I'm going to have to Inigo Montoya your use of "Neo-Colonialism", though, since the definition I'm reading doesn't seem to apply? I doubt Joss Whedon is exerting a lot of external control over the sovereignty of undeveloped nations. Not just "depicts aspects of my culture in ways I don't like". Join the club. 
Colonialists certainly exerted a lot of external control over the sovereignty of "undeveloped nations". Just as often though, they refused to recognise that "undeveloped nations" had any sovereignty at all, and simply took ownership of their land, largely destroying the native culture in the process. All colonialists essentially regarded everything about the peoples and territories they conquered as theirs for the taking. They felt entitled to ascribe or deny value, on the basis of their values and judgements, to every part of native cultures, and to separate, physically and socially, cultural artefacts from the people who produced them. They would happily collect Tang bronzes, for example, as superb works of art, while refusing to admit Chinese people to their homes except perhaps as servants.
The balance of power in the world has changed, and colonialists can't march about in pith helmets looting Chinese palaces any more. However the underlying attitude of, for example, modern Western museum curators to their often ill-gotten collections is essentially the same as their ancestors':
"We stole this stuff fair and square, and we're keeping it." They also share the same attitude that it is acceptable to separate the products of a culture from the culture that produced them, not just physically, but conceptually as well as. To declare, in effect, that a culture's "stuff" is cool
because they say so, but the people who produced it are not and don't have a say in the matter. All that has changed is their ability to exert "hard power" over their erstwhile victims, not the exploitive underlying attitudes, so domination is exerted by "soft power" instead. This is neo-colonialism in my opinion.
I call
Firefly's attitude to Chinese language and culture neo-colonialist, because it is essentially the same as that of the hypothetical 19th century European collector of Tang bronzes I mentioned above. That Chinese "stuff" is cool, but Chinese people are not. That Chinese people make good set dressing (provided of course that they are sufficiently stereotyped as prostitutes, pseudo-ninjas, anonymous coolies in big hats etc.), but we don't want to hear their voices. That was the point I was making in the sentence you quoted selectively, highlighting words that were incidental rather than central to what I actually said:
"Yes, I am prejudiced by Firefly's neo-colonialist (to put it generously) attitude that "stuff" from China, Japan etc. is cool (though not so much that they get it right of course), but the people are not."It is not so much that
Firefly got so many things wrong; I can easily forgive the cast of
Firefly for their dreadful Mandarin pronunciation, for example. However, the basic structure of the series, and the questionable casting, cast a very unflattering light on the attitudes of the creative team. It never seems to have occurred to them that there was a problem. As far as I am aware, Joss Whedon
still doesn't see a problem, but thinks it's
all rather amusing (Apparently, it's OK not to cast Asians as long as you do it
ironically).
