You bought the land BEFORE the CCP came to power and that you were able to retain ownership until the 90S or whenever the land grab took place?? Sounds very far fetched, so much so that I had my wife messaged a Beijing classmate of hers and they said they have never heard of such a thing.

And your answer sounds like a cop out which is not endearing to your credibility.

@bilingual

Please reread my post, I have no idea as to how your post relates to mine. I did not ask "where" and the "when" was the point of my Alabamian law.

BTW, when did you purchase your land? I'm sure the answer will shed some light on the debate.

I'll take the bait even though it's obvious someone is trolling.

For all practical purposes, can you really claim to own something if the government can take it away from you for any reason at anytime?

Legalities aside, what @bilingualexpat had was an illusion of ownership. True ownership is to have 100% control over said object to do as one pleases and having the full force of the government to enforce that ownership. When it is the government itself that does not recognize your ownership, you own nothing.

China being what it is, it is common knowledge and accepted by all Chinese that there are no private ownership of land, only the rights to use. Even if you had the deed signed by Mao himself giving you ownership of the land, no one will recognized your ownership least of all the CCP.

I've heard too many times from my Chinese friends and wife's family that we are lucky because we can own our own land "in America". I would ask them what that means and they would always reply it means we can keep it forever and pass it from one generation to another, unlike in China where the government can take it at anytime.

Yes, I own the land until I decide not to pay property taxes and the government confiscate the land. I own it until I decide to stop maintaining the house and government sell it to someone who will. I own it until I decide I don't like the neighborhood and realize I can't take the land with me.

While on the subject of ownership, if anyone comes across any progeny of the slaves that my forefather owned, tell them I own them according to 19th century Alabama laws

You have demonstrated the following point:

"willfully turn an blind eye to the political metamorphoses taking place and naively accepting the narrative coming out of the west, especially the US because it's easier to put on such labels."

"claim moral superiority of one's system of government over another, down playing one's inadequacies while over playing others'"

Quick to point fingers but can't be bothered to think critically.

@Dazzer

Normally I won't bother, but the questions you've posed are important enough that a different perspective needs to be provided in order to counterbalance the implicities.

To reiterate: you asked "[D]o we persucute [sic] young students? [D]o we attack the [D]onald and say he is an idiot, do we point the finger at big corps, do we point the finger at our own govs corruption? can we? are we permitted? do we self censor? are we told to self censor? do we feel we have to?"

First, a couple of assumptions:
1) By asking these questions, you are implying that the American public and/or government does all of this while China not.

2) You are in China of your own free will, that is, there are no laws, no legal or governmental barriers preventing your repatriation.

It is obvious from your post in these forums that despite the government/social control that exists in China, it has not hampered your views and your abilities to express them. Second, if such controls exists, it is not onerous enough for you to leave China, and quite frankly, you probably enjoy life a little better in China than back home, otherwise, why stay?

To ask if the American people call the President an idiot, I question the motives for calling him an idiot. Is it due to tribal reaction, as in, because he is a Republican? Would the same people call Obama or Clinton an idiot for some of their less than stellar policies and actions? Do people call him an idiot out of concern for America, if that is the case, how is that different from the concern and anger displayed by the Chinese for the affronts they perceive?

Do we point fingers at corporations? Again, is it due to politics or genuine concern for the welfare of fellow human beings? The textile industry, especially Nike and Levi (at least in my days), were singled out for employing sweatshops in Asia (mostly by the Unions and the Democrat politicians that have gained the support of Union money), but Apple and Microsoft, not so much (is it a coincidence that Apple and Microsoft do not have unions)?

Do we point at corruption by our government? Once again, isn't this nothing more than a turf war between the 2 dominate political parties? Do the same people that point the corruptions of the current administration not flip the script once their "guy" is in the WH? I don't see democrats feverishly investigating Clinton or Obama despite some legitimate controversies, always downplaying it. At the same time, those that were calling for Clinton to be locked up for treason and mishandling of classified information have suddenly become mum regarding the same issue or are saying somehow, the situation is different.

Regarding self-censorship, that is not worth even getting into. How many minorities except the few brave ones feel safe to speak out against the daily and systematic discrimination they face? How many Korean-Americans died defending their property as they were left to fend for themselves by the very institutions there swore to serve and to protect? When discussing the '92 LA riots, how many times would the discussion of Korean suffering and injustice come up? Why is it the American public seem to point to Asians as the model minority? The stereotype has always been they are hard working and don't cause a fuss. Do Asian-Americans really don't face the same discrimination by their fellow minorities? Or is it because they suffer in silence, self-censor as you say.

As to the Chinese public, Chinese society is undergoing a generational shift, much like the 60s in the US. To say they don't challenge authority, don't call out governmental waste and corruption, don't call out big corp for polluting the environment is to willfully turn an blind eye to the political metamorphoses taking place and naively accepting the narrative coming out of the west, especially the US because it's easier to put on such labels. Evidence of this point is abound, scanning print and online discussions and you'll many tackling social issues and pushing the boundaries. While there are some lines in the sand set by the government, you'll find the public merely regroups and take the discussion underground using coded language, it does not cease.

I have no issues with any country pursuing self-interest as they should, that's human nature, a tribal mentality that is very difficult to overcome. But to somehow claim moral superiority of one's system of government over another, down playing one's inadequacies while over playing others' as exemplified by this young lady's speech, is not only naive but dangerous.

As she have found out, the freedom of speech does not simply mean you can speak freely without forethought or constraint, with freedom comes responsibilities, if you wish to exercise your right then you must be prepared to carry the responsibility. If the thesis of her speech was genuine, then when challenged by the push back, she should've stood her ground and engage each critic with counter arguments, instead, she offered an insincere non-apology (in the great tradition of Fox News), and hoped the issue will go away. I would've applauded her for the former but by taking the latter route, she revealed her insincerity and offered herself up for more criticism.

At the end of the day, it wasn't a heart-felt speech, instead, she is recommitting the same offense she criticized, going thorough the motions, saying things that she thinks will give her prestige in the eyes of the authorities and gain an advantage over others. She though she was enlightened by her American experience because she can now look beyond the superficial, but she hasn't fundamentally changed, she still could not get to the core of the issues and all its nuances; more of the same from her, just with a different facade.

The theme of the American freedom and Chinese oppression dichotomy has been done and redone to a point where it is now a cliche, unoriginal; such experiences are not unique enough to be worth mentioning. And at any rate, discounts the overarching backdrop of current political developments in both countries. Very naive indeed.