![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/6cc54d9e-3583-464a-a7ac-40d98c0e0321.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
But they argue over a shared history. Mainlanders don’t get confused when someone from Taiwan talks about Tienamen. Taiwanese people don’t stare blankly at the name Chiang Kai-Shek. Folks from Hong Kong aren’t unfamiliar with the British Occupation.
Obviously. My reference to Tiananmen wasn’t implying that people are ignorant of it, but rather that it can’t be discussed openly in a public forum. Write an analysis of it on Weibo that criticizes the government and see where that gets you (whereas in the US you can freely write about the war in Iraq, slavery, or whatever else strikes your fancy)
People aren’t simply ignorant of the facts. They tend to be biased due to their material conditions. If you’re a mid manager at the Houston branch of Sinopec, you didn’t get there because you were a John Bircher. Meanwhile if you’re on the payroll of the Foremost Group, you’ve got a very real financial incentive to oppose Chinese unification (but also a real incentive to oppose US tariffs on China).
Also very true, but at least opposing viewpoints aren’t actively suppressed by the government. Equating the two is off by several orders of magnitude.
We were having a nice conversation, but this last reply is so full of strawmen and false equivalencies that I’m going to drop out. Have a good one.