See, I think the government should give subsidies or tax breaks to companies per pregnant/maternal leave worker. Withou them, you are essentially putting the interests of the company against the interests of the nation. The nation wants women to have kids but for a company, especially a small start-up with tight capital, it sucks ass to hire a worker only to have her piss off onto maternity leave 2 months after onboarding, then come back to work months later at 11:30am and leave 3:30pm all the time because she has new mom shit to do, which everyone has to just understand. You can't just make regulations and reprimand companies for discriminating against women who are likely to go on maternity leave; they'll always find loopholes to do it because it's in their interest to avoid such employees. The government has to make them want these employees through rewards.
Bad news is, most hanjian think they're doing the right thing. Most of them think that China's evil for not giving them the lifestyle they selfishly want but the more developed US did, so the US is good. If you raise your child in America, s/he is going to be susceptible to a Western interpretation of what is good through peer pressure. And just telling someone to do the good/right thing isn't even anything above common sense. So if you end up with a kid who hates being Chinese, it will be on you leaving so many unprotected points for Western media and surroundings to influence him/her. Ingraining into your child's mind from the start to look at hanjian with disgust and disdain is the best way to form a solid defense from him/her ever being convinced into becoming one.
I don't think that logic works at all. Someone wrong about something can be right about something else. I doubt that as a father, you can be right all the time, nor do you deserve distrust for being wrong sometimes.
The logical consistency is that Chinese people who betray their country deserve contempt because people in general who betray their countries deserve contempt. To deny that is to hold an inconsistent view and a double standard on the character value of traitors.
Blasting into outer space with impossible and unrealistic parameters shows that existing real life parameters cannot support your argument. But actually, I still met you out there; genetics and self-respect/love together put both your imaginary race-changing surgery and fantastical genetic race editing both in the wrong.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not all whites! One must be true to one's own country. We have great relationships with many predominantly white countries such as Russia, Belarus, South Africa, Serbia, etc...
And also, a person doesn't need to constantly be an attack dog or be branded a traitor, but to throw his/her country under the bus for acceptance into a new society would certainly meet that criteria. To just visit a country and be dignified in both your self-respect and respect for your host country is perfectly fine; it's the kind of foreigner I like to meet if I liked to meet them.
Life's not that simple. Just like America has to deal with Chinese scientists getting training then going back to China to develop its power as a rival, China has to deal with white bitches that came to China to talk trash about us. Personally, depending on the situation, if I see one in China, I'd like to find a reason to give him a real hard time, and I want all of them to leave but China revels in the aura of a generous magnanimous nation that will not do petty things.
Look, I understand it gives you fuzzy feelings to see a Westerner come to China and tell you he agrees with our view and cuts through all the media lies they fed him back home. Makes you wanna hug him, call him a bro, and buy him a beer. But not me. I was taught from as far back as I can remember to never betray my blood and never respect scum who do.
It really looks like you've built up an imaginary position that I have over a few lines of text. Now with a little time, I'll rephrase what my disagreement is:
1. Are countries cultural or racial unions?
You seem to believe they are racial unions, as exemplified by your focus on genes and DNA.
I believe they are cultural unions. The DNA differences of a southern Han vs northern Han vs western minority are vastly greater than the difference between Northern Han and Korean/Japanese or Southern Han and the Vietnam. Nations are not organized on genetic basis and except for a brief period of time in Europe (even then it was incredibly fuzzy), have never been organized as such. A racial-based "China" that contains its current population should also contain Siberia, Central Asia, Indochina, Korea, and Japan by definition. Otherwise the intranational population would be more genetically distinct than the international population. The alternative is a balkanized China and I don't think anyone here has that opinion.
Cultural union means neither a West-born Caucasian nor a China-born Central Asian have their de facto, or "spiritual", nationality set at birth. If they accept the culture of another nation, they are spiritually of that nation. Whether they can change their de jure nationality to that spiritual nation is another matter. That leads to the second disagreement.
2. People can have a different spiritual and legal nationality. What should the various combinations be considered?
It sounds like you believe:
Same spiritual and legal nationality: Citizen
Different spiritual and legal nationality, accepted by spiritual nation: Traitors
Different spiritual and legal nationality, rejected by spiritual nation: Traitors
My point of view is:
Same spiritual and legal nationality: Citizen
Different spiritual and legal nationality, accepted by spiritual nation: Prospective immigrant
Different spiritual and legal nationality, rejected by spiritual nation: Stateless person, frequently idiots
This difference in opinion leads to a third conclusion/question:
3. Is there any individual agency on national bounds?
Fixating on DNA and race means there is NO agency. It doesn't matter what any person or group does, they will always be of their "ancestor" nation.
I think there is plenty of space of agency. For example, Italians, Irish, and even Germans were never considered American for over a hundred years. It is only through consistent efforts by these groups to move both the existing and their own cultural windows to get accepted into America as "American". Some got concessions from existing group, like the Italians and Irish. Others had to completely get rid of their own culture, like the Germans. Chinese-Americans would fall into the German category. Similarly though Hispanics are currently not considered by many as "true" Americans, I forsee they will also become "Americans" with even greater cultural shift to the existing group than the Italians and Irish due to their population portion and political power.
Historically, this is the norm. Even in China, populations outside of the Central Plains were not considered "Huaxia". Yet, those populations eventually formed a cultural union with the existing "Huaxia", defining a new bound of what was considered Chinese. Like the Italians, Irish, and Germans, each group managed a different amount of cultural change corresponding to their political power in the union.
Other nations were like this too: Rome, Persia, the Caliphates, etc.
IMO all the other things we briefly touched over stem from these differences.
For example: Western nations love to focus on race and DNA, should China do the same?
You think seem to think so.
I think otherwise because it locks China to whatever it is now. It doesn't leave any roam for manuevuring on the geopolitical stage. A cultural-based China allows for expanding China. Korea, Japan, and Vietnam can be considered China and absorbed with a little work. With enough cultural shifting, other nations can also be subsumed. Or if there are aspects of people that nationally undesirable, they can be ejected as un-Chinese behavior. A Han ethnic who supports surrender to America is, therefore, not Chinese whereas a Korean ethnic who supports Chinese (nation) resistance to America can be potentially be a Chinese.
A reductive-racial America, for example, would most likely have less national strength and population than Germany + France now. They would have ejected all the blacks to Liberia and never accepted the non-English immigrants. Similarly, if America wasn't an attempt at a cultural union, they would never been able to convert Europe into an American appendage through internet-based cultural assimilation.
Edit: I would also add this has already played out historically. Sun Yat-sen, whom I personally regard as an idiot, advocating giving up Dongbei since they were Manchu lands and therefore not "Chinese". Thank god he died before getting any real power. Racial criteria tends to result in reductive nationality which is at odds with national strength.
