#President Donald Trump: Calling it the 'Chinese virus' is not racist at all it comes from China

[fhear]

President Donald Trump: Calling it the 'Chinese virus' is not racist at ...

#President Donald Trump: Calling it the 'Chinese virus' is not racist at all it comes from China

[godlymvmi]

Donald Trumps racism through the years

Since there's always Trump supporters arguing on my post, I thought I’d make a nice post they'd be able to understand :)

1973: The US department of Justice sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing act. Evidence was found that Trump had lied to black tenants about available apartments and refused to rent to black tenants.

1980s: According to a former employee, Trump would have all the black people in the casino ordered off the floor when Ivana and himself came to visit.These black employees would be moved to the back. In 1992 a $200,000 fine was issued towards the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino for moving black men and women off tables. This was to accommodate a gamblers views and prejudices.

1989: During the infamous Central Park Five case, Trump ran an ad in a local paper stating they needed to “bring the death penalty back.” Even after the release of all five males, a settlement of $41 million paid by the city and DNA evidence proving they could not be guilty of this crime, Trump still believed they were guilty as late as October 2016. Oh, did I mention? Four of these teenagers were black and the fifth was latino. 

1991: A former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, John O’Donnell, quoted Trumps comments on a black accountant. “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Later on, Trump claimed “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” while doing an interview for Playboy in 1977. 

1993: In a confessional testimony, Trump stated he didn't think some Native American reservations should be allowed to operate casinos as “they don't look like Indians to me.” In 2000, Trump secretly ran a series of ads after the St. Regis Mohawk tribe proposed a casino that he deemed to be a direct financial threat to his own establishments in Atlantic City. In these ads, Trump suggested the tribe had a “record of criminal activity (that) is well documented.” 

2005: After season two of Apprentice where Trump famously fired Kevin Allen, a black man, for seemingly being too educated, Trump publicly pitched the idea for what was essentially The Apprentice: White people vs black people.

2010: “Ground Zero Mosque” caused a lot of controversy during the year of 2010. This was a plan to build a Muslim community centre in Lower Manhattan, this being near the area of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Trump offered to buy out one of the investors, claiming that this plan was insensitive and publicly opposed to the project. Later, on The Late Show with David Letterman, Trump argued his point further and said, “Well, somebody’s blowing us up. Somebody’s blowing up buildings, and somebody’s doing lots of bad stuff.”

2011: Trump, among others, played a huge role in pushing the false rumours that Obama, the first black president, was not born in the United States and still reportedly continues to push and believe this theory in private despite Obama releasing his birth certificate. In the same year, Trump also argued that Obama wasn't a good enough student for Columbia or Harvard Law school to accept him. “I heard he was a terrible student. Terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?”

2015: When Trump started his campaign in 2015, it was largely focused around his desire and promise to build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants out of the United States and he called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and that they were “bringing drugs” and “bringing crime” to the United States. 

Also in 2015: During his time as a candidate 2015, Trump called for a ban on all Muslims coming into the US. Eventually, his administration did implement a watered down version of this policy. 

2016: Judge Gonzalo Curiel was overseeing the Trump University lawsuit in 2016 when Trump argued he should step down from the case. This was due to his Mexican heritage and his membership in a Latino lawyers association. 

Also in 2016: “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump said as he tried to get black voters on his side. 

During this year, he also tweeted a picture of Hillary Clinton in front of a pile of money and a Jewish Star of David that said “Most corrupt candidate ever!” Despite the obviously anti-semitic imagery, Trump insisted the star was a sheriffs badge and maintained his campaign should not have deleted it.

He has repeatedly referred to Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas;” using her controversial and then walked back claims that she had Native American heritage as a punchline. 

2017: Trump attacked NFL players who chose to take the knee during the national anthem numerous times.

Also in 2017: Following the white supremacist protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump claimed “both sides” were to blame for the violence and chaos that occurred. This suggests that the counter protestors protesting against racism and white supremacy were morally equivalent to the white supremacist protestors. He also claimed there were “some very fine people” among the white supremacists. White nationalist, Richard Spencer praised Trump for defending the truth.

Also in 2017: Trump reportedly claimed everyone who came to the US from Haiti “all have AIDS” and that people who came from Nigeria to the US “would never go back to their huts.” The following year (2018), Trump reportedly asked “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” He has since denied these comments but some senators attending the same meeting did claim this happened. 

2019: Trump mocked Elizabeth Warren and her presidential campaign, calling her Pocahontas again in a 2019 tweet before adding “See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!” The capitalisation of “Trail” is seemingly a reference to the Trail of Tears. This was a horrific ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans where they were forcibly relocated. This caused thousands of deaths.

Also in 2019: Trump took to twitter to tweet that several black and brown members of Congress: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), are from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” and that they should “go back” to said countries. Three of the four members of Congress targeted by Trump were, in fact, born in the US. 

2020: Trump has referred to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” and “kung flu.” This is highly offensive and large numbers of Asian Americans have reported hateful incidents targeting them due to the virus.

Also in 2020: Trump suggested that Kamala Harris, a black and south asian woman, “doesn't meet the requirements” to be Vice President. 

Trump has always been slow to condemn white supremacists who endorse him and during his 2016 campaign he retweeted multiple tweets from Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

This is not even the full list and the article itself states its not a comprehensive list. But it does speak to his pattern of racism and bigotry. The article this list is from is linked below, I’d recommend everyone to read it and educate yourself using other resources as well. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg. I will also be making a post of his inappropriate, problematic and vile behaviour towards women. 

The article: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

#lets educate and be more aware #this is the man you voted for. #and you can't deny this u mings #donald trump #election 2020 #blm

[tw-koreanhistory]

Joe Biden is no better than Trump in advocating de facto white supremacy with his foreign policy, and corporate media fan the flames of anti-Chinese racism.

“The media in this country always use non-white people as the focus of suspicion.”

Ever since a white Georgia man killed six Asian women and two others in Atlanta, the corporate media have jumped onto the “stop Asian hate” bandwagon as if they are innocent bystanders. It is easy to point fingers at a murdering local redneck and leave unexamined the media role in spreading hatred based on race and nationality.

Sinophobia in particular has been quite overt, with the corporate media following the dictates of U.S. foreign policy. When Donald Trump was president they repeated his every lie and insult, and supported every decision intended to thwart China. They may have sneered when he spoke of the “China virus” but they joined in telling lies about the beginnings of the COVID pandemic and ignored China’s successful response which resulted in fewer than 5,000 deaths while Americans have more than 500,000 and counting. When those narratives were combined with typical American racism it is little wonder that mass murder and hatred will take hold.

“When Donald Trump was president corporate media supported every decision intended to thwart China.”

Joe Biden is no better than Trump in regard to advocating de facto white supremacy with his foreign policy. He continues all of Trump’s initiatives including any and all interference in the affairs of other countries, bombing Syria, imposing sanctions, keeping a dictator in place in Haiti, and taking vain yet dangerous actions to curb China’s influence around the world. Biden has even maintained Trump’s massive reduction in the number of refugees who may enter the U.S., a racist policy which could easily be reversed. Racism is the undercurrent of many decisions made in Washington.

But the rest of the world doesn’t accept bizarre American fantasies. They assert their own rights, as was seen when Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Chinese counterparts in Anchorage, Alaska. Before the meeting began the U.S. openly demonized China by harping about Hong Kong, which belongs to China, and by promoting more false tales of Uyghur oppression. An anonymous official who obviously has administration ties wrote an anti-Chinese screed published by the Atlantic Council which posited that president Xi Jinping is an evil man who can and must be dispatched. As if to ensure that the meeting was a complete debacle, the U.S. sanctioned 24 Chinese officials before the talks even began.

“Biden has even maintained Trump’s massive reduction in the number of refugees who may enter the U.S., a racist policy which could easily be reversed.”

Nothing positive can come from verbal attacks, especially when the Secretary of State used the press to witness his scolding of the Chinese. But he was not prepared for an enumeration of America’s sins and human rights abuses recounted by Chinese officials. Yang Jiechie correctly pointed out, “Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States.”

No one should be surprised about a rise in bigotry when Trump invoked cold war rhetoric against the Chinese communist party, words which apparently replaced “radical Islamic terrorism” as the go-to right wing talking point. United States senators complained about Chinese students and said they were all spies who shouldn’t be allowed to study science while in this country. Democrats predictably join in and speak of China as an adversary which must be kept under control. So-called progressives join in the hatefest just as eagerly as Trump and now Biden do.

“So-called progressives join in the hatefest just as eagerly as Trump and now Biden do.”

Although if the state narrative calls for it even Europeans can be lumped into the undesirable category. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper famously said that Russians were “almost genetically given to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor...” The Russiagate fraud has made them an acceptable target for the foreseeable future.

But China looms large as the biggest target of white supremacist bias. Their crime is daring to have successfully remained a socialist state which has survived for more than 70 years and to be on the verge of surpassing the U.S. economically.

If the State Department and leading newspapers express animosity towards a country and its people, no one should be surprised by assaults and even murder against that group. In any case the biggest killers are all safely at the top of the pyramid, untouched and unbothered. But their words and deeds have consequences. When the consequence is death no one should be surprised or let the worst bigots off the hook because they meet inside the White House.  

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at patreon.com/margaretkimberley and she regularly posts on Twitter @freedomrideblog. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

#war and empire #usa #hate

[taylorscottbarnett]

TRANSCRIPT, with some [additions] added for clarity:

President Obama, ever knowledgeable the weight his words carry in the Democratic Party, and unwilling to tarnish his reputation with mudslinging has very rarely spoken up about his predecessor or the 2020 race, primary or general election.

That's fine. He has more than enough people who will do that for him. Obama's voice carries unique weight in the Democratic Party, his ability to influence and help guide the party is unparalleled in modern politics with the exception of Donald Trump's iron grip on the Republican Party. However while the GOP and RNC cower in fear of Trump's ire and twitter account, reshaping the entire party to suit his wants, the Democratic Party looks to Obama with respect and reverence, with an awe that very few political leaders in the last hundred years or so can come to manage. Some of the most notable: FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton. Much like Obama himself, each of these leaders shaped and guided their party and the country, leaving large legacies and reshaping both their political parties and the country for the betterment of future generations. That's not to say they are all without fault, but no one can say they didn't rise to the occasion and have extremely long shadows. Each of them left a legacy of moving the country forward in one way or another -- something no historian will ever say of Donald Trump's one term in office. Trump will be forever linked as an administration of incompetence not seen since the presidencies of William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, and Zachary Taylor, the administrations of Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, and one that historians will no doubt find to be a more disastrous one.

As ever Obama remains cool and level-headed even out of office, refusing to engage in taunts and call-outs from Trump. The most damning rebuke he's done on Twitter in reply to Trump's attacks has been a simple word to his followers and supporters: Vote.

The few times he's engaged in national events it's only been to project himself as America's Dad -- occasionally filling the void Trump has left in his unwillingness to be a leader, to be someone who unites the country. To offer a glimmer of light against Trump's unwillingness to be presidential or understand either the awesome power and responsibility that comes with the Oval Office or America's unique position in the worlds global order as a bastion of balance, one that has spent decades building the structures, institutions, and allied relationships the world relies on. President Obama has offered tips and links from his Twitter account, linking articles citing experts on issues like pandemics and how to combat COVID-19, while Trump wallows in self-pity, lamenting that the pandemic is "unfair" to him, and racist deflection, calling it the "Chinese virus" and that he "takes no responsibility" that it is even a "hoax" made up to hurt him. [Trump] in contrast constantly blames his predecessor, making up easily debunked lies; like the previous administration left no plan, no supplies -- even though this was quickly knocked down by Obama Administration alumni, highlighting things like that they left a playbook after dealing with Swine-flu in the event another pandemic cropped up. What they learned, what worked, what failed. What could be useful, what could save lives. President Obama never names Trump when calling out current events, remaining above the fray, going up to the edge of condemning Trump but never naming him, nor does he offer policy suggestions:

“We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don’t look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people.” - President Barrack Obama

Obama constantly keeps with a long-standing tradition of former presidents not fighting current presidents. It's an extremely small alumni group. Even though many had their own fights with each other and called out each other constantly while running or in office -- Bush, Obama, the Clinton's, they also understand and respect each other for how hard the job is to do. They also know that while each had policy differences, they never set out to hurt America or enrich themselves. Each did what they felt was right to move the country forward -- something Donald Trump has not only failed to achieve, but actively worked against America's interest and safety just to benefit his own selfish pride. [Trump lavishes in] Bashing America's democratic allies and heaping praise and adoration on our enemies -- to sum it up and quote a great American president:

“Look around, strongman politics are ascendant, suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, where those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.The free press is under attack, censorship and state control of media is on the rise. Social media, once seen as a mechanism to promote knowledge and understanding and solidarity, has proved to be just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda and conspiracy theories.People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up. We see it in the growth of state-sponsored propaganda. We see it in internet fabrications. We see it in the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just double down and they lie some more. It used to be that if you caught them lying, they’d be like, ‘Oh, man’— now they just keep on lying.” - President Barrack Obama

#obama #Biden #Trump #democrat #republican #america #politics

[arcticdementor]

In Chapter 5 of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli describes three options for how a conquering power might best treat those it has defeated in war. The first is to ruin them; the second is to rule directly; the third is to create “therein a state of the few which might keep it friendly to you.”

The example Machiavelli gives of the last is the friendly government Sparta established in Athens upon defeating it after 27 years of war in 404 BCE. For the upper caste of an Athenian elite already contemptuous of democracy, the city’s defeat in the Peloponnesian War confirmed that Sparta’s system was preferable. It was a high-spirited military aristocracy ruling over a permanent servant class, the helots, who were periodically slaughtered to condition them to accept their subhuman status. Athenian democracy by contrast gave too much power to the low-born. The pro-Sparta oligarchy used their patrons’ victory to undo the rights of citizens, and settle scores with their domestic rivals, exiling and executing them and confiscating their wealth.

The Athenian government disloyal to Athens’ laws and contemptuous of its traditions was known as the Thirty Tyrants, and understanding its role and function helps explain what is happening in America today.

For my last column I spoke with The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman about an article he wrote more than a decade ago, during the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. His important piece documents the exact moment when the American elite decided that democracy wasn’t working for them. Blaming the Republican Party for preventing them from running roughshod over the American public, they migrated to the Democratic Party in the hopes of strengthening the relationships that were making them rich.

A trade consultant told Friedman: “The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the Eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

In the more than 10 years since Friedman’s column was published, the disenchanted elite that the Times columnist identified has further impoverished American workers while enriching themselves. The one-word motto they came to live by was globalism—that is, the freedom to structure commercial relationships and social enterprises without reference to the well-being of the particular society in which they happened to make their livings and raise their children.

Undergirding the globalist enterprise was China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. For decades, American policymakers and the corporate class said they saw China as a rival, but the elite that Friedman described saw enlightened Chinese autocracy as a friend and even as a model—which was not surprising, given that the Chinese Communist Party became their source of power, wealth, and prestige. Why did they trade with an authoritarian regime and send millions of American manufacturing jobs off to China thereby impoverish working Americans? Because it made them rich. They salved their consciences by telling themselves they had no choice but to deal with China: It was big, productive, and efficient and its rise was inevitable. And besides, the American workers hurt by the deal deserved to be punished—who could defend a class of reactionary and racist ideological naysayers standing in the way of what was best for progress?

…

A decade ago, no one would’ve put NBA superstar LeBron James and Apple CEO Tim Cook in the same family album, but here they are now, linked by their fantastic wealth owing to cheap Chinese manufacturing (Nike sneakers, iPhones, etc.) and a growing Chinese consumer market. The NBA’s $1.5 billion contract with digital service provider Tencent made the Chinese firm the league’s biggest partner outside America. In gratitude, these two-way ambassadors shared the wisdom of the Chinese Communist Party with their ignorant countrymen. After an an NBA executive tweeted in defense of Hong Kong dissidents, social justice activist King LeBron told Americans to watch their tongues. “Even though yes, we do have freedom of speech,” said James, “it can be a lot of negative that comes with it.”

Because of Trump’s pressure on the Americans who benefited extravagantly from the U.S.-China relationship, these strange bedfellows acquired what Marxists call class consciousness—and joined together to fight back, further cementing their relationships with their Chinese patrons. United now, these disparate American institutions lost any sense of circumspection or shame about cashing checks from the Chinese Communist Party, no matter what horrors the CCP visited on the prisoners of its slave labor camps and no matter what threat China’s spy services and the People’s Liberation Army might pose to national security. Think tanks and research institutions like the Atlantic Council, the Center for American Progress, the EastWest Institute, the Carter Center, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and others gorged themselves on Chinese money. The world-famous Brookings Institution had no scruples about publishing a report funded by Chinese telecom company Huawei that praised Huawei technology.

…

But if Donald Trump saw decoupling the United States from China as a way to dismantle the oligarchy that hated him and sent American jobs abroad, he couldn’t follow through on the vision. After correctly identifying the sources of corruption in our elite, the reasons for the impoverishment of the middle classes, and the threats foreign and domestic to our peace, he failed to staff and prepare to win the war he asked Americans to elect him to fight.

And because it was true that China was the source of the China Class’ power, the novel coronavirus coming out of Wuhan became the platform for its coup de grace. So Americans became prey to an anti-democratic elite that used the coronavirus to demoralize them; lay waste to small businesses; leave them vulnerable to rioters who are free to steal, burn, and kill; keep their children from school and the dying from the last embrace of their loved ones; and desecrate American history, culture, and society; and defame the country as systemically racist in order to furnish the predicate for why ordinary Americans in fact deserved the hell that the elite’s private and public sector proxies had already prepared for them.

For nearly a year, American officials have purposefully laid waste to our economy and society for the sole purpose of arrogating more power to themselves while the Chinese economy has gained on America’s. China’s lockdowns had nothing to do with the difference in outcomes. Lockdowns are not public health measures to reduce the spread of a virus. They are political instruments, which is why Democratic Party officials who put their constituents under repeated lengthy lockdowns, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, are signaling publicly that it is imperative they be allowed to reopen immediately now that Trump is safely gone.

That Democratic officials intentionally destroyed lives and ended thousands of them by sending the ill to infect the elderly in nursing homes is irrelevant to America’s version of the Thirty Tyrants. The job was to boost coronavirus casualties in order to defeat Trump and they succeeded. As with Athens’ anti-democratic faction, America’s best and brightest long ago lost its way. At the head of the Thirty Tyrants was Critias, one of Socrates’ best students, a poet and dramatist. He may have helped save Socrates from the regime’s wrath, and yet the philosopher appears to have regretted that his method, to question everything, fed Critias’ sweeping disdain for tradition. Once in power, Critias turned his nihilism on Athens and destroyed the city.

…

The chief publicist of the post-Cold War order was Francis Fukuyama, who in his 1992 book The End of History argued that with the fall of the Berlin Wall Western liberal democracy represented the final form of government. What Fukuyama got wrong after the fall of the Berlin Wall wasn’t his assessment of the strength of political forms; rather it was the depth of his philosophical model. He believed that with the end of the nearly half-century-long superpower standoff, the historical dialectic pitting conflicting political models against each other had been resolved. In fact, the dialectic just took another turn.

Just after defeating communism in the Soviet Union, America breathed new life into the communist party that survived. And instead of Western democratic principles transforming the CCP, the American establishment acquired a taste for Eastern techno-autocracy. Tech became the anchor of the U.S.-China relationship, with CCP funding driving Silicon Valley startups, thanks largely to the efforts of Dianne Feinstein, who, after Kissinger, became the second-most influential official driving the U.S.-CCP relationship for the next 20 years.

…

Nearly every major American industry has a stake in China. From Wall Street—Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley— to hospitality. A Marriott Hotel employee was fired when Chinese officials objected to his liking a tweet about Tibet. They all learned to play by CCP rules.

“It’s so pervasive, it’s better to ask who’s not tied into China,” says former Trump administration official Gen. (Ret.) Robert Spalding.

Unsurprisingly, the once-reliably Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce was in the forefront of opposition to Trump’s China policies—against not only proposed tariffs but also his call for American companies to start moving critical supply chains elsewhere, even in the wake of a pandemic. The National Defense Industrial Association recently complained of a law forbidding defense contractors from using certain Chinese technologies. “Just about all contractors doing work with the federal government,” said a spokesman for the trade group, “would have to stop.”

…

Apple, Nike, and Coca Cola even lobbied against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. On Trump’s penultimate day in office, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States has “determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups.” That makes a number of major American brands that use forced Uyghur labor—including, according to a 2020 Australian study, Nike, Adidas, Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and General Motors—complicit in genocide.

The idea that countries that scorn basic human and democratic rights should not be directly funded by American industry and given privileged access to the fruits of U.S. government-funded research and technology that properly belongs to the American people is hardly a partisan idea—and has, or should have, little to do with Donald Trump. But the historical record will show that the melding of the American and Chinese elites reached its apogee during Trump’s administration, as the president made himself a focal point for the China Class, which had adopted the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle. That’s not to say establishment Republicans are cut out of the pro-China oligarchy—Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s shipbuilder billionaire father-in-law James Chao has benefited greatly from his relationship with the CCP, including college classmate Jiang Zemin. Gifts from the Chao family have catapulted McConnell to only a few slots below Feinstein in the list of wealthiest senators.

Riding the media tsunami of Trump hatred, the China Class cemented its power within state institutions and security bureaucracies that have long been Democratic preserves—and whose salary-class inhabitants were eager not to be labeled as “collaborators” with the president they ostensibly served. Accommodation with even the worst and most threatening aspects of the Chinese communist regime, ongoing since the late 1990s, was put on fast-forward. Talk about how Nike made its sneakers in Chinese slave labor camps was no longer fashionable. News that China was stealing American scientific and military secrets, running large spy rings in Silicon Valley and compromising congressmen like Eric Swalwell, paying large retainers to top Ivy League professors in a well-organized program of intellectual theft, or in any way posed a danger to its own people or to its neighbors, let alone to the American way of life, were muted and dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.

…

There is a good reason why lockdowns—quarantining those who are not sick—had never been previously employed as a public health measure. The leading members of a city, state, or nation do not imprison its own unless they mean to signal that they are imposing collective punishment on the population at large. It had never been used before as a public health measure because it is a widely recognized instrument of political repression.

…

China had cultivated many friends in the American press, which is why the media relays Chinese government statistics with a straight face—for instance that China, four times the size of the United States, has suffered 1/100th the number of COVID-19 fatalities. But the key fact is this: In legitimizing CCP narratives, the media covers not primarily for China but for the American class that draws its power, wealth, and prestige from China. No, Beijing isn’t the bad guy here—it’s a responsible international stakeholder. In fact, we should follow China’s lead. And by March, with Trump’s initial acquiescence, American officials imposed the same repressive measures on Americans used by dictatorial powers throughout history to silence their own people.

Eventually, the pro-China oligarchy would come to see the full range of benefits the lockdowns afforded. Lockdowns made leading oligarchs richer—$85 billion richer in the case of Bezos alone—while impoverishing Trump’s small-business base. In imposing unconstitutional regulations by fiat, city and state authorities normalized autocracy. And not least, lockdowns gave the American establishment a plausible reason to give its chosen candidate the nomination after barely one-third of the delegates had chosen, and then keep him stashed away in his basement for the duration of the Presidential campaign. And yet in a sense, Joe Biden really did represent a return to normalcy in the decadeslong course of U.S.-China relations.

…

What seems clear is that Biden’s inauguration marks the hegemony of an American oligarchy that sees its relationship with China as a shield and sword against their own countrymen. Like Athens’ Thirty Tyrants, they are not simply contemptuous of a political system that recognizes the natural rights of all its citizens that are endowed by our creator; they despise in particular the notion that those they rule have the same rights they do. Witness their newfound respect for the idea that speech should only be free for the enlightened few who know how to use it properly. Like Critias and the pro-Sparta faction, the new American oligarchy believes that democracy’s failures are proof of their own exclusive right to power—and they are happy to rule in partnership with a foreign power that will help them destroy their own countrymen.

What does history teach us about this moment? The bad news is that the Thirty Tyrants exiled notable Athenian democrats and confiscated their property while murdering an estimated 5% of the Athenian population. The good news is that their rule lasted less than a year.

#china #athens #tablet magazine #lee smith #the thirty tyrants #read the whole thing

[anexplanationofunfortunateevents]

the advisor’s book, the fixer’s confession, and the lawyer’s firing

The Traitor-in-Chief was hoping we’d talk about the racist incitement he tried to unleash at his Nuremberg Rally in Tulsa. This was, of course, dangerous and evil despite its pathetic failure, so instead of rewarding him for it, let’s go over this weekend’s reminders of his authoritarian escalations, his gluttonous corruption, and the glaring illegitimacy he is failing to hide.

The Advisor’s Book

John Bolton, the mustacioed Dr. Strangelove who served as Trump’s third national security advisor, has started leaking copies of his book, out this week. Unsurprisingly, the book contains a lot of damning evidence of Trump’s attempts to extort foreign countries into helping him steal the 2020 election, which Bolton pompously refused to provide during Trump’s impeachment. This included the shakedown of the Ukrainian president which got Trump impeached. It turns out Trump was also desperately trying to get Chinese President Xi to help him, either by announcing bullshit investigations into former Vice President Biden’s family (we knew about this) or by dramatically increasing American imports to kind of goose the economy in a way that might help Trump in the election.

Trump, naturally, has responded by having the Department of Justice sue to stop the book’s publication and threatening to have Bolton thrown in jail.

We shouldn’t get numb to the existential small-d democratic nightmare of Trump’s sabotaging American foreign policy interests for his own political benefit. Yes, we’ve been living with it all along, and you’re probably tired of hearing or saying how bad it is. It’s still really bad! But the China piece of it is, you know, relevant to current events. Bolton left the administration in the fall of 2019, so he wouldn’t have any information on the COVID crisis, but there’s no reason to believe that Trump stopped trying to get on Xi’s good side. All those spectacular failures to get the pandemic under control when we had a chance six months ago, and even some of the more bizarre decisions since then, have to be reconsidered in light of this:

The virus made it out of Wuhan to terrorize the world in large part because the Chinese Communist Party blew its early response.

Trump was trying to butter up President Xi because Trump wants to use the CCP to make himself look good.

While underplaying the virus, Trump praised the CCP’s response with a bunch of lies.

Break out your red string and corkboard if you want, but I think we’ve cracked the shit out of this case.

The Fixer’s Confession

Remember six thousand years ago when the Mueller report about the joint Trump campaign-Russian government’s criminal sabotage of the 2016 election came out? And there was SO MUCH stuff that was SO BAD, it was hard for people to remember that it wasn’t even close to the whole story? Well, we just got another look under the redactions, and WOOOO it is as bad as you already knew it was! When they agreed to plead guilty and cooperate, Trump campaign staffer Rick Gates, campaign manager Paul Manafort, and attorney Michael Cohen confirmed that former Trump campaign official and current convicted felon Roger Stone helped Wikileaks plan the strategic releases of emails stolen by Russian intelligence and then called Donald Trump and told him all about it.

Again, this is and always has been the opposite of complicated. HE DID IT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE. HE ASKED RUSSIA FOR MORE EMAILS AND MORE EMAILS APPEARED.

THIS WAS LITERALLY ON C-SPAN.

The excuse that the Very Serious People in the Republican party, political press, and cosplay-leftist-contrarian industrial complex  is that nobody knew about some secret communication where known Russian assets plotted out some aspect of the attack with the Trump campaign. There hadn’t been one particular phone call where Trump and whoever was on speakerphone with him heard about what the FSB was planning to do before they did it. EXCEPT THAT DEFINITELY HAPPENED. The issue, for the 132513798415th time, is not that we are unsure what happened, but that we are unsure what to do about it. The Mueller team, despite being cautious to a fault, were so sure it happened that they put it in their final report. Apply Occam’s razor to Trump-Russia and the rational conclusion is the worst case scenario.

Of course, the reason that this didn’t come out earlier is that Attorney General William Barr has turned the Department of Justice into a fully-owned Trump subsidiary, so that he could hide exactly this kind of smoking gun for Donald Trump.

The Lawyer’s Firing

Around ten PM on a Friday night, the attorney general’s office announced that United States attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman – that’s the lead federal prosecutor in Manhattan – had resigned, and his duties would be taken over by a reliable Trump flunky who already has a different government job. By midnight, Berman announced that he had done no such thing, he had no intention of leaving his job, and that the SDNY would continue to work on its cases as usual. (That last one is supposed to go without saying.)

You can get into the weeds on the back-and-forth of the following 48 hours, but the upshot of it is that Berman will be replaced by an SDNY career professional who …. seems reliably skeptical of Barr.

We don’t necessarily know why this sloppy, panicked attempt to decapitate the SDNY went down when it did. But OH MY GOD, we know why the fuck it happened.

These three headlines from the past few days are all part of the same story. Trump is actively trying to get foreign autocrats to help him cheat his way through the 2020 election, because he does not believe he can win a free and fair election. This is, unusually for him, a completely reasonable belief based on empirical evidence: he knows how much cheating he had to do last time. Whether it’s because of that cheating specifically or the general mobster bullshit he’s been into for his entire adult life, he’s desperate to gut legal oversight of his crimes and cheating, which is why he’s hired an attorney general who will help him cheat and cover up crimes.

All of this can only work if we agree to get distracted by nonsense. They are going to try absolutely everything they can think of to delegitimize their opponents and hide their own malevolence. You do not have to help them.

#donald trump #trump russia #william barr #authoritarianism

[tomorrowusa]

President Barack Obama made a live campaign appearance for Joe Biden at a drive-in rally in Philadelphia. He hasn’t been on the campaign trail much since leaving office. So it’s easy to forget how startlingly effective he is with crowds.

Some passages from his speech:

His first year in the White House he only paid $750 in federal income tax. Listen, my first job was at a Baskin-Robbins when I was 15 years old. I think I might have paid more taxes that year working at dispensing ice cream.

[ ... ]

[H]e's got a secret Chinese bank account. How is that possible? How is that possible? A secret Chinese bank account. Listen, can you imagine if I had had a secret Chinese bank account when I was running for reelection? You think Fox News might have been a little concerned about that? They would've called me "Beijing Barry".

[ ... ]

We literally left this White House a pandemic playbook that would have shown them how to respond before the virus reached our shores. They probably used it to I don't know, prop up a wobbly table somewhere. We don't know where that playbook went. Eight months into this pandemic, cases are rising again across this country. Donald Trump isn't suddenly going to protect all of us. He can't even take the basic steps to protect himself.

[ ... ]

That's not normal presidential behavior. We wouldn't tolerate it from a high school principal. We wouldn't tolerate it from a coach. We wouldn't tolerate it from a co-worker. We wouldn't tolerate it in our family, except for maybe crazy uncle somewhere. I mean, why would we expect and accept this from the President of the United States? And why are folks making excuses for that? "Oh, well, that's just him." No. There are consequences to these actions. They embolden other people to be cruel and divisive and racist, and it frays the fabric of our society, and it affects how our children see things. And it affects the ways that our families get along. It affects how the world looks at America. That behavior matters. Character matters.

[ ... ]

We can't be complacent. I don't care about the polls. There were a whole bunch of polls last time, didn't work out, because a whole bunch of folks stayed at home and got lazy and complacent. Not this time, not in this election, not this time.

[ ... ]

Imagine January 20th, when we swear in a president and a vice president who have a plan to get us out of this mess, who believe in science, and they have a plan to protect this planet for our kids, and who care about working Americans, and they have a plan to help you start getting ahead.

And who believe in racial equality and gender equality, and believe in not discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, and are willing to bring us closer to an America where no matter what we look like and where we come from, who we love and what our last name is, if we go out there and we work, we can make it.

We have just eleven days to go until the last day of voting. As Barack Obama says, ignore the polls. Polls can be off and even the relatively good ones have margins of error. Treat every election as if your candidate is just 0.1% behind and that your actions will make a big difference. 

I WILL VOTE

#election 2020 #barack obama #joe biden #biden-harris #philadelphia #campaign speech #obama en fuego

[elaf123789]

Hate speech: how to identify hate speech in media content? Is it free speech or hate speech that is practiced?

ID: 123789

Date:April 14, 2020

Number of words:350

1- How to identify hate speech in media content?

We can identify the hate speech as anything attack someone or group or calls for violence against them or bothering them by comments, memes ,groups or using words likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any groups,for example:

 " I hate all Muslims"

 President Donald Trump has often labeled the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus.” which resulted in xenophobia.-     

A video on Sky news Australia titled "China willfully inflicted coronavirus upon the world."

A lot of people are using racist hashtags such as #Kungflu, #chinesevirus and #communistvirus as they tweet about the pandemic.

Republican senator John Cornyn (a political person) said in a conversation with reporters “China is to blame because the culture where people eat bats and snakes and dogs and things like that,” ,  “These viruses are transmitted from the animal to the people, and that’s why China has been the source of a lot of these viruses like SARS, like MERS, the swine flu, and now the coronavirus.”

2- Is it free speech or hate speech that is practiced?

It is not a free speech as a lot of people think because free speech when you criticize any information or other's opinion without harming them by the deferent ways,  for example:

When someone don't agree with you or he think the idea is wrong will try to give you the evidence or reasons ,without any bad words or bothering.

Understanding:

Hate speech:

 Sometimes comes for political goals.

 It effects in people's behaviors as we can see it in social media now a days against china and how Chinese suffering in most of countries especially in America.

 It is one of main reasons of soft wars, hate crimes, fake news, suicide and other human's problems.

It affects mental health

It spread so much in twitter and face book and both of them have the report button so we have to teach each other the suitable time of using it, as one of ways to reduce this problem.

_________________

References:

https://lifehacker.com/how-to-identify-and-report-hate-speech-on-social-media-1831018803

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3077376/coronavirus-prompts-surge-hate-speech-toward

https://qz.com/1823608/how-anti-china-sentiment-is-spreading-on-social-media/

#MASS2620_20 #SQUPR #Hate_speech #coronavirus

[stoph8co]

The Price of Incompetence

This massive shut down of everything from Elementary to College campuses and the wide spread panic and fast spread of the Coronavirus was preventable. It was. The United States President Donald J. Trump decided to call this a “hoax.” The folks at FOX NEWS supported Mr. Trump by reinforcing and downplaying his position. That being an uniformed, uneducated and dismissive simpleton who simply doesn’t care.Donald Trump does not care about people who are making minimum wage or less. Donald Trump doesn’t care about waiters, waitresses, busboys, grocery store baggers or people who labor every day to put food on the table or barely afford that next book for a college class they can not afford to attend.

Donald Trump simply DOES NOT CARE.

The blind and excusatory stance of his supporters is now nipping at their incomes, their employment and potentially: their very lives.By electing a Reality Tv Star who never really managed or built up a company of his own, a man devoid of morality in his multiple divorces, all because he cheated and continues to cheat, the man without any discipline and let’s face it, he is a racist. He see’s himself as an elitist who is entitled to everything he has.

Forget about him donating his paychecks (it’s an empty gesture) as a President and look at what he is charging the America Tax Payer. He is charging US, all of US for every golf trip. He’s taken over 90 golf trips in his first two years as President and he has charged all of US for every single trip.He has put the United States into a tremendous (one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words) amount of debt that defies stability or his plan to erase the debt.Simply put, had Mr. Trump simply listened to advisors like, oh I don’t know the CDC and others who were warning Mr. Trump about the virus and what was coming instead of labeling it a “hoax” and downplaying it’s impact (come on, let’s get real, any one with a brain would figure out that this came via airplane. Every major outbreak has started at a major airport hub). 

The blocking of airlines  and countries is now, way past the point of doing any good.Mr. Trump is a reactive President.His persona is about REACTION. He is not PROACTIVE. That is a real problem.If you want to label something a “Chinese Virus” to inflame and label something with a racist slant to help your supporters direct their misguided anger than Mr. Trump may have succeeded, temporarily. But in time, in due course, when the dust settles and the thousands of funerals come to pass and the hospitals are over burdened and stores, restaurants and businesses close permanently, Mr. Trump will be held responsible and he should be.It’s time to stop making excuses for the stupidest President to ever hold the office of President and point the finger of blame where it truly belongs: At Mr. Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States a corrupt and dishonest man with no sense of character, no sense of duty and truly, no care for anyone other than himself.

#Donald Trump #worst president ever #not my president #potus 45 #dumb and dumber #Dumb Donald #it is trumps fault #preventable #coronavirus #Donald Trump is killing you #Donald Trump Doesn't Care #Donald never cared #reality tv president #the worst president in history #worst president in history #stupid potus #STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES #so stupid #dumb it down donald #fox news #lying president trump #Chinese Virus #Racist Trump #Wake Up America #reactive president

[idigitizellp21]

Stigmatisation Against The Asian Community During The Pandemic

Trigger Warnings – Violence, Assault, Racism and Racial Slurs.

The virus does not discriminate, but we humans clearly do. Discrimination is an illness we have been suffering from for years to come. People have been holding unfair social attitudes against each other, which include negativity, prejudice and the intolerance of understanding. In today’s fearful pandemic world, stigmas have fueled the unkind and unsafe practices of baseless suspicion and overt hatred. The psychological impact of this pandemic not only includes fear, anxiety, mass hysteria and loneliness but also the emergence of a significant stigma, ‘othering.’ People have categorically blamed the entire Asian community for the existence and spread of the Covid-19 virus. In this article, we will explore the harmful stigmatisation towards this community, as we live through this pandemic and how we can do better in helping the Asian community.

At the beginning of this pandemic, the narrative we followed was – Corona was the deadliest virus of all. People were losing control of their reality, there was a lack of explanation from scientific communities across the world due to the novelty of this virus and an unhealthy way to regain control is to blame other people. The people’s fear of the unknown drove them to collectively label and segregate themselves from the Asian community during this pandemic. The narrative changed to stigmatizing China and politicizing Covid-19. A study published by the American Journal of Public Health argued that former President Donald Trump’s first “China virus” tweet on March 16 2020, was directly responsible for a major increase in anti-Asian hashtags.

An “infodemic” of misinformation, rumours and derogatory terms such as ‘Kung flu Virus’ and ‘Chinese Virus’ spread like wildfire. Subconsciously, people began to directly associate the face of an Asian with the virus. Another study conducted by the Pew Research Centre stated that 20% directly cited former President Donald Trump and his rhetoric about China as the source of the pandemic, as one of the reasons for the rise in violence against Asian Americans.

Unfortunately, as other politicians continued to pass racist and misinformed comments the Asian community became the culprits of this pandemic, with no fault of their own.

Today our Asian Community is struggling through a dual pandemic of blatant racism, physical abuse and the threat of the Coronavirus. A national report by Stop AAPI Hate recorded 6,603 hate incidents against Asian Americans from March 19, 2020, to March 31, 2021. The number rose to 9,081 by June 2021. Chicago SUN-TIMES reported a case of a 60-year-old Chinese American man who was attacked by two people. According to witnesses, the aggressor threw a log at the old man, accused him of having the virus, spat at him and told him to go back to China.

The Washington Post reported a case in May 2020 where Dr. Lucy Li was verbally attacked with the words, “Why are you Chinese people killing everyone?”

Many Indians living in the North East have also been subjected to an increase in racial slurs such as “chinky” and “chow mein.” Northeasterners have been spat at, called “coronavirus” and told to go back to China.

Following the Chinese New Year in February 2021, hateful comments flooded Instagram such as, “I normally would wish Happy New Chinese Year but after last year events and pretty much destroying the world I say sod you lot.” Similar comments were filled with loathe and discontentment on their auspicious day.

Unfortunately, by stating these horrifying and upsetting incidents, we have not even scratched the surface of the extent to which people went to harm the Asian community across the world. Centuries of stigmatisation against the Asian community has been completely exposed during the pandemic. In 2015, the World Health Organisation renovated the guidelines in naming viruses and specifically stated that a virus should not be named after a region or ethnic group as it can result in racial discrimination against people who are from the virus’s birthplace. It expressed the importance of a name on a global scale. The “co” stands for Corona, “vi” for virus, “d” for disease and 19 because the disease emerged in 2019. The name is Covid-19 or Coronavirus and NOT “Wuhan Virus,” “Chinese Virus” or “Asian Virus.”

Our responsibilities as caring citizens of this world are abundant yet simple. They include protecting the Asian community from cruel acts of violence, preventing the spread of any racist comments, using the power of social media to spread positivity, to silence the hate and amplify support for the community and to constantly share accurate and scientifically proven information regarding the virus to mitigate fear and blame.

Our fight is against Covid-19, not against each other. For over a year and a half, we have been surviving the pandemic, but the Asian Community has been surviving stigmatisation for centuries. Today, there is a vaccine for the Covid-19 virus, but is there any sign of a cure or vaccine for racism?

If you find yourself affected by such a grief, do not hesitate to ask for help and reach out to a Counsellor or therapist so that you're guided in the right direction.

[opedguy]

Evidence Fauci Knew of Lab-Leak

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), June 18, 2021.--Recently released emails for Dr. Anthony Fauci under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] indicated that he considered in a teleconference Jan. 31, 2020 with La Jolla-based Scripts Institute infectious disease genomics expert Kristian Anderson, that the deadly novel coronavirus looked “potentially engineered.”  “Some of the features” of the coronavirus “(potentially look engineered,” Anderson told Fauci the same day that former President Donald Trump banned flights to-and-from China.  Fauci has been a staunch advocate of the “natural occurrence” theory, essentially ridiculing the lab-leak theory for a year-and-a-half.  Only after 78-year-old President Joe Biden instructed the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to investigate the origin of the novel coronavirus and report in three months did Fauci change his tune, now saying he has an “open mind.”    

         Fauci and many of his scientist colleagues tied to the World Health Organization [WHO], especially New York-based EcoHealth Alliance CEO Peter Daszak, have done everything possible to repudiate the lab-leak theory. Daszak wrote a letter with 18 other scientists to the British Medical Journal Lancet in May 2020 saying the lab-leak idea was a baseless conspiracy theory equivalent of “xenophobic climate change denial,” spewing Chinese Communist Party [CCP]  propaganda.  In the same FOIA email trove of Fauci, Daszak thanked Fauci for lending his credibility to disputing the lab-leak theory.  Fauci, told Daszak, “your welcome.”  What more does the medical community and U.S. government need to see about the two-faced Fauci, who, when caught red handed, always says the people “take him out-of-context.”  What’s out-of-context about Fauci spewing CCP propaganda?     

        Faiuci always says publicly that there’s no evidence that the deadly coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV] lab.  But Fauci never asks for evidence when it comes to CCP propaganda that the virus occurred naturally in a Wuhan wet or seafood market.  Fauci’s played all sides against the middle, thinking he can tap dance his way ahead of the political biased media that looked in 2020 for anything to discredit Trump.  Trump tweeted April 30, 2020 that the novel coronavirus came from a WIV lab.  Once that happened, Fauci and the U.S. press did everything possible to discredit Trump.  Microbiologist Lina Chan admitted to NBC news that she refused to tell the media that she supported the lab-leak theory in 2020 because she thought she would be ridiculed by her colleagues and the press for backing anything Trump said.  Chan went so far to say she’d be considered “racist” by her peers.  

           In the Jan. 31 teleconference with Fauci, Anderson was very clear that the deadly novel coronavirus looked different from a natural virus.  “All find the genome [of the coronavirus] inconsistent with expectation from evolutionary theory,” though “those   opinions could still change,” Andersen told Fauci.  Fauci now says, after spending the last year-and-a-half disputing the lab-leak theory, his call with Anderson “was a very productive back-and-forth conversation where some on the call felt it could possibly be an engineered virus,” Fauci now says.  “I always had an open mind” about the lab-leak theory, “even though I felt then, and still do, the most likely origin was an animal host,” Fauci said, offering no evidence for his “natural occurrence” theory, continuing to recite the WHO and CCP propaganda that the virus occurred naturally in a Wuhan live animal or seafood market.     

        Fauci talks through both sides of his mouth about the origin of the virus.  If Fauci had an “open mind,” why did he not demand any evidence to support the CCP propaganda that the virus occurred naturally?   When Fauci heard Chinese Foreign Minister Spokesman Zhao Lijian say, two days after the WHO declared a global pandemic March 11, 2020, that the virus was made in American and planted in Wuhan, he said nothing.  Does that mean Fauci believes Lijian who said May 25 that the virus was made in Fort Detrick, Maryland and exported to Wuhan?  It’s abundantly clear that Fauci, the highest paid career employee at the National Institutes of Health, promoted CCP propaganda, offering zero evidence for his belief that the deadly novel coronavirus came from a seafood or wet market in Wuhan.  Only after Biden ordered the intel community to find an answer, did Fauci say he had an “open mind.”        

      Fauci served as a covert Democrat political operative during the 2020 presidential campaign.  When Trump got wind of Fauci’s political leanings, he sidelined him July 11, 2020, replacing him with Hoover Institution’s Dr. Scott Atlas.  Atlas was thoroughly discredited by Fauci and the media all through the 2020 campaign.  Fauci spent 2020 not understanding the origin of the deadly coronavirus but talking on radio and TV to the anti-Trump media.  “If you look at the evolution of the virus, in bats and what’s out there n, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated . . “ Fauci said in May 2020.  Fauci knew that he funded EcoHealth Alliance CEO Robert Daszak to fund WIV chief virology Shi Zhengli to conduct “gain-of-function” experiments on harmless bar-coronaviruses, morphing them into deadly pathogens to humans.

 About the Author 

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[orbemnews]

Polls say Americans report record low opinions of China. Are the surveys measuring racism? In fact, if you go by the polls, they’ve never liked it less. When asked how they felt toward China, the vast majority of Americans surveyed required no further detail before giving definitive answers like “very cold” and “very unfavorable,” according to results published by Gallup and Pew, two leading public opinion research groups, this month. In a national context that sees Asian Americans harassed and assaulted because of their ethnicity, and where then President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Chinese virus” was linked to increases in racist online rhetoric, some observers are wishing that the questions Americans ask to understand themselves allow for more nuance. “It’s not possible to treat China like this one, coherent thing. As if you can hold positive or negative attitudes towards the government, all the people, the culture — and that all sticks together as one single opinion,” said Tobita Chow, director of Justice is Global. Across the US media spectrum, China is a subject of constant interest. It is depicted as partner, competitor, and enemy, but it’s never ignored. In this climate, Chenchen Zhang, lecturer of Politics and International Relations at Queen’s University Belfast, says the “feeling thermometer” questions used in surveys about China are different. ​Mainstream pollsters “wouldn’t ask Americans this question about Denmark or Italy, because no one would know who the prime ministers there are, or what the policies of the ruling parties are,” she said. “And (Americans) don’t know the Chinese policies either, but they know that there is a Communist party, and it’s not good. I think that makes opinion surveys about China different from other nations,” Zhang said. “There’s a lot of pressure and encouragement for people to engage in thinking about China that’s either black or white; good or evil. It is exceptionally hard to get people to think of China in a more nuanced way,” Chow said. “It’s worth asking: are there different ways we can check people’s attitudes?” China as a monolith Whether it’s the pernicious model minority myth or the alarming spike in xenophobic language being used to harass people of Asian descent, one of the defining features of the racism Asian Americans experience is being treated as a monolith, community advocates say. And with the outsized presence of China in the American imagination, it is a frustratingly common experience for people who have nothing to do with China to be presumed “Chinese” on the basis of their name or appearance. Loyalties are questioned. Crude stereotypes are assumed. And among those who pay close attention to the politics and culture of China, the extremes can be dizzying in a way that is difficult to quantify in a single word or “temperature.” Chow says important distinctions get lost in the possible survey answers of “favorable” and “unfavorable.” “What do you think about the state of the country right now, and what do you wish for the country? I have an unfavorable view about a lot of what is happening in US society right now, but at the same time I want things to get better for the US and everyone in it. I suspect that ‘unfavorability’ applied to China fails to make this distinction, and runs these things together: thinking that the other country has a lot of problems right now and wanting things to go poorly for them in the future.” Decades in use, historic findings But academics who study and design polls say that these questions offer valuable insight into how opinions have changed over time. “The reason we keep using these feeling thermometer questions is because they’ve been asked for so long,” said Samara Klar, a political scientist at the University of Arizona. “There’s a trade-off,” Klar says, “if you change the question, then you lose the time series, and you can’t really compare it to any previous surveys. So it is really valuable to have them, partially because we’ve been asking them for decades. And if you’re seeing these trends become more and more negative, that’s definitely telling you something.” In the year of the coronavirus pandemic, these trends have reached historically negative levels. In the survey conducted by Ipsos – KnowledgePanel for the Chicago Council in July 2020, Americans responded with the lowest “temperature” they’d reported since the council began asking the question in 1978. In a Gallup poll conducted early last month, 79% of Americans surveyed reported an unfavorable view of China. It was by far the highest percentage Gallup had reported since September 1979. In a Pew survey also from ​last summer, 42% of Americans surveyed reported a “very unfavorable” opinion of China. It was by far the highest percentage Pew had observed since it began asking the question in the spring of 2005. These findings were reported widely, often as little more than splashy headlines and tweets. Feelings about the self and the other To Klar, the historically negative results may be a function, in part, of the way the question was asked. Klar does not study China, or Americans’ opinions of it. But she does use survey research to understand how Americans think about partisan politics at home, and she sees some relevant parallels in the ways “feeling thermometer” questions are asked of Democrats and Republicans. “What survey researchers have found, over the last several decades, is that people feel about the same towards their own party that they always have, but they feel more and more negative towards the other party. And this has led to this phenomenon that political scientists call affective polarization, which means people increasingly dislike members of the other party. And people are really concerned about this,” Klar said. But in thinking about the “other” in the question, Klar and her colleagues have found that when Americans give especially negative answers, they are often thinking, specifically, about the elites of the other party. Perhaps anticipating the public’s curiosity, Pew published a companion piece to its latest survey, explaining what Americans were thinking about when they reported their views of “China.” Similar to Klar’s observation about broad questions causing respondents to imagine elites when they answer, Pew reported that “Americans rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government.” On the subject of the Chinese government, Americans’ views are especially negative about Chinese president Xi Jinping. Forty-three percent told Pew they had “no confidence at all” in Xi to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.” Klar says Americans polled on China might respond differently if asked narrower questions, like they do when polled on domestic partisan issues. “When we say, ‘ok, now I want you to think about the people who voted for them, or people who identify with the other party.’ Then we find significantly warmer reports. So essentially, what this means is that people have very negative feelings towards the institution of (the other party) or the elites of the (other party), or maybe even that party as an abstract concept, but when we hone in on the question of ordinary voters, they actually feel quite warm towards them. Which suggests that we do tend to be colder in the abstract than we are when it comes to a person down the street.” Risks of misinterpretation So what if Americans’ now-famous negativity toward China is overstated? Klar notes from her own research that “the more people think that Republicans and Democrats are polarized on issues where they’re not actually that polarized, the more they express negative feelings toward ​members of the other group, risking creation of a vicious cycle. Stated more broadly, “if we overstate hostility towards out groups, it tends to exacerbate subsequent hostility toward those groups,” Klar said. But as Asian Americans around the country are saying loud and clear, the racialized hostility they experience is hardly overstated. Klar sees the risk. “If we understate discrimination, then we are essentially dismissing a really important crisis in our country, which is that a non-White minority is being discriminated against,” she said. Justin McCarthy, a spokesperson for Gallup, notes that their polls have measured large fluctuations in public opinion over the last four decades. But previous spikes in American antipathy for China have not corresponded to increased reports of xenophobic attacks against Asian Americans like this past year. Diversity in design David Wilson, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, says “feeling thermometer” questions can be effective tools for measuring a society’s views, and may even help pollsters identify the kinds of views that respondents may be reluctant to admit openly. The American public’s affect, or mood, about China, is a useful data point for researchers, Wilson says. In combination with data from other questions on things like specific foreign policy initiatives, researchers can gain valuable insight into the public’s behavior. But Wilson notes that what the general public considers to be an appropriate survey question can change over time. So can the makeup of that public, itself. Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial group in the United States, according to Pew, and their voices have been reflected in these polls in increasing numbers. But according to Wilson, there has been relatively little focus in the survey design world on how Asian Americans perceive questions. “It’s a legitimate concern to know how they’re interpreting the questions,” he said. “Most questions have been standardized on White Americans. America is probably the leading country in terms of surveys and public opinion work, and, on average, the overwhelming majority of every sample is White people. So most of the questions we’ve been tracking over time just disregard the racial sensitivities of other groups,” Wilson said. How can researchers accommodate for the ways different people may perceive a question? For me, it’s diversifying the survey room so you can have the tough conversations with each other, and vet the survey. Vet the conversation before you give it to the public,” he said, about his hopes for the industry as a whole. The view from the survey room Dina Smeltz is a senior fellow for public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and a member of the team that designed their October 2020 survey. She says the survey’s questions offer an important way “to gauge the ups and downs” of a relationship like the one between the US and China, and the public’s reactions to it. “I don’t think this is normalizing animus, it is measuring a snapshot of public opinion at a particular point in time. The thermometer is an especially neutral way to ask about a country,” she said. But she notes that there can be big differences between views of a country and views of its people. “In a perfect world, research organizations would be able to ask a full range of questions about the Chinese government, the Chinese economy, the positives they associate with China, the negatives they associate with China, and then move on to ask about the Chinese people, the positives and negatives associated with the Chinese people, and from there break it down even further,” Smeltz said. “If we had the room and the budget to ask deeper questions about various groups of people within China, those indicators would, of course, add a richer understanding of American attitudes toward China and the Chinese people. Hopefully we will be funded to do that in the future.” McCarthy defends his organization’s current approach. “At Gallup we are fortunate to have powerful tools at our disposal to accurately measure public opinion, and to have trends that provide unparalleled context for current attitudes. It is our responsibility to maintain these trends and to provide expert analysis explaining them. Selectively choosing not to measure certain things out of fear of how the results may be misinterpreted or misused would be a dangerous and slippery slope. Rather, we would encourage all who want to improve society to look to reliable data like Gallup’s to understand public attitudes and work from there to press for policy or societal changes as needed.” Laura Silver, senior researcher at Pew, said “we agree that it’s important to be clear what people are thinking about when they respond to questions like our feeling thermometers,” and noted that, this year, Pew asked a question to try to uncover that. “Our results show that when Americans described what they thought about China, they rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government — including its policies or how it behaves internationally — as well as its economy.” Source link Orbem News #Americans #China #measuring #opinions #polls #PollssayAmericansreportrecord-lowopinionsofChina.Arethesurveysmeasuringracism?ByEveBower-CNN #racism #record #Report #surveys #us

[differentnutpeace]

Why Pandemics Give Birth To Hate: From Bubonic Plague To COVID-19

The pandemic has been responsible for an outbreak of violence and hate directed against Asians around the world, blaming them for the spread of COVID-19. During this surge in attacks, the perpetrators have made their motives clear, taunting their victims  หวย บอล เกมส์ กีฬา คาสิโนออนไลน์

The numbers over the past year in the U.S. alone are alarming. As NPR has reported, nearly 3,800 instances of discrimination against Asians have been reported just in the past year to Stop AAPI Hate, a coalition that tracks incidents of violence and harassment against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the U.S.

CODE SWITCH

Screams And Silence

Then came mass shooting in Atlanta last week, which took the lives of eight people, including six women of Asian descent. The shooter's motive has not been determined, but the incident has spawned a deeper discourse on racism and violence targeting Asians in the wake of the coronavirus.

This narrative – that "others," often from far-flung places, are to blame for epidemics – is a dramatic example of a long tradition of hatred. In 14th-century Europe, Jewish communities were wrongfully accused of poisoning wells to spread the Black Death. In 1900, Chinese people were unfairly vilified for an outbreak of the plague in San Francisco's Chinatown. And in the '80s, Haitians were blamed for bringing HIV/AIDS to the U.S., a theory that's considered unsubstantiated by many global health experts.

Article continues after sponsor message

Some public health practitioners say the global health system is partially responsible for perpetuating these ideas.

According to Abraar Karan, a doctor at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, the notion persists in global health that "the West is the best." This led to an assumption early on in the pandemic that COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world because China wasn't able to control it.

SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS

OPINION: 5 Ways To Make The Vaccine Rollout More Equitable

"The other side of that assumption is, 'Had this started anywhere else, like in the U.S. or the U.K. or Europe, somehow it would've been better controlled, and a pandemic wouldn't have happened,'" says Karan, who was born in India and raised in the U.S. He has previously worked with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to respond to COVID-19.

China's response was not without fault. The government's decision to silence doctors and not warn the public about a likely pandemic for six days in mid-January caused more than 3,000 people to become infected within a week, according to a report by the Associated Press, and created ripe conditions for global spread. Some of the aggressive measures China took to control the epidemic – confining people to their homes, for example — have been described as "draconian" and a violation of civil rights, even if they ultimately proved effective.

But it soon became clear that assumptions about the superiority of Western health systems were false when China and other Asian countries, along with many African countries, controlled outbreaks far more effectively and faster than Western countries did, says Karan.

The Twitter Blame Game And Its Repercussions

Some politicians, including former President Donald Trump publicly blamed China for the pandemic, calling this novel coronavirus the "Chinese Virus" or the "Wuhan Virus." They consistently pushed that narrative even after the World Health Organization (WHO) warned as early as March 2020, when the pandemic was declared, that such language would encourage racial profiling and stigmatization against Asians. Trump has continued to use stigmatizing language in the wake of the Atlanta shooting, using the phrase "China virus" during a March 16 call to Fox News.

A report by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), released this month, directly linked Trump's first tweet about a "Chinese virus" to a significant increase in anti-Asian hashtags. According to a separate report by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, anti-Asian hate crimes in 16 U.S. cities increased 149 percent in 2020, from 49 to 122.

"Diseases have often been racialized in the past as a form of scapegoating," says Yulin Hswen, an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF and lead author of the study on Trump's tweet. Sometimes, it's to distract from other events that are occurring within a society, such as the early failures of the U.S. response to the pandemic, says Hswen.

Suspicion tends to manifest more during times of vulnerability, like in wartime or during a pandemic, says ElsaMarie D'Silva, an Aspen Institute New Voices fellow from India who studies violence and harassment issues. It just so happened that COVID-19 was originally identified in China, but, as NPR's Jason Beaubien has reported, some of the early clusters of cases elsewhere came from jet setters who traveled to Europe and ski destinations.

"What you're seeing in the U.S. is this pre-existing, deep-seated bias [against Asians and Asian Americans] – or rather, racism – that is now surfacing," says D'Silva. "COVID-19 is just an excuse."

A Racist History In Global Health

For Karan, though, the problem lies deeper — with the colonialist history of global health systems.

"It's not that the biases are necessarily birthed from global health researchers," he says. "It's more that global health researchers are birthed from institutions and cultures that are inherently xenophobic and racist."

For example, the West is usually regarded as the hub of expertise and knowledge, says Sriram Shamasunder, an associate professor of medicine at UCSF, and there's a sense among Western health workers that epidemics occur in impoverished contexts because the people there engage in primitive behaviors and just don't care as much about health.

"[Western health workers] come in with a bias that in San Francisco or Boston, we would never let [these crises] happen," says Shamasunder, who is co-founder and faculty director of the HEAL Initiative, a global health fellowship that works in Navajo Nation in the U.S. and in eight other countries.

In the early days of COVID-19, skepticism by Western public health officials about the efficacy of Asian mask protocols hindered the U.S.'s ability to control the pandemic. Additionally, stereotypes about who was and wasn't at risk had significant consequences, says Nancy Kass, deputy director for public health at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.

According to Kass, doctors initially only considered a possible COVID-19 diagnosis among people who had recently flown back from China. That narrow focus caused the U.S. to misdiagnose patients who presented with what we now call classic COVID symptoms simply because they hadn't traveled from China.

"Inadvertently, we [did] a disservice both to patients who need[ed] care and to public health," says Kass.

It's reminiscent of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, Kass says. Because itwas so widely billed as a "gay disease," there are many documented cases of heterosexual women who presented with symptoms but weren't diagnosed until they were on their deathbeds.

That's not to say that we should ignore facts and patterns about new diseases. For example, Kass says it's appropriate to warn pregnant women about the risks of traveling to countries where the Zika virus, which is linked to birth and developmental defects, is present.

But there's a difference, she says, between making sure people have enough information to understand a disease and attaching a label, like "Chinese virus," that is inaccurate and that leads to stereotyping.

Karan says we also need to shift our approach to epidemics. In the case of COVID-19 and other outbreaks, Western countries often think of them as a national security issue, closing borders and blaming the countries where the disease was first reported. This approach encourages stigmatization, he says.

Instead, Karan suggests reframing the discussion to focus on global solidarity, which promotes the idea that we are all in this together. One way for wealthy countries to demonstrate solidarity now, Karan says, is by supporting the equitable and speedy distribution of vaccines among countries globally as well as among communities within their own borders.

Without such commitments in place, "it prompts the question, whose lives matter most?" says Shamasunder.

Ultimately, the global health community – and Western society as a whole – has to discard its deep-rooted mindset of coloniality and tendency to scapegoat others, says Hswen. The public health community can start by talking more about the historic racism and atrocities that have been tied to diseases.

Additionally, Karan says, leaders should reframe the pandemic for people: Instead of blaming Asians for the virus, blame the systems that weren't adequately prepared to respond to a pandemic.

Although WHO has had specific guidance since 2015 about not naming diseases after places, Hswen says the public health community at large should have spoken out earlier and stronger last year against racialized language and the ensuing violence. She says they should have anticipated the backlash against Asians and preempted it with public messaging and education about why neutral terms like "COVID-19" should be used instead of "Chinese virus."

"Public health people know there is a history of racializing diseases and targeting particular groups," says Hswen. "They could have done more to defend the Asian community."

Joanne Lu is a freelance journalist who covers global poverty and inequity. Her work has appeared in Humanosphere, The Guardian, Global Washington and War is Boring. Follow her on Twitter: @joannelu

[dipulb3]

Polls say Americans report record low opinions of China. Are the surveys measuring racism?

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/polls-say-americans-report-record-low-opinions-of-china-are-the-surveys-measuring-racism/

Polls say Americans report record low opinions of China. Are the surveys measuring racism?

In fact, if you go by the polls, they’ve never liked it less.

When asked how they felt toward China, the vast majority of Americans surveyed required no further detail before giving definitive answers like “very cold” and “very unfavorable,” according to results published by Gallup and Pew, two leading public opinion research groups, this month.

In a national context that sees Asian Americans harassed and assaulted because of their ethnicity, and where then President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Chinese virus” was linked to increases in racist online rhetoric, some observers are wishing that the questions Americans ask to understand themselves allow for more nuance.

“It’s not possible to treat China like this one, coherent thing. As if you can hold positive or negative attitudes towards the government, all the people, the culture — and that all sticks together as one single opinion,” said Tobita Chow, director of Justice is Global. Across the US media spectrum, China is a subject of constant interest. It is depicted as partner, competitor, and enemy, but it’s never ignored.

In this climate, Chenchen Zhang, lecturer of Politics and International Relations at Queen’s University Belfast, says the “feeling thermometer” questions used in surveys about China are different. ​Mainstream pollsters “wouldn’t ask Americans this question about Denmark or Italy, because no one would know who the prime ministers there are, or what the policies of the ruling parties are,” she said.

“And (Americans) don’t know the Chinese policies either, but they know that there is a Communist party, and it’s not good. I think that makes opinion surveys about China different from other nations,” Zhang said.

“There’s a lot of pressure and encouragement for people to engage in thinking about China that’s either black or white; good or evil. It is exceptionally hard to get people to think of China in a more nuanced way,” Chow said. “It’s worth asking: are there different ways we can check people’s attitudes?”

China as a monolith

Whether it’s the pernicious model minority myth or the alarming spike in xenophobic language being used to harass people of Asian descent, one of the defining features of the racism Asian Americans experience is being treated as a monolith, community advocates say.

And with the outsized presence of China in the American imagination, it is a frustratingly common experience for people who have nothing to do with China to be presumed “Chinese” on the basis of their name or appearance. Loyalties are questioned. Crude stereotypes are assumed.

And among those who pay close attention to the politics and culture of China, the extremes can be dizzying in a way that is difficult to quantify in a single word or “temperature.”

Chow says important distinctions get lost in the possible survey answers of “favorable” and “unfavorable.”

“What do you think about the state of the country right now, and what do you wish for the country? I have an unfavorable view about a lot of what is happening in US society right now, but at the same time I want things to get better for the US and everyone in it. I suspect that ‘unfavorability’ applied to China fails to make this distinction, and runs these things together: thinking that the other country has a lot of problems right now and wanting things to go poorly for them in the future.”

Decades in use, historic findings

But academics who study and design polls say that these questions offer valuable insight into how opinions have changed over time.

“The reason we keep using these feeling thermometer questions is because they’ve been asked for so long,” said Samara Klar, a political scientist at the University of Arizona.

“There’s a trade-off,” Klar says, “if you change the question, then you lose the time series, and you can’t really compare it to any previous surveys. So it is really valuable to have them, partially because we’ve been asking them for decades. And if you’re seeing these trends become more and more negative, that’s definitely telling you something.”

In the year of the coronavirus pandemic, these trends have reached historically negative levels.

In the survey conducted by Ipsos – KnowledgePanel for the Chicago Council in July 2020, Americans responded with the lowest “temperature” they’d reported since the council began asking the question in 1978.

In a Gallup poll conducted early last month, 79% of Americans surveyed reported an unfavorable view of China. It was by far the highest percentage Gallup had reported since September 1979.

In a Pew survey also from ​last summer, 42% of Americans surveyed reported a “very unfavorable” opinion of China. It was by far the highest percentage Pew had observed since it began asking the question in the spring of 2005.

These findings were reported widely, often as little more than splashy headlines and tweets.

Feelings about the self and the other

To Klar, the historically negative results may be a function, in part, of the way the question was asked.

Klar does not study China, or Americans’ opinions of it. But she does use survey research to understand how Americans think about partisan politics at home, and she sees some relevant parallels in the ways “feeling thermometer” questions are asked of Democrats and Republicans.

“What survey researchers have found, over the last several decades, is that people feel about the same towards their own party that they always have, but they feel more and more negative towards the other party. And this has led to this phenomenon that political scientists call affective polarization, which means people increasingly dislike members of the other party. And people are really concerned about this,” Klar said.

But in thinking about the “other” in the question, Klar and her colleagues have found that when Americans give especially negative answers, they are often thinking, specifically, about the elites of the other party.

Perhaps anticipating the public’s curiosity, Pew published a companion piece to its latest survey, explaining what Americans were thinking about when they reported their views of “China.” Similar to Klar’s observation about broad questions causing respondents to imagine elites when they answer, Pew reported that “Americans rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government.”

On the subject of the Chinese government, Americans’ views are especially negative about Chinese president Xi Jinping. Forty-three percent told Pew they had “no confidence at all” in Xi to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

Klar says Americans polled on China might respond differently if asked narrower questions, like they do when polled on domestic partisan issues.

“When we say, ‘ok, now I want you to think about the people who voted for them, or people who identify with the other party.’ Then we find significantly warmer reports. So essentially, what this means is that people have very negative feelings towards the institution of (the other party) or the elites of the (other party), or maybe even that party as an abstract concept, but when we hone in on the question of ordinary voters, they actually feel quite warm towards them. Which suggests that we do tend to be colder in the abstract than we are when it comes to a person down the street.”

Risks of misinterpretation

So what if Americans’ now-famous negativity toward China is overstated?

Klar notes from her own research that “the more people think that Republicans and Democrats are polarized on issues where they’re not actually that polarized, the more they express negative feelings toward ​members of the other group, risking creation of a vicious cycle.

Stated more broadly, “if we overstate hostility towards out groups, it tends to exacerbate subsequent hostility toward those groups,” Klar said.

But as Asian Americans around the country are saying loud and clear, the racialized hostility they experience is hardly overstated.

Klar sees the risk. “If we understate discrimination, then we are essentially dismissing a really important crisis in our country, which is that a non-White minority is being discriminated against,” she said.

Justin McCarthy, a spokesperson for Gallup, notes that their polls have measured large fluctuations in public opinion over the last four decades. But previous spikes in American antipathy for China have not corresponded to increased reports of xenophobic attacks against Asian Americans like this past year.

Diversity in design

David Wilson, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, says “feeling thermometer” questions can be effective tools for measuring a society’s views, and may even help pollsters identify the kinds of views that respondents may be reluctant to admit openly.

The American public’s affect, or mood, about China, is a useful data point for researchers, Wilson says. In combination with data from other questions on things like specific foreign policy initiatives, researchers can gain valuable insight into the public’s behavior.

But Wilson notes that what the general public considers to be an appropriate survey question can change over time. So can the makeup of that public, itself.

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial group in the United States, according to Pew, and their voices have been reflected in these polls in increasing numbers. But according to Wilson, there has been relatively little focus in the survey design world on how Asian Americans perceive questions. “It’s a legitimate concern to know how they’re interpreting the questions,” he said.

“Most questions have been standardized on White Americans. America is probably the leading country in terms of surveys and public opinion work, and, on average, the overwhelming majority of every sample is White people. So most of the questions we’ve been tracking over time just disregard the racial sensitivities of other groups,” Wilson said.

How can researchers accommodate for the ways different people may perceive a question?

For me, it’s diversifying the survey room so you can have the tough conversations with each other, and vet the survey. Vet the conversation before you give it to the public,” he said, about his hopes for the industry as a whole.

The view from the survey room

Dina Smeltz is a senior fellow for public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and a member of the team that designed their October 2020 survey. She says the survey’s questions offer an important way “to gauge the ups and downs” of a relationship like the one between the US and China, and the public’s reactions to it.

“I don’t think this is normalizing animus, it is measuring a snapshot of public opinion at a particular point in time. The thermometer is an especially neutral way to ask about a country,” she said.

But she notes that there can be big differences between views of a country and views of its people.

“In a perfect world, research organizations would be able to ask a full range of questions about the Chinese government, the Chinese economy, the positives they associate with China, the negatives they associate with China, and then move on to ask about the Chinese people, the positives and negatives associated with the Chinese people, and from there break it down even further,” Smeltz said.

“If we had the room and the budget to ask deeper questions about various groups of people within China, those indicators would, of course, add a richer understanding of American attitudes toward China and the Chinese people. Hopefully we will be funded to do that in the future.”

McCarthy defends his organization’s current approach. “At Gallup we are fortunate to have powerful tools at our disposal to accurately measure public opinion, and to have trends that provide unparalleled context for current attitudes. It is our responsibility to maintain these trends and to provide expert analysis explaining them. Selectively choosing not to measure certain things out of fear of how the results may be misinterpreted or misused would be a dangerous and slippery slope. Rather, we would encourage all who want to improve society to look to reliable data like Gallup’s to understand public attitudes and work from there to press for policy or societal changes as needed.”

Laura Silver, senior researcher at Pew, said “we agree that it’s important to be clear what people are thinking about when they respond to questions like our feeling thermometers,” and noted that, this year, Pew asked a question to try to uncover that.

“Our results show that when Americans described what they thought about China, they rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government — including its policies or how it behaves internationally — as well as its economy.”

[newstfionline]

Friday, March 19, 2021

Asian anxiety about Atlanta shootings (NYT) The slaying of six Asian women among eight people killed in shootings at three Atlanta-area spas on Tuesday left Asian communities in many Western countries shaken, after a year that has seen a spike in racist attacks and threats against people of Asian descent. The South Korean Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that four people of Korean descent were among the victims. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was already in Seoul on a diplomatic trip, said Wednesday that he was “horrified by this violence” and offered “deepest condolences to the families and friends” of the victims.

IRS will delay tax filing due date until May 17 (AP) Americans will be getting extra time to prepare their taxes. The Internal Revenue Service says it’s delaying the traditional tax filing deadline from April 15 until May 17. The IRS announced the decision Wednesday and said it would provide further guidance in the coming days. The move provides more breathing room for taxpayers and the IRS alike to cope with changes brought on by the pandemic. The decision postpones when individual taxpayers must file their return and when their payment is due. The IRS said taxpayers who owe money would not face any further penalties or interest if they pay by May 17. The new deadline also applies to individuals who pay self-employment tax.

Troubled US-China ties face new test in Alaska meeting (AP) The United States and China will face a new test in their increasingly troubled relations when top officials from both countries meet in Alaska. Ties between the world’s two largest economies have been torn for years and the Biden administration has yet to signal it’s ready or willing to back down on the hard-line stances taken under President Donald Trump. Nor has China signaled it’s prepared to ease the pressure it has brought to bear. Thus, the stage is set for a contentious first face-to-face meeting Thursday. Difficult discussions are anticipated over trade, human rights in Tibet, Hong Kong, China’s western Xinjiang region, Taiwan, Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, and the coronavirus pandemic. Just a day before the meeting, the U.S. announced new sanctions on officials over China’s crackdown on pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong. In response, the Chinese stepped up their rhetoric opposing U.S. interference in domestic affairs.

Cycle of retribution takes Bolivia’s ex-president from palace to prison cell (The Guardian) It was November 2019, just days after Evo Morales had abandoned Bolivia’s presidency and fled into exile, and the country’s newly installed interior minister was making no effort to hide his glee. “Any terrorist should spend the rest of their life in prison,” Arturo Murillo gloated during an interview in his recently occupied chambers, vowing to put the runaway leftist behind bars for the next 30 years. “It’s not about whether you’re an ex-president,” the pugnacious hotelier-turned-politician insisted. “In fact, it’s even worse when it’s an ex-president. An ex-president should be sentenced twice over because people trust in their president.” This week, an ex-president was indeed jailed in Bolivia—but not Morales. Instead, it was Murillo’s former boss, Jeanine Áñez, who found herself languishing in a La Paz prison cell after being seized by security forces early on Saturday. “We’re seeking a 30-year sentence,” Bolivia’s new justice minister, Iván Lima, announced, as Áñez was accused of terrorism and sedition—the very same charges Murillo had levelled at Morales. The imprisonment of Áñez, a Bible-bashing conservative who became interim leader after Morales fled under pressure from the military, was met with jubilation by some. Others, however, described the arrest as an alarming development in an already profoundly divided country.

E.U. unveils vaccine passport plan to enable summer travel (NYT) The European Union on Wednesday launched a closely watched effort to create a joint vaccination passport for its more than 440 million citizens and residents, embarking on a tightrope walk between economic pressures, discrimination fears and concerns over Europe’s slow vaccination progress. Supporters hope the “digital green certificates” will be ready by June, which could help to salvage the European summer tourism season and even serve as a model that could be extended to the United States and other countries. But E.U. countries lag far behind the United States in vaccinations, which has raised concerns that the passport plan could be launched prematurely. The passes are expected to be digital or paper documents for travelers to prove that they have been vaccinated, that they recovered from the virus or recently tested negative for it. In many cases, this could free travelers from quarantine obligations. Those privileges could eventually also apply to Americans or British citizens traveling to continental Europe, given that all vaccines approved in the two countries are also approved for use in the European Union.

Russia recalls its ambassador to the US after Biden says he thinks Putin is a killer (USA Today) Russia has recalled its ambassador to the United States to discuss relations with Washington, a foreign ministry spokeswoman said Wednesday. The move came after President Joe Biden said Russian President Vladimir Putin would “pay a price” for Moscow’s interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. In an interview with ABC News, Biden was also asked if he thought Putin is a killer. “I do,” Biden responded. The president did not elaborate on the “killer” question or on what costs the U.S. might impose on Russia over election interference. The diplomatic tiff comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Moscow. On Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials released a report concluding that Russia tried to denigrate Biden’s candidacy in the 2020 election. The declassified assessment said that Putin authorized the election meddling, which sought to help former president Donald Trump’s re-election bid.

Myanmar construction magnate claims cash payments to Suu Kyi (AP) A Myanmar construction magnate with links to military rulers claimed he personally gave more than half a million dollars in cash to deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi in a broadcast on state television aimed at discrediting the ousted civilian government. The statement by Maung Waik could pave the way for more serious charges against Suu Kyi, who has been detained since the Feb. 1 military takeover while security forces increasingly use lethal force against a popular uprising demanding the restoration of democratically elected leaders. The military has already tried to implicate Suu Kyi in corruption, alleging she was given $600,000 plus gold bars by a political ally. She and President Win Myint have been charged so far with inciting unrest, possession of walkie-talkies and violating a pandemic order limiting public gatherings.

Myanmar faces growing isolation as military tightens grip (Reuters) Myanmar faced growing isolation on Thursday with increasingly limited internet services and its last private newspaper ceasing publication as the military built a case against ousted elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Western countries have condemned the coup and called for an end to the violence and for the release of Suu Kyi and others. Asian neighbours have offered to help find a solution, but the military has a long record of shunning outside pressure. Large parts of an economy already reeling from the novel coronavirus have been paralysed by the protests and a parallel civil disobedience campaign of strikes against military rule, while many foreign investors are reassessing plans. The U.N. food agency warned this week that rising prices of food and fuel could undermine the ability of poor families to feed themselves. “Whatever happens in Myanmar over coming months, the economy will collapse, leaving tens of millions in dire straits and needing urgent protection,” historian and author Thant Myint-U said on Twitter.

Combat Drones Made in China Are Coming to a Conflict Near You (Bloomberg) A dozen years into its fight with the Islamic insurgent group Boko Haram, Nigeria is getting some new weapons: a pair of Wing Loong II drones from China. The deal is one of a growing number of sales by state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC), which has exported scores of the aircraft. The United Arab Emirates has used AVIC drones in Libya’s civil war, Egypt has attacked rebels in Sinai with them, and Saudi-led troops have deployed them in Yemen. The company’s drones “are now battle-tested,” says Heather Penney, a fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, a think tank in Arlington, Va. “They’ve been able to feed lessons learned back into their manufacturing.” Nigeria is getting AVIC’s second generation of Wing Loongs—the name means “pterodactyl”—which can fly as fast as 230 mph and as high as 30,000 feet, carrying a payload of a dozen missiles. Since 2015, when AVIC introduced the newer model, it’s produced 50 for export and an unknown number for China’s People’s Liberation Army. And it’s working on even more advanced aircraft, such as a stealth combat drone with a flying-wing design similar to that of the U.S. B-2 bomber. The drone program, combined with deliveries of fighter jets, trainers, transporters, and assault helicopters, has propelled AVIC into the upper ranks of the global arms trade. In 2019 it sold military equipment valued at $22.5 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), placing it sixth in the world, behind five U.S. companies. AVIC’s drones have two big selling points: They’re cheaper than comparable aircraft from producers in the U.S. or Israel—the other primary manufacturers—and China doesn’t much care how they’re used, says Ulrike Franke, policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

As 4th Election Looms, Some Ask: Is Israel’s Democracy Broken? (NYT) Israelis will vote on Tuesday for the fourth time in two years, in a do-over election for a do-over election for a do-over election. The seemingly endless loop is the most prominent symptom of the polarization that has paralyzed Israeli politics since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to be investigated for corruption in 2017. Mr. Netanyahu has refused to resign. That decision has split the country, almost down the middle, and divided voters less by ideology than by their support or antipathy for Mr. Netanyahu. The polarization has been exacerbated by Israel’s multiparty system, which virtually guarantees that no single party will win an outright majority in Parliament, forcing the construction of wobbly coalitions with disparate small parties. Now, even the right-wing coalition that kept Mr. Netanyahu afloat for 12 years has fractured, mainly over question of the acceptability of a prime minister under criminal indictment. In the last three elections, Mr. Netanyahu did not win enough support to form a stable government. But neither did his opponents, which allowed him to remain prime minister, first in a caretaker role, and then, for the past year, as the head of a fragile coalition. Polling suggests that next week’s vote is unlikely to break the deadlock, leading many Israelis to brace for yet a fifth election later this year.

Clubhouse: the new social platform that is frightening Arab regimes (Le Monde) A month ago, the up-and-coming app Clubhouse took the Middle East by storm. In just a few days, the latest gem from Silicon Valley had already earned its place in the crowded market of Arab social networks. Since this audio chat platform only runs on iOS for the moment, its use is restricted to iPhone owners, i.e. the relatively wealthy classes. But in these circles, especially in Egypt and among the ultra-connected youth of the wealthy Gulf States, followers for this new app started to grow rapidly. In these countries where social pressure and official censorship stifle dissenting voices and non-conforming opinions, Clubhouse provides a unique breathing space. In these virtual rooms, where anyone can initiate a discussion on a topic of their choice, or join an ongoing conversation, Arabs are rediscovering a taste for free speech. As the powers that be have not yet found a way to lock down this new network, the three great taboos of the region (sex, politics and religion) are openly discussed. In a sign that the application scares autocrats, the Sultanate of Oman announced on Sunday that the country had blocked Clubhouse, following the footsteps of China, who blocked it in February. In the Emirates, discussions have not been accessible for several days, which is interpreted locally as an act of censorship without saying so openly. Fans of the platform can bypass the jamming with a VPN, but in doing so, they risk breaking the law: The use of such software is strictly codified in the UAE.

Yemeni rebel offensive threatens camps of those who fled war (AP) Already displaced once in Yemen’s grinding civil war, Mohammed Ali Saleh fled with his pregnant wife and their three children to central Marib province last year to seek refuge in a region that has known some relative peace and stability because of well-protected oil fields nearby. But now the fighting is moving toward them again. Iran-backed Houthi rebels are pushing to capture the province from the internationally recognized government to try to complete their control over the northern half of Yemen. If they succeed, the Houthis could claim a strategic win after a largely stalemated battle in almost seven years of fighting. The sounds of war terrify Saleh and his family. “It’s a nightmare we are experiencing every night,” he said from a camp for the displaced that had previously escaped violence.

#headlines #news

[dailynewswebsite]

Russian media may be joining China and Iran in turning on Trump

Chinese language shops that after relayed cautious optimism over Donald Trump's deal-making skills now specific exasperation over his chaotic type. Greg Baker/AFP through Getty Photographs

It may be simple to miss how the remainder of the world is making sense of America’s chaotic marketing campaign season.

However in lots of circumstances, they’re paying consideration simply as carefully as U.S. voters are. In any case, who wins the U.S. presidency has implications for nations world wide.

Since Sept. 22, we’ve been utilizing machine-learning algorithms to establish the predominant themes in international media protection.

How completely different nations cowl the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden can shed some gentle on how international residents discern the candidates and the American political course of, particularly in locations which have strict state management of media like China, Russia and Iran.

Not like within the U.S., the place there’s a cacophony of views, by and enormous the media in these three nations comply with very related narratives.

In 2016, we did the identical train. Again then, one of many important themes that emerged was the decline of U.S. democracy. With scandal and the disillusionment of voters dominating the headlines, America’s world rivals used the 2016 election to advance their very own political narratives about U.S. decline.

A few of these themes have emerged within the protection of the present race. However the greatest distinction is their portrayal of Trump.

The final election cycle, candidate Trump was an unknown. Though international nations acknowledged his political inexperience, they have been cautiously optimistic about Trump’s deal-making potential. Russian media shops have been significantly bullish on Trump’s potential.

Now, nonetheless, the sentiments seem to have modified. China, Iran and even Russia appear to crave a return to normalcy – and, to some extent, American management on the earth.

Dissecting the talk

To evaluate how America’s rivals make sense of the 2020 marketing campaign, we tracked over 20 outstanding information shops from Chinese language, Russian and Iranian native language media. We used computerized clustering algorithms to establish key narrative themes within the protection and sentiment evaluation to trace how every nation considered the candidates. We then reviewed this AI-extracted info to validate our findings.

Whereas our outcomes are nonetheless preliminary, they make clear how these nations’ media shops are portraying the 2 candidates. Two key moments from the 2020 marketing campaign – the primary debate and Trump’s coronavirus analysis – are significantly illustrative.

After the primary debate, the Chinese language media questioned its usefulness to voters and customarily portrayed Trump’s efficiency in a destructive gentle. To them, the “chaotic” back-and-forth was a sobering reflection of America’s political turbulence.

They described Trump as purposely sabotaging the talk by interrupting his opponent and, within the days after the talk, famous that his efficiency failed to enhance his lagging ballot numbers. Biden was criticized for being unable to articulate concrete insurance policies, however was nonetheless praised for having the ability to keep away from any main gaffes and – as an article from the Xinhua Information Company put it – responding to Trump with “fierce phrases.”

Not like in 2016, the place Clinton was portrayed as anti-Russian, corrupt and elitist, Russian media appeared extra prepared to characterize the Democratic Occasion nominee in a constructive gentle.

Actually, Russian protection expressed shock over Biden’s debate efficiency. He didn’t come throughout as feeble; as a substitute, he was, because the day by day newspaper Kommersant wrote, a energetic opponent who seemed to be “criticizing, irritating and humiliating” Trump by calling him a “liar, racist and the worst president.” They did reward Trump’s particularly aggressive rhetoric. Nonetheless, our evaluation discovered that Russian media additionally repeatedly claimed that, not like 2016, voters right now have been tiring of his bombast.

Whereas Trump’s post-debate posturing acquired some constructive protection, Russian media largely lamented his administration’s failure to ship substantive progress towards normalizing relations between the 2 nations. They famous the talk neither clarified insurance policies for voters nor for worldwide observers.

Russian shops have been largely supportive of President Trump, however have been important of his dealing with of the coronavirus. Mladen Antonov/AFP through Getty Photographs

Iranian media took the strongest anti-Trump stance. Stories routinely identified that Trump has had no international coverage successes, and has solely exacerbated relations with the nation’s main rivals. In accordance with Iranian media shops, Trump’s lack of accomplishments has left him with no alternative however to depend on insults and private assaults.

Biden, nonetheless, was mentioned to have stored his calm. As Al Alam Information wrote, he used “extra credible responses and assaults than Trump.”

The previous vp, of their view, promised some semblance of normalized diplomatic relations.

‘Intransigence’ and ‘ignorance’

The ultimate month of the U.S. presidential race is understood for last-minute surprises that may upend the race. This yr was no exception, with Trump’s Oct. 2 announcement of his COVID-19 analysis rapidly shifting media protection from the talk to Trump’s well being.

He acquired little sympathy from international shops. Throughout the board, they have been fast to notice how his private disregard for public well being security measures symbolized his administration’s failed response to the pandemic.

For instance, one Chinese language media outlet, The Beijing Information, characterised the analysis as “hitting” the president “within the face,” given his earlier downplaying of the epidemic. Different stories claimed Trump lacked “care concerning the epidemic,” together with disregard for “protecting measures akin to carrying a masks.”

Chinese language shops advised Trump would use the analysis to win sympathy from voters, but in addition famous by being sidelined from holding marketing campaign rallies, he may lose his “self-confessed” potential to draw voters.

Russian media, however, remained assured that Trump would get better and repeated the White Home line of Trump’s good well being.

On the identical time, Russian shops tended to chastise Trump’s unwillingness to keep away from massive gatherings, apply social distancing or put on a masks, all of which violated his administration’s primary well being tips. Likewise, Russian stories criticized Trump’s post-diagnosis conduct – like tweeting video messages whereas on the hospital and violating quarantine together with his public appearances – as “publicity stunts” that jeopardized the security of his Secret Service element and supporters.

Once more, Iranian media most immediately criticized Trump. Stories characterised Trump as “decided to proceed the identical method,” regardless of his analysis, and stay “and not using a muzzle,” “irresponsibly” persevering with to tweet misinformation falsely evaluating COVID-19 to the flu.

Iranian media shops have been significantly harsh on the president, with this headline calling him ‘Loopy Trump.’ STR/AFP through Getty Photographs

Protection centered on Trump’s incapacity to, as Al Alam put it, present “any sympathy” for the over 200,000 useless People. This demise toll, the identical article famous, was attributed to Trump’s “mismanagement, intransigence, ignorance and stupidity,” highlighted by his cavalier disregard for security tips akin to carrying a masks.

Within the bag for Biden?

Lots of the criticisms of the U.S. present in international media shops in our 2016 examine seem on this yr’s protection. However for the reason that 2016 election, geopolitics have modified fairly a bit – and, for a lot of of those nations, not essentially for the higher. That may finest clarify their collective ire towards Trump.

Throughout Trump’s first time period, Iranians absorbed the U.S.‘s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the reimposition of sanctions and the assassination of one in all its high generals.

The Chinese language entered right into a commerce warfare with the U.S., whereas the U.S. authorities leveled accusations of mental property theft, mass homicide and blame for the unfold of what Trump has referred to as the “China Virus.”

Russians, in the meantime, have seen themselves – pretty or not – sure to Trump’s 2016 election victory and outed as a global provocateur. That Trump has not been in a position to ship on normalizing U.S. Russian relations regardless of 4 years of posturing and political rhetoric has maybe made Trump extra of a political legal responsibility than worthwhile ally. Not solely has the COVID-19 pandemic sparked unrest in Russia’s yard, however mounting regional instability can be undermining Putin’s picture as a grasp tactician.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

In consequence, these nations’ shops seem to have shifted consideration away from a broad critique of U.S. democracy towards exasperation with Trump’s management.

The 2, after all, aren’t mutually unique. And these nations’ comparatively constructive characterizations of a possible Biden administration seemingly gained’t final.

However even the nation’s supposed adversaries appear to be craving a return to stability and predictability from the Oval Workplace.

Robert Hinck receives funding from the US Division of Homeland Safety and US Division of Protection.

Robert Utterback receives funding from the US Division of Homeland Safety and US Division of Protection.

Skye Cooley receives funding from the US Division of Homeland Safety and the US Division of Protection.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/russian-media-may-be-joining-china-and-iran-in-turning-on-trump/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News