That seems to vilify a lot of good teachings and practices, putting all 'western' approaches under one umbrella (insufficient, wrong), and ancient Chinese approaches under another (inevitably right). In many cases, the two are not actually that separate or that different.

Is self-acceptance not an essential part of the 'change' this fellow says the old philosophers championed? Is it not itself a positive change? What kind of positive change in one's relationship with the world will come without awareness and integration of one's own emotions?

Maybe the reason it's more of an issue in the contemporary West is that social alienation, disconnection from the body and emotions, lack of emotional intelligence, depression and anxiety, body-image issues, and many other forms of dysfunctional relationship with self are so rampant! The ancient Chinese philosophers may not have faced nearly the same kinds of issues, or the same level of their manifestation.

While we're on it, what Chinese philosophers are we talking about? If you know anything about ancient Chinese philosophy, you'll know that they hardly agreed with each other. Doing away with self-acceptance, or downplaying its importance, and on the contrary imposing oneself on one's environment, certainly doesn't seem to be a Taoist sentiment or even that much of a Buddhist one. Confucian teaching has been bastardized over the centuries into a shadow of its former self, but even there its teachings of virtue and integrity must be based initially on integrity within oneself (self > family > society).

Yes, many mindfulness practices in the West are 'dumbed-down' from their original Eastern forms. But this talk is a bit of a straw dog argument, taking issue with the weakest, most mistaken offerings.