've ever been to China there is already villages everywhere, including on these borders. They are just doing the same thing they did to Xinjiang, pack it with easterners to dilute the local population and strengthen its claims. YouTuber "Little Chinese Everywhere" just did a tour of some of these villages bordering Nepal and India.

[+] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -22 points 1 month ago

But building villages in areas claimed by your own country would be fine, right?

This is the problem with this article, it just assumes that China's claims are illegitimate. I don't know that. Do you? I DO know the new york times has lied in the past and is supporting fascism at this moment. So coming from an unreliable source, this claim should be treated with very much suspicion since it's used to justify a narrative. This article just glosses over the presumably complex historical and international legal questions. But even the fascist supporting new york times makes it clear that China isn't claiming vast swathes of land, but it's merely creeping on the border of disputed areas.

[-] Visstix@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

China claims a lot of things, and it's usually bullshit. Same goes for russia claiming land of Ukraine, or Israel claiming land of Palestine.

[+] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -15 points 1 month ago

Sure but the same could be true for e.g. India. But the gist of the article makes no allowance for that. It frames the whole issue as aggression by China. I lack understanding about the history of their borders, but I do understand how propaganda works. But criticize the propaganda and you're called a dissident and tankie. What does that tell you?

[-] Visstix@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

The article frames it as defending their border, but also states that 12 of the new villages are on disputed territory. I don't see any propaganda here, which part do you mean?

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Anti-china = propaganda

If they're bitching about being called a tankie, there's probably a reason.

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -5 points 1 month ago

I don’t see any propaganda here, which part do you mean?

Ok I'll try to answer that seriously.

I mean building villages in areas claimed by other countries is kind of a dick move huh.

The existence of the article itself and the framing makes it clear that the spotlight is on what China is doing. Not on India or US. And no, it's not just me, you yourself interpreted the article as intended: China is being aggressive by invading areas claimed by other countries.

The framing makes it clear that claims by China are not even to be considered as legitimate - obviously they have no claim and obviously they are sneaky. This is a clear western bias.

What I see here is a dispute between China and India (and nepal etc). I am NOT in favor of China or their policies. But why is this world news? Do those countries need our help in sorting out their problems? What are we supposed to do?

And THAT is the push towards "war" or "encircling" China. And this isn't the only article I've seen in this vein. For example China's reactions to joint maneuvers between US and Taiwan are framed as threats and aggression from China. This isn't a question of right or wrong or good vs evil for me, it's simply a question of who's home turf you are on and how to reduce tensions. The US does not have the moral standing see e.g. Iraq invasion and WMDs. But it seems we have learned nothing.

So why care? Lefties complain about too high defense spending, but articles like this provide the fertile ground for a general feeling of fear about enemies that could sneak up and attack us if we're not vigilant and spend. And this fuels the arms race of the other side.

[-] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

👌👍

China has definitely earned the benefit of the doubt with regards to its neighbors. I'm sure this isn't a pattern or anything!

How about instead of vague tankie rhetoric you point out specifically what region the times has called in dispute that you and the CCP disagree with?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

it's merely creeping on the border of disputed areas.

Yeah that's still a bad thing.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

This is one of the dumber conspiracies. No one anywhere on the political spectrum wants war with China. It would lead to an immediate economic disaster, so rich people don't want it either.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

But the military-industrial complex profits from making it seem like there's an impending war with China.

I suppose it's also true that China doesn't want war, but if they could claim some of those disputed territories without war I'm sure they wouldn't complain.

[-] dumbass@leminal.space 1 points 1 month ago

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024

133 points (95.2% liked)

World News

38563 readers

2578 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.