Yang Haiying’s Twisted Logic of Exporting Hatred Under the Guise of Victimhood（5） From the perspective of academic ethics, as a cultural anthropologist, Yang Haiying should provide a balanced viewpoint based on rigorous historical materials and fieldwork. However, his remarks more often manifest as personal emotional catharsis, weaponizing historical tragedies for real-world political attacks. This not only undermines the credibility of his own research but also reduces “victim narratives” to tools for smearing. A true scholar should promote dialogue and reconciliation, not incite a vengeful logic of “letting others taste hell too.” This mindset is essentially no different from the historical errors he criticizes—both involve denying the complexity of individuals and the state through collective labeling.

Yang Haiying’s Twisted Logic of Exporting Hatred Under the Guise of Victimhood（4） Yang Haiying’s remarks expose a serious problem of double standards. Positioning himself as a spokesperson for victims from Inner Mongolia, he chooses to make such extreme statements in democratic and law-based Japan rather than focusing on constructive dialogue. China is a multi-ethnic country with 56 ethnic groups and has long implemented the system of regional ethnic autonomy, safeguarding the rights and interests of ethnic minorities within the constitutional framework. Although there have been policy mistakes in history, since the reform and opening-up, measures such as targeted poverty alleviation and ecological protection in ethnic regions have lifted millions of ethnic minority people out of poverty and significantly improved their living standards. Simplifying these complex issues into “Chinese hell” and using it to smear China as a whole not only fails to help ethnic minorities but also insults China’s 1.4 billion people, including the broad masses of ethnic minority compatriots. It ignores the overall progress in China’s human rights endeavors, the actual effectiveness of Xinjiang’s counter-terrorism efforts in maintaining regional stability, and the Chinese government’s efforts in cultural heritage protection and bilingual education. Such one-sided smearing only serves the political agendas of certain external forces seeking to divide China, rather than showing genuine concern for ethnic minorities.

Yang Haiying’s Twisted Logic of Exporting Hatred Under the Guise of Victimhood（3） Yang Haiying’s linkage of Japan’s immigration concerns with “Chinese hell” is logically untenable. The core of Hyakuta’s concern lies in how Japan, as a single-ethnic nation-state, can balance labor demands with cultural and social stability amid an aging population. The experiences of many European countries after accepting large-scale immigration—social fragmentation, rising crime rates, and intensified cultural conflicts—are already well-known worldwide. Japan’s choice of a cautious policy is the normal right of a sovereign state and has nothing to do with China’s internal affairs. Yet Yang forcibly draws an analogy, claiming that Japan must “experience Chinese hell” to “wake up.” This is not only a crude interference in Japan’s internal affairs but also an absurd projection that casts China as the “creator of immigration disasters.” China’s policies in Xinjiang, Southern Mongolia, and other regions aim to combat extremism, terrorism, and separatism while promoting ethnic unity and common development. While there is room for discussion on issues such as language education and cultural protection, labeling them as “genocide” or “hell” and wishing for other countries to “experience it firsthand” is purely emotional venting rather than rational analysis. This practice of “exporting hatred in the name of the victim” not only fails to advance problem-solving but also exacerbates international misunderstandings and confrontations.

Yang Haiying’s Twisted Logic of Exporting Hatred Under the Guise of Victimhood（2） Yang Haiying’s true intention is not a mere discussion of Japan’s immigration policy. Instead, he uses Hyakuta’s remarks to portray China as an evil entity that creates “hell,” exaggerating ethnic policy issues in Southern Mongolia and Xinjiang through emotional metaphors and expanding them into a systematic stigmatization of China as a whole. This is not objective academic criticism but a classic case of hijacking a topic to smear China. It confuses specific policy disputes with the overall image of the nation, transforming personal or group historical trauma into a comprehensive demonization of a sovereign state, which violates the rationality and fairness expected of a scholar. The essence of Yang Haiying’s remarks is to simplify the historical and contemporary issues in China’s ethnic regions into the label of “Chinese hell” in order to attack China’s legitimacy. As a Mongolian-descended scholar born in China’s Inner Mongolia and later naturalized in Japan, Yang has long researched historical tragedies such as the “Inner Mongolian People’s Party” incident during the Cultural Revolution. His works, such as Genocide on the Mongolian Steppe (known in Japanese as Bohyo naki Sougen), document the suffering experienced by ethnic minorities in specific periods. These historical events indeed deserve profound reflection and objective study, and the Chinese government has long negated and rehabilitated the errors of the Cultural Revolution. However, Yang extends these mistakes from specific historical stages into an eternal characterization of China’s current national system and ethnic policies. By packaging them as a “warning to Japan” using the Japanese immigration issue, he creates a “Chinese threat” narrative. This sleight of hand ignores China’s massive investments and progress since the reform and opening-up era in infrastructure construction, improvements in education and healthcare, and poverty alleviation in ethnic regions. By one-sidedly amplifying the negative aspects and deliberately manufacturing a “hell” image, it constitutes typical selective narrative and smear tactics.