The Chinese people's psychology and liberal background exposed by the refugee problem

The violent deportation of refugees from Haiti by the U.S. Border Patrol has spread to the Chinese Internet in recent days. Chinese Internet commentary areas generally endorse violent deportations and show contempt for Haitian refugees. Such as "No problem, this is an illegal immigrant and should be deported", "American police did a good job", "This is called courage", "Is there a warm welcome for illegal immigrants", "I won't give you (refugees) prison food." It's good to eat." Comments like this dominated public opinion. Others claimed that they hoped to "drive Guangzhou Nige (Guangzhou blacks) out of China in the same way", "should deal with Lulu (referring to Rohingya refugees) in Yunnan" and so on. This is not only the opinion of ordinary people, but also the opinion of Chinese social elites and people in the system, but the latter do not speak out in public.

This attitude of the Chinese people towards the refugee issue is not new, but has always been the case. For example, with regard to the European refugee crisis triggered by the Syrian civil war, Chinese public opinion generally ridiculed the refugees very harshly, believing that these people "pretend to be pitiful", "betray the country", "be deserted", "are potential terrorists" and so on. European governments and people who accept refugees are ridiculed with "white left" and "Virgin Mary", and France, which accepts the most Muslim refugees, has become "French Stein". True and false negative news about refugees is circulating on the Chinese Internet, including some rumors that have long been falsified outside the wall (such as a large number of terrorists among refugees, and refugees receiving subsidies higher than local national pensions) , and are often translated and re-distributed in Chinese by the Internet circles within the wall. In 2017, star Yao Chen made some remarks of sympathy for refugees while serving as a UNHCR goodwill ambassador. He was attacked and abused by Chinese netizens and was forced to remain invisible for a time. The author was also scolded by a Chinese (or Chinese) on multiple social platforms for expressing sympathy for refugees.

This shows that the Chinese people have lost the sympathy and empathy they should have as human beings in a cruel society, and the extreme anti-refugee words and deeds made by some people are like beasts in a jungle society that only know how to eat the weak.

What is particularly sad is that many liberals such as "Kongzhi" in China, including some human rights lawyers who have fought for human rights in China, also expressed the same attitude. Some liberals expressed their distress at the US security and social problems caused by the Biden administration's admission of Latin American refugees, and they miss the tough policy on refugees during the Trump era. Even if some of them came to the United States and gained freedom through the United States' policy and procedures for accepting refugees, such as Chen Guangcheng is a typical example. Other liberals and lawyers who have not received refugee asylum have generally and in different ways benefited from various U.S. human rights policies that benefit nationals of other countries (other than those of U.S. citizenship).

It’s just that ordinary Chinese dislike refugees. Why are these liberals, human rights fighters, and even those who directly benefited from Western human rights policies, so opposed to the United States and Europe’s admission of refugees and other related policies? This is a very worthy of reflection and criticism.

Undoubtedly, these liberals and human rights fighters, like ordinary Chinese people, are immersed in the law of the jungle. They do not have the minimum sympathy and empathy as modern citizens or even just as a person, or at least they cannot do anything to the whole world. To the same sympathy and compassion (not to say that they should actually pay something, and not be ill-spoken in their attitudes and words, shouldn't it be the bottom line?). They may have sympathy and sympathy for some Chinese people, but if they are replaced by blacks, Latin Americans, Middle Eastern Muslims and other people of other ethnic groups, other religions and other countries, they will not have the sympathy they should have. Deep down they feel that people of these races and religions are inferior and undeserving of salvation. Although they advertise that they are not racist, they have a strong racist mentality in their hearts all the time, which is manifested in many specific affairs.

However, these same liberals, like the common people, some of them are full of praise for the Manchu Qing, even if the majority did not praise, at least they did not criticize and firmly oppose it, and they also prevented others from racist rule over the Manchus. , Today Manchus enjoy the ancestral shadow and privilege to criticize, criticize those who express radical remarks out of anger at Manchu cruelty, and even attack critics such as the author as "racist". On the one hand, they despise the alien race as the victim, and on the other hand they worship the alien race as the oppressor. Just as Lu Xun said, "Chinese people have always called aliens in two ways: one is a beast and the other is a saint. He has never been called a friend, saying that he is the same as us."

Comparing the attitudes towards the Manchu rulers and the refugees best reflects the Chinese people's split and unified mentality. The Chinese people worship and praise the alien race as conqueror, and many people in China follow the propaganda and praise the executioners such as Dorgon and Hauge who massacred the Han Chinese as "heroic talent and great strategy" (the images in various films and novels are very "right", at least The image and temperament of "positive" is greater than that of "evil"), calling the peak period of enslavement of Han people "the prosperous age of Kang and Qian" (see how many people read and admire Er Yuehe's works), and expressing concern for the Manchus who are now among the elite and even the powerful They did not dare to criticize or even admire them very much (even though these Manchus achieved status and achievements by squeezing the lives of thousands of Han people from their ancestors until now, and their status and status are all drenched in the blood and sweat of the Han people), the Manchu Qing regime was overthrown. Hundred years later, they are still full of servile mentality; they despise and ridicule aliens as victims. The most humiliating words on the Chinese Internet are all detained to refugees from all over the world, especially Muslim refugees such as the Rohingya who have suffered so much. (Although they may not be completely innocent, they shouldn't be treated so cruelly.) A little disturbance on the border of Yunnan will trigger their xenophobia, full of superiority and desire to vent. Of course, Chinese people also dare not criticize and resist the powerful and powerful who take away the vast majority of their rights and people's livelihood resources. Staring at the scraps of the privilege (not even scraps) that black international students get, it seems that there is a hatred of killing the father and taking the wife. There is no doubt that the Chinese people are bullying the weak and afraid of the hard, worshiping the high and stepping on the low, and the strong prey on the weak. (Of course, those who attacked refugees and praised the Manchus did not completely overlap, and the examples I gave above are not all people who both attacked refugees and praised the Qing at the same time. For example, those who opposed my criticism of the ancestry and privileges of the Manchus Personally, there should be no obvious malice towards refugees. But on the whole, attacking refugees and praising the Qing Dynasty or not criticizing the privileges of the Qing Dynasty and the Manchus is a highly overlapping reality in China at the same time. Most people hate it. Refugees, the vast majority of people praise or at least do not criticize the Manchu Qing and today's Manchu nobles, it is an obvious fact)

Many Chinese people cannot understand the Northwest European countries that accept refugees from the Middle East and Africa, and they cite theft, robbery, sexual assault and even terrorist attacks and other illegal and criminal acts by refugees to prove the low quality of refugees and the harm caused. However, in the eyes of mainstream people in developed European and American countries who have received general education and civilized education, their own nationals also commit many crimes, and the crime rate of refugees is sometimes even lower than the crime rate of natives (because refugees live in circles that are often alienated from mainstream society, and Being "cared for" by the local community and the police, refugees also know their status and situation and are cautious in their words and deeds, so the crime rate against the nationals of the host country is lower than that of ordinary citizens (of course, the crime rate against other refugees is much higher among refugees), It’s just that refugee crimes tend to be noticed and reported). Based on the principle of non-discrimination, refugees who commit crimes are dealt with in the same way as their own nationals, rather than all deportations (of course, some countries will deport refugees and immigrants who have committed serious crimes, especially repeat offenders, whether Obama or Trump or Biden in the United States) In power, it will deport immigrants who have been sentenced to more than one year in prison for more serious crimes). Even if the crime rate of refugees is relatively high, it is only a small part of the total number of refugees, and all refugees cannot be rejected because of this crime. Moreover, the high crime rate of refugees in some types of cases is due to the fact that they have been living in an environment of war and lack of human rights and the rule of law.

This kind of thinking is incomprehensible to the Chinese, but this is the normal, non-discriminatory, and human rights-first way of thinking. Chinese people always discriminate and insult refugees on the grounds of "low quality of refugees", but in the eyes of mainstream European and American people, these are caused by the poor living conditions in their native countries, not the fault of the refugees themselves. Even, it is precisely because of the "low quality", poverty and lack of education of refugees that it is more necessary to accept these people. Because only by providing them with a relatively good social environment, can they get out of the vicious circle of violence, poverty, lack of knowledge and literacy, and become a person with self-esteem and self-confidence who is useful to society and mankind. Moreover, this can also encourage them to feed back to other compatriots who failed to leave their home countries, promote the civilization of relevant countries and ethnic groups, and ultimately contribute to the coordinated development of the world and the harmony of ethnic groups.

In addition, developed countries in Europe and the United States, especially the United States, do have certain debts and rescue responsibilities for those refugees. The Chinese official propaganda that "Western countries have ruined xx countries" is not entirely false. For example, the turmoil in the Middle East is inextricably linked with the various interventions, hegemony and aggression of the United States, Britain and France for their own interests over the past century. Although many conflicts in the Middle East and the resulting refugee problems are mainly caused by the host country itself and the intervention of other more brutal and ignorant human rights forces (such as the former Soviet Union/Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia), European and American countries also have certain responsibilities. African countries have basically experienced colonization by European powers. Although colonization has positive effects, it is also recognized that colonialism has brought huge disasters to Africa. For example, France has deeply cultivated and woven in Algeria, which has promoted a high degree of localization and modernization, but also caused brutal killing and destruction. Therefore, as a former suzerain country, it is also an obligation to accept immigrants and refugees from former colonies. Also, even if Europe and the United States have absolutely nothing to do with refugee exporting countries, as developed countries, they have the responsibility to provide certain assistance to developing countries, including a certain degree of economic assistance and receiving a certain number of refugees. This is the same as the fact that even the wealthy and powerful within a country should provide help and take responsibility for vulnerable groups even if their income and various incomes are completely legal.

The refugee issue in Latin America has a greater connection with the United States, and the United States has to take greater responsibility. After the independence of the United States, on the one hand, it expanded in North America, and on the other hand, it implemented a semi-colonial policy represented by the "Monroe Doctrine" in Latin America. The independence of various countries has plundered Latin American resources and manipulated prices, and regarded Latin American countries as resource suppliers and dumping markets. To this end, the United States has fostered dozens of tyrannical right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. These regimes smashed the bones of their own people, slaughtered rebels, and gained bloody profits, most of which went to local dictators and American partners. The people generally live in poverty and exploitation and oppression. The US government's intention may not be to oppress the people of these countries, but objectively it has undoubtedly caused such a result.

The countries with the highest proportion of refugees in Latin America now, such as El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and other Central American countries, were the hardest hit areas by the right-wing dictatorship supported by the United States. It was the colonial policy of the United States that prevented these countries from developing independent industries, and public services and related facilities such as education, medical care, water supply and power supply were also not available to invest in, and they did their best to deliver agricultural products and raw materials for various industries to the United States. These countries are therefore economically backward, lack of public services, poor security, and are full of unsolvable poverty and violence, which has led to the refugee flow in these years. In this regard, shouldn't the United States take responsibility and accept these refugees from Central American countries who have been indirectly victimized by the development of the United States? The poverty and backwardness of these countries also have their own reasons, and even their own reasons may be the main ones, but can it be said that the United States is not responsible?

Although the suffering of other Latin American countries is generally not as severe as that of Central American countries, they are all subjected to colonial exploitation and various repression and manipulation by the United States to a certain extent. Shouldn’t the United States be responsible for the people’s livelihood problems caused by economic losses and lack of social construction? Also, for a long time (especially when the right wing was in power, such as Nixon and Reagan), the United States was not as committed to promoting democracy globally as some Chinese liberals believe, but instead fostered a large number of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. Serve the United States especially against the expansion of the socialist bloc led by the Soviet Union. For example, the 1964 coup in Brazil overthrew the democratic Goulart regime and established a dictatorial military government, and the 1973 Chile coup overthrew the democratic Allende regime and established the Pinochet dictatorial military government, all of which have strong support from the United States. A series of actions by the United States to foster authoritarian dictatorship in Latin America resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people by the dictatorship, and the unnatural deaths of millions of people, which also caused various negative impacts on the economy and people's livelihood. Today's polarization between the rich and the poor in Latin America, rampant violence, and the backwardness of urban public services are all related to the various policies of the right-wing dictatorship supported by the United States that undermine social justice. So, shouldn't the US be held accountable to these countries? Can't these people who are indirectly or even directly victimized by US interference (and this interference is for US self-interest) go to the US and demand a share of US benefits? (Of course, the fact that the United States is responsible does not mean that it must accept refugees, nor does it mean that all nationals of these countries should be brought to the United States, but at least the refugees who have worked so hard to come to the United States should not be deported back. An irresponsible and disgusting look)

A well-known liberal "public official" believes that the United States should accept more political refugees from China, but on the other hand, he believes that the Latin American "caravan" has nothing to do with the United States. Such thinking is very representative. These liberal "public knowledge" really need to supplement the common sense of international politics. But in fact, without understanding these complex origins, it should be understood only with some simple common sense that the poor and backward countries in the South, which belong to the same America as the United States, must have something to do with the United States. The unbalanced economic development of various countries and the development of some developed countries come at the expense of underdeveloped countries (although there are examples of mutual benefit and win-win results, there are obviously zero-sum games and self-serving situations at the expense of others), this is common sense, just like many people in China are rich It is based on the premise that other people are exploited and oppressed.

In fact, even if these responsibilities, obligations, and causality are not discussed, all kinds of actions to help other countries, including accepting refugees within one's capacity, should be an international obligation. As progressives, human rights defenders and liberals, based on a minimum of Conscience and morality should also support developed countries in properly accepting refugees when conditions permit. There can be different opinions on the specific reception method, how much to accept, how to integrate, etc. (Europe and the United States agree to accept refugees does not mean that all people from developing countries should be accepted, of course, they will consider affordability, feasibility, and Various impact and influence issues), but the main premise should be that it agrees to accept refugees and has a sympathetic and understanding attitude towards illegal immigrants including refugees. Just like Rawls's "veil of ignorance" theory, some people in this world are happy and some people suffer, but it is actually very accidental. Although personal struggle is important, it is actually far from external factors such as external environment and historical process. Influence, the identity may be exchanged completely. Just like the people on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, just because of a boundary delimited for political and military historical reasons, people on both sides (some of the people on both sides are not only of the same ethnicity and religion, but also before the U.S.-Mexico border was established. Colleagues from the same town) lead two completely different lives, and the quality of education, medical care, pensions, and various other public services are vastly different. Is this fair? What's more, as mentioned above, there is often a correlation between "the poor get poorer" and "the rich get richer", and the two are often mutually reinforcing. There is also a saying in traditional Chinese culture that "the old is the old and the old, the young is the young and the young", emphasizing the importance of the Datong society and empathy. As a human being, one should not only care about the interests and feelings of one's own family, one township, one party and one faction, but should be considerate of others, be inclusive, and be able to return love and help to others in the distance. Even if you can't pay the real price and take the initiative to love, shouldn't you at least have basic respect and understanding in your thoughts and words?

Given China's current economic, political and social conditions (especially the human rights and living conditions of ordinary citizens) and its foreign relations, it is naturally not suitable for actively accepting refugees (passive acceptance already exists, such as "North Korean defectors"), or At least it is not suitable for large-scale active admission of refugees. Of course, a country must first protect and develop the human rights of its own citizens, and allow its citizens to live a life with dignity, basic rights and security of life. However, this does not mean that China should not accept refugees when its society and human rights develop to a certain level in the future, and it should not be full of contempt and disgust for the acceptance of refugees by European and American countries. It's enough that you can't do good things yourself for the time being, and slandering others for doing good deeds, gloating at the victims, and getting down on the wrongdoing, this kind of mentality is very ugly and contemptible. Is it difficult to understand refugees, respect refugees in Europe and the United States, and discuss better ways to solve problems on this basis?

However, even such a request, the vast majority of Chinese people can not do. Ordinary Chinese people are tortured by authoritarian bullying and social injustice. In addition, they have not received modern humanistic education and have limited literacy and knowledge. It is enough to scold refugees on the Internet to vent their anger (even understandable and sympathetic), but most of them should be role models for Chinese people. The liberal "public officials" and human rights fighters who are leaders of the country's social ethos are unable to understand the situation of refugees and support the acceptance of refugees in Europe and the United States, or even the complete opposite. They hate Biden, Macron, Merkel and their governments who have a tolerant policy towards refugees, and they adore Trump and right-wing conservatives and even far-right racists who deport and stigmatize refugees. They also followed Trump by calling Haiti and other countries "shit-pit countries", scolding Obama, Biden and others for their policies of accepting refugees (even if their policies are very modest), and insulting refugees or congressmen from refugee families And spread rumors about them, very sad that the United States is "polluted" by illegal immigrants. In their eyes, what kind of country is China? What are they Chinese or those who fled from China to America? Or, like the attitude of the liberal mentioned earlier, that only political prisoners in an environment like China are worthy of the United States' rescue and protection, and those in distress in other countries do not deserve it (at least ordinary people do not)? I think that liberals with such an attitude and quality are indeed not worthy of being accepted by Europe and the United States. If Europe and the United States become the "pure" countries that these people envision, they will no longer deserve respect.

As a Chinese liberal, especially a human rights lawyer, who has suffered from systematic and structural oppression, he should have more empathy with refugees from all over the world, join forces with vulnerable groups in various countries, and speak out in support of refugees and governments of various countries in humanitarianism that benefits refugees. action. If the weak cannot unite and offer warmth to each other, how can they survive the harsh winter in the world? Of course, if you really hate refugees, especially black and Muslim refugees, and you don’t want to support them or join forces, that’s fine. After all, everyone has their own likes and dislikes. However, Chinese liberals and "human rights fighters" also add unjustifiable vicious remarks to refugees (and it is understandable if there is a conflict of interest, but refugees have no grievances with them, not to mention that others do not need them to rescue refugees. What price to pay), vehemently opposes various policies to rescue refugees, worships political strongmen and careerists who expel refugees and oppress the weak, and insult and slander political parties and politicians who are enthusiastic about helping refugees and various vulnerable groups. , even to stink as incense and incense as stink, it is really disgusting.

There are many reasons for the formation of such a mentality, and the space issue will not be discussed in detail here. But no matter the reason, it is very wrong to treat refugees and comment on refugee issues in this way. It shows that their quality is very low and they have lost the sympathy and empathy that even ordinary people should have. I don't know how surprised and chilled those foreign friends who actively help Chinese liberals, especially the persecuted human rights fighters, see that the people they help have such values, words and deeds.

If Chinese liberals and "human rights fighters" cannot align with the mainstream views of developed countries on issues such as refugees and immigrants, women's rights, the rights of the physically and mentally handicapped, LGBT rights, animal protection, etc. In line with, but in line with the positive but moderate related claims), then these people will always be just "in opposition". In other words, they only know freedom, not equality and fraternity. The "freedom" they pursue is only the freedom of a certain group and class, not the freedom shared by the whole nation, all mankind, and the whole earth. They even hope to realize their own rights and freedoms by destroying the rights and freedoms of others. Such liberals have betrayed the spirit of fraternity emphasized by the sages of the Enlightenment and the pioneers of the revolution, and have only half-understood the spirit of freedom or deliberately selectively exploited it. If China is dominated by this kind of narrow liberalism in the future, then China, which is only partly democratic and free, and only some people have democracy and freedom, will only be a half-civilized and half-barbaric revolutionary half-finished product.

(It should be noted that the author, that is, I personally do not agree with overly radical refugee policies, that is, those who want to accept all refugees completely and unconditionally, open the door to refugees, and even help refugees from various countries enter Europe and the United States. Such policies will make European and American developed countries unbearable. Heavy burdens, huge pressure on people's livelihood such as education and medical care, intensify various conflicts between the inhabitants and immigrants, and are not conducive to the sustainable admission of refugees and assistance to less developed countries. I also do not agree that the living standards of refugees are better than the average level of the unemployed in the receiving countries, and even Said that I hope that the living standards of refugees are lower than the minimum living standards of nationals in developed countries, so as to avoid injustice to vulnerable groups in refugee-receiving countries. Regarding the integration of refugees, I hold a biased policy of assimilation, oppose excessive emphasis on diversity, and advocate severe crackdowns on illegal immigrants. Criminal behavior. I also believe that issues such as the run on people’s livelihood and public service resources caused by the admission of refugees, and cultural conflicts caused by ethnic and religious differences also need to be properly handled, weighed, and adhered to the principle of giving priority to the interests of their own nationals and those who contribute more. As mentioned above, I also emphasized that first of all, the citizens of this country must live a life of right, dignity and prosperity, and then more help to the victims of other countries.

I am equally eclectic when it comes to women's rights, LGBT rights, and animal protection. I believe that it is necessary and necessary to proceed step by step and consider the overall situation. It is not possible to make sudden progress in one aspect, to undermine the overall development and the interests of other parties. We must give priority to the overall interests of the whole people and long-term major interests, and achieve the benefits of all parties within our ability. the optimal solution. Too much emphasis on the rights of a certain vulnerable group may undermine the development of the entire society, overcorrecting is too much, and ultimately it is not conducive to the interests of the relevant vulnerable groups. For example, I don't agree with some of the excesses in the "me too" movement. I don't even agree with the behavior of extremists who don't allow others to eat meat and invade farms and restaurants everywhere. On the issue of environmental protection, I also advocate that the economy takes priority over the environment, and employment and people's livelihood are more important than energy conservation and emission reduction. I am pragmatic and eclectic on many controversial issues. But apparently Chinese people are generally too backward, conservative, and reactionary, which makes an eclecticist like me appear radical. If one day the mainstream of the Chinese people is really more radical than me, then I will become a conservative and stand on the side of the conservative traditional order to criticize the radical refugee policy, feminist policy, and animal protection policy (for the very small number of radicals, I will Critic all the time, but these people are never mainstream). But I'm 100% sure that even if I live for decades, I won't see that day when I die)

(In this article, I focus on criticizing liberal "public officials", human rights fighters, and intellectuals because I think they represent China's future hope after all, are leaders of China's ideology, and have the possibility to change their minds through dialogue. Those ignorant and cruel, overturned and violent civilians, those with vested interests in the system of refined selfishness, eloquence, cruelty and cruelty, there is no need for dialogue and criticism.)