Nearly a million Tibetan children live in state-run residential schools on the Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities subject these children to a highly politicized curriculum designed to strip them of their mother tongue, sever their ties to their religion and culture, and methodically replace their Tibetan identity with a Chinese one. Children as young as four have been separated from their parents and enrolled in boarding kindergartens under a recruitment strategy based largely on coercion.
As a Chinese American I in now way interpreted the comment as being a generalization about Chinese people. A haven is a place, normally referencing a port. I think it requires a lot more gymnastics to turn a statement about the country to a generalization about ethnicity.
Also, weird take to have and not also be critical of the headline of this article or language in the article itself. This comment uses the term “China” in the same general sense as the article.
Sure you can dig your heels in, and there’s apparently nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. You haven’t addressed my analogies to other similar expressions, so it sounds like we’re not even really having a discussion anymore. Are you also defending “China is a terrible country”? Who knows!
The article says “China’s brutal treatment…” where “China” is clearly a metonym for the Chinese state. But “China is a haven” is not a metonym and doesn’t refer to specific state actions. I don’t see any similar usage in the headline, “Chinese” is an adjective, so that’s a real stretch.