I'd perhaps say that just because someone is Chinese doesn't necessarily mean that what they say about China or anything else is correct by virtue of ethnicity/nationality/citizenship. Someone from China is obviously going to know a lot more about China than the average westerner (standpoint epistemology – knowledge gained from experience).

That doesn't mean a westerner can't know something about China that someone from China knows or doesn't know. Even if they avoid book worship, some investigation can be textual, for example. In the same way, a Canadian from BC won't know things about Newfoundland but a Chinese researcher might.

Additionally, a generalisation is still a generalisation. I don't know the exact demographics, but is it possible to make a generalisation that is even broadly true about, say, 700 million people (everyone in China above a certain age)? In a place where – like most other places but likely unique in ways due to its development – there are such differences between urban and rural populations and along borders bordering rather different places?

This generalisation in particular seems problematic because it seems to rely in a strange way on the notion of 'human nature'. Albeit a human nature that is only shared among a narrow group (which, again, isn't that narrow as it must number hundreds of millions).

It's the 'inherent' part that troubles me most. It suggests (a) that every person in China of a certain age will be competitive and (b) this trait is by virtue of their ethnicity/nationality/'culture'. I just can't see it. Plus the latter is racist/orientalist. The OP's qualification, which I thought was okay, was that it's generational. I'd argue that generational generalisations (that's a mouthful, sorry) are flawed, too, but they're not necessarily racist/orientalist.

If Chinese people say the elder generation is culturally different to the younger… well, my response would depend on the context. It doesn't seem to be an outrageous claim. But if a westerner repeats that Chinese people (of a particular generation? I'm unsure about that part) are inherently anything due to their culture… it would raise red flags. And not the good type. Again, I think the OP suitably qualified what they were saying.

If I were speaking with someone from China and they said that, I'd be more curious than anything else, I think. I'd want to ask about the generational changes and their causes. I'd want to ask whether the party neglected the elder generation(s) and why. Again, it would depend on the context. If they were a liberal making liberal claims, I'd challenge their liberalism. Otherwise, I'd probably ask the same questions that I'd ask of anyone making claims about inherent features, culture, etc, knowing that someone from China will likely be able to tell me more than a westerner on this topic.

For a generalisation of my own, I'd assume that some (many? most? a few? I don't know the stats) of Chinese foreign students in the west are children of 'middle-class' families whose parents could afford to pay for private tuition, etc. If this is who you're talking to, their views will reflect their class position. I can't see the same kind of competitiveness and approach among those families who have only recently been lifted out of poverty (which is roughly half the population – not the same half from above).

The children at a private school in the west might also think that 'every' parent is hyper-competitive about their children with extra tuition and classes, etc. If they grew up and went to another country, how accurate of a picture could they paint for their hosts? If they're the son of a wealthy Australian wine maker, how much of the culture/attitude could they realistically tell of the life of indigenous people or of poor white settlors?

They won't have direct experience of all Australian life. But redtea, you reject standpoint epistemology! Indeed, the Australian wine-heir could get knowledge about other aspects of Australian life from other sources, but how likely is that of, say, a 20-year old undergraduate who hasn't yet learned, say, sociology because they went to study that in Massachusetts?

Now if made the example a bit more specific and were talking about the culture among a certain sub-set of parents of a certain income with certain jobs (or not-jobs), etc, much of my critique might not apply. Because that would use 'culture' in a different way to how I interpreted it here initially.

EDIT: Sorry, I do go off on one sometimes!