I'm Chinese and can say some words explaining the perspective from where I sit. I don't think memory of historical wrongs lie at the root of Chinese reactions. They may be the reasons most commonly given, but I don't think it's psychologically operative for most Chinese people. (This as following partly from introspective observation as a Chinese, and partly from the general principle against giving much credence to reasons given in explaining one's own actions and attitudes.) I think what lies at the root of Chinese reactions is simply the perception that the all the noble moral condemnations from the West do not feel genuine at all, that they do not feel like they come from the noble place they purport to. There are so many alternative explanations of what really lies behind these moral condemnations (e.g. that they really come from a place of self-interest (the Plaza Accord theories are very popoular here), from bias and hostility, from a malevelant intention to do harm, or simply from the desire to find someone to blame) and --- I hope this is something even an American can agree with --- the West has done very very little, nothing even, by way of ruling out those explanations for China. It simply repeats the moral condemnations. It's hard not to see this as showing either gross arrogance (I don't need to prove anything to you) or that one of those explanations really is true.
We can all agree that if someone criticizes us morally we should examine our behavior, so we can do better. However, what if you have reasonable suspicion that ulterior motives lie behind the critic's "criticism", that the critic is doing this only because he stands to profit from it somehow at your expenses, and that the critic doesn't really believe in the noble ideals he purport to believe in? Are you to give in to such a person so that he can get what he wants?
I think this is very well said. Even as a Chinese-American born and raised in the US I feel unease with many aspects of the western narrative. It is very easy for me to see how things could be interpreted as xenophobia and/or arrogance, from the Chinese perspective.
I also want to add that 2019 is probably the worst possible time to extoll the virtues of free speech and democracy. The western world is facing difficult questions with the interplay between freedom of speech and internet technologies. Politically it's been an era of chaos and a resurgence in populism across the entire west. The Chinese aren't blind; they look at the aftermath of the Arab spring and see failure after failure. The US is hardly a persuasive role model right now.
I think there's information asymmetry here. Do you think that many Chinese people know that in nearly all developed countries there's a lot of dissatisfaction and (public) vocal opposition to their own government? It's reasonable to assume that's the fact that China wants to hide from its citizens, because they certainly don't want their citizens to think that they have an ability to do that. Assume all the governments are corrupt and shady and all that, but that's still a stark difference between China and other reasonably developed nations.
Freedom of speech is a core moral principle in the United States: it is literally the first right enshrined in our constitution and for good reason.
I believe much of the recent moral outrage stems from China (and Chinese companies on their behalf) using the financial threat of lost profits to force American businesses to self-censor in ways that do not uphold this value.
Allowing totalitarian censorship of unpleasant truths like Tiananmen Square and organ harvesting of political prisoners gives governments the ability to continue committing similar atrocities in the future. If you look at American political discourse that is critical of the government, a significant portion of it is related to similar government suppression of information that prevents the public holding government officials responsible for the atrocities they commit: see Abu Ghraib, Wikileaks Collateral Murder, Bay of Pigs, Snowden revelations, current Trump whistleblower crackdown, etc.
I would strongly encourage you to read Orwell's 1984 if you can access it: it is somewhat superlative and dated, but artfully illustrates the danger to personal freedoms that can result from totalitarian government control of discourse.
Of course I'm aware that freedom of speech is in the US constitution. It is in the Chinese Constitution as well. My point is that just as you hold genuine doubts about the level of sincerity behind this second fact I gave, most Chinese harbor just as genuine doubts about the level of sincerity behind the first fact you gave.
There are rarely any self-consciously unjust wars. Throughout history, all wars have been justified on moral grounds (including the Nazi invasion of Poland). Doing bad things in the name of morality is extremely common. Why is the Chinese not allowed to wonder whether this description fits current US behavior? (By many American's own admission, it fits American behavior towards the Japanese during the 70s and 80s)
You have every right to your opinions, and I vouched this (then [dead]) reply because I do not think you should be censored, despite being skeptical of your argument.
I'm glad you are suspicious of the US, that is a healthy emotion to feel when you are on the weaker side of a power imbalance. I am also suspicious that the US intelligence apparatus may play a role in the Hong Kong protests - though I sincerely hope they are not.
I believe the 5 demands being made by the Hong Kong protests are rooted in noble moral principles, so I am comfortable supporting them regardless of their origin. Powerful secretive organizations manipulating discourse always ends up hurting the common man, and the more we as humans stand together, the more we make a just world for all people into the future. I believe individuals choosing their actions and words based on consistent moral principles is one of the best defenses we have remaining in a world of increasing ambiguity of truth. Allowing free and open discourse seems like another good defense.
We can all agree that if someone criticizes us morally we should examine our behavior, so we can do better. However, what if you have reasonable suspicion that ulterior motives lie behind the critic's "criticism", that the critic is doing this only because he stands to profit from it somehow at your expenses, and that the critic doesn't really believe in the noble ideals he purport to believe in? Are you to give in to such a person so that he can get what he wants?