The calls for affirmative action against China had a very low probability of bearing fruit beforehand, but since the Russian invasion of Ukraine I would put them at 0% - no sane politician wants to do anything that will push the Chinese further into common ground with Russia.
Just FYI, China doesn't care about the ‘common ground’ with Russia, and their cooperation mostly comes to China wanting Chinese companies to build infrastructure projects in Russia and receive fat checks for that. China keeps Russia away from its trade to the extent that they built train routes to Europe almost next to Russia through several neighboring countries. China's response to the invasion of Ukraine was: “Such conflicts should be solved with diplomacy”.
I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell, the decision to do anything about China comes from the population of their main trade partner the US—specifically depending on whether those people ever decide that they can do fine without cheap tech and tsatskes from China.
Did you see the same thing I saw? Cause you can filter by age by hitting the hamburger menu icon and there were 2000+ females returned under 30 years old that I didn’t have the heart to verify scrolling through the mugshots, it really gutted me and made it painful to see this blatant miscarriage of Justice.
Everyone please go and try out the age filter, it is frightening and highly effective in humanizing the plight of these people to say the absolute least. Something needs to be done for these oppressed humans.
Maybe you should spend half a minutes checking to see if what you are suggestion is supported by available data before starting a conversation about it
sva_ is right and you're wrong. 273 of 2884 pictures show women under 30, the vast majority are men. Note that the "of 2884" doesn't change when you modify the filter settings. I didn't measure whether it took me more than half a minute to figure that out.
But thanks for contributing some actual information; that is exactly what I was suggesting should be the minimum bar to contribute to such a conversation.
I am Chinese. I took a look at some of these "key documents", but I don't know what is wrong.
1. For the "Education Training Center" or the so-called "Re-education Camp", the intake rules from "Vocational Skills Education Training Center Intake Examination and Registration System"[1] says: "对符合规定条件应予收押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，应当对其人身和携带的物品进行严格检查，对女性的人身检查，应当由女工作人员进行。". From Google translation (if you don't understand Chinese lol), it means "Criminal suspects and defendants who meet the prescribed conditions and should be taken into custody shall be subject to strict inspections of their persons and their belongings, and the physical inspection of women shall be carried out by female staff members." (btw the english version of this document is not so accurate).
I think it is very clear that those detainee are criminal suspects or defendants, so my question is, is it wrong to detain these guys?
2. About the environment of the "Education Training Center". From "System for Vocational Skill Education and Training Center Detainees Leaving the School for Medical Treatment"[2], the detainees can leave the "camp" for medical treatment, but need to be escorted, and cannot contact with other people. From "Education and Training Center Management System for Calls to Relatives (Trial Implementation)"[3], the detainees can call their relatives every 10 days. What surprises me is the rule 6, which says when the detainee's family is in need, the grassroot (草根, the community office) needs to find a solution to help them and gets back to the detainee.
Circular logic without due process. You don't just become a criminal because a totalitarian government says you're one, at least not by the standards of the rest of us. In other words: careful just because you're Han doesn't mean you won't be next
HTTP 502 hints at upstream error which makes me think it's not been set up with sufficiently aggressive caching at CDN level, meaning if someone DoSes Cloudflare then Cloudflare DoSes Xinjiang Police Files. This would be the most charitable scenario.
Human rights organizations and investigative press should and must plan for maximum exposure. Very clever timing and I congratulate whoever planned that.
Had that been released e. g. 3 days after the Russian attack on Ukraine started, hardly anybody would have noticed.
As we saw after the invasion of Ukraine, the West can mount a swift, concerted and effective response, that deals a lot of damage to the offending country's economy. I'm sure that evidence of Xinjiang crimes will invoke the same kind of decisive action.
And non-western countries were very adamant that Ukraine is an European problem and they don't want to take sides. Why exactly is it the responsibility of "the West" to do something first? Let other countries take the lead for once instead of sitting on the sidelines and crying that whatever the West does or doesn't is wrong.
Ukraine is a part of Europe, Europe responded. The US has heavy ties/trade relationships with Europe and so they responded, too.
I imagine if it was Taiwan that US/Europe would've sent aid to them all the same.
When it comes to Israel/Palestine and other conflicts the situation there is a lot more complicated when it comes to international relations/obligations as well as the duration and the history of the conflict.
That isn't to say, however, that any conflict isn't a tragedy and that hoomans shouldn't just stop it with the tribal, evolutionary-path inspired antics already.
It happened only after it turned out Ukraine has own army able to do the bloody part by themselves. No western army is fighting there. It is also funny how you ignore role of Eastern European countries who engaged heavily in the matter.
While I distinctively recall non-westerners arguments on HN about how "Russia treats Ukraine with kids gloves" or "America did bad things and therefore it is OK for Russia to invade Ukraine" (somehow punishing Ukrainians for American history). Or how "since countries around Ukraine did not locked Ukrainians inside, they are bad nah, I will not talk about how our own countries treats refugees nah".
"It is unfair to provide material support to Ukraine, unless you are willing to also invade and occupy China over their crimes" is not particularly strong argument. Especially not if the fully expected corollary is "but if you do what we now demand we will blame you for international aggression".
Adrian Zenz is a fundamentalist Christian who has declared he is on some kind of quest from god to bring down Communist China. He's made multiple baseless accusations in the past such as there supposedly being a genocide of the Uyghurs. See:
He's made multiple baseless accusations in the past such as there supposedly being a genocide of the Uyghurs.
It's perfectly possible for an assertion to be both: (1) promoted by crank, and (2) entirely substantiated on its own merits, independent of whatever crank might say about it.
One such example would be the ongoing fact of the genocide currently in reality (not "supposedly") underway against the Uyghur population in China.
that's true. However, when essentially all mainstream and government claims are based on said crank's claims, and in line with government interests, that is very suspicious.
> One such example would be the ongoing fact
To the best of our knowledge, that is a false statement. There is no genocide underway. You only have (1.), not (2.).
I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly. The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region, which would seem far worse than some person drawing a cartoon.
But maybe any reactions just don't make mainstream news.
I also find that interesting in contrast to the constant outrage about the situation of Palestinians in Israel which certainly has many highly problematic aspects but to me still seems to be a far cry from the situation of Muslims in China or the treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia. It seems to be quite hypocritical by the governments of Muslim countries.
It is not a far cry, it is in fact almost exactly the same situation, although to my knowledge the crimes of Israel are much more well documented by many sources. Also note that it has taken almost a decade to get to this level of awareness and still to this day Israel critics are called anti-semites and worse. Hopefully more widespread awareness and outrage about the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang comes soon.
EDIT: Wow, actually more than a decade now since the original BDS statement.
Ok, so:
Israel has currently ~4500 Palestinians detained = < 0.1% [1]
China has about 1.8m Uygurs in internment camps = 14% [2]
I would call that a far cry.
Also, many other statistics of welfare, e.g. child mortality or GPD/capita in the West Bank and Gaza are about the same or better than in the neighboring countries (Jordan, Egypt). On the other hand, there seems to be quite substantial evidence for mass sterilizations and abortions forced on Uygurs in China. I have never heard of anything like that committed by Israel.
Again, I do believe that there are overreaches and overreactions on the Israeli side to actions by the Palestinians and there are innocent lives lost on both sides. I really hope, that they at some point manage to either live together peacefully or agree on a two state solution.
But there is a very substantial difference between that and the plight of the Uygurs.
There have been several (terrorist) attacks against Chinese civilians in Xinjiang over the years. The perpetrators have been lone wolfs, and people part of organized groups. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict
Personally I think that attack on civilians cannot justify the actions of Chinese state or of the Israeli state (massive repression against civilians and continued colonization). And while I condemn both China and Israel for such actions, the two situation are very different.
Yeah, a lot of the issues have to do with the systemic denial of resources and oppression in the region. For the most part like in most of Mainland China, the goal of the CCP has been to convert the local ethnic groups and populations to a singular Han identity. Accompanying this being that they both actively send people from the Mainland over to take over jobs of the local inhabitants it's pretty clear why a lot of this is occurring. A lack of respect for the locals and the systemic destruction of their identity leaving them with nothing. A strategy used by the CCP in China since their great cultural revolution of the early 60s.
Though the CCP claim to not be doing so, it's been a trademark of their party for generations and overall, nothing new. We're just seeing a glimpse of it now, because of the dawn of the internet age.
If you want to see more there are several Chinese state sponsored English media outlets that cover it in great detail, though they like to pretend to have no affiliation. Continued development in the region is expected along with the belt and road initiatives. And a long list of other issues as well.
If you want an unbiased source of information about the ongoing event in China check out.
https://www.neican.org
>In recent years, ETIM has set up bases outside China to train terrorists and has dispatched its members to China to plot and execute terrorist acts including bombing buses, cinemas, department stores, markets and hotels. ETIM has also undertaken assassinations and arson attacks and has carried out terrorist attacks against Chinese targets abroad. Among the violent acts committed by ETIM members were the blowing up of the warehouse of the Urumqi Train Station on 23 May 1998, the armed looting of 247,000 RMB Yuan in Urumqi on 4 February 1999, an explosion in Hetian City, Xinjiang, on 25 March 1999 and violent resistance against arrest in Xinhe County, Xinjiang, on 18 June 1999. These incidents resulted in the deaths of 140 people and injuries to 371.
Indeed, only the actions of the oppressor are "almost exactly the same".
The Uygars have so far been a lot more peaceful in their oppression.
I also find that Israel is very good in presenting itself in the western MSM, while China seems to have the western MSM against it lately. That makes me also a bit more hesitant to accept the MSM's China critiques.
Israel for all its faults vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not committing ethnic cleansing or anything close to it. People who claim genocide by the Israelis are either anti-semetic or basing their opinions on anti-semitic disinformation.
Is this surprising? Polities care about things happening in their backyard, and societies' goals tend to be much more pragmatic than what it says on the tin. The Palestinian situation is happening in their backyard, with people whose history is intertwined with theirs, and a refugee situation that affects them directly. There's not a country in the world that doesn't ultimately prioritize geopolitical concerns and a heaping dose of "people who look like me" prioritization.
For example, it's not "surprising hypocrisy" that Israel has a problem with racism towards some Jewish ethnic groups (Mizrahi, Ethiopian), despite Israel's supposedly deeply-held identity as a homeland where all Jews are welcome.
Note that this isn't a criticism of Israel! Just an acknowledgement that everywhere, people are people, and most people happen to be monsters. The fact that Arab countries care more about Arabs than a Muslim group halfway across the world seems almost tautological to me.
I think that's adequately explained by the fact that, unlike China, Israel is considered an ally in the west. That means we are in some way more responsible for the actions of Israel than the actions of China, as continued support implies agreement with those actions, to some extent.
Yes - the US and many other western nations have propped up Israel, in many ways enabling the continued aggression towards Palestine, though much of the west has an economic incentive to continue turning a blind eye towards the ongoing persecution of the Uyghur population. We are not blameless in their struggle.
Here's your problem; trying to talk about "the situation of Muslims in China" is incoherent. Islam has been an accepted (though small) part of Chinese culture for many centuries, and it still is. The Uyghurs are highly atypical Muslims in China who don't speak Chinese and don't participate in Chinese culture, instead preferring their own rival culture. That (and rebelliousness) is why they're oppressed.
Uyghurs have problems in China. Muslims don't, except to the extent that negative views of the Uyghurs start bleeding over into negative views of Muslims generally (which is indeed happening).
I've been confused for years about why the Western press seems so determined to demonstrate that it has no idea what it's talking about by representing oppression of Uyghurs as "oppressing people because of their religion". The case just can't be made. It would be trivial to call it "oppressing people because of their race"; that case is easy to make. But I guess the Western audience wouldn't see race-based oppression as being all that villainous?
What does "participate in Chinese culture" mean, and why shouldn't the culture of China's Xinjiang province count as "Chinese culture", assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
I do get what you mean about language, insofar as most people of the Hui ethnic group do tend to speak the dominant Sinitic language of the region in which they live and not an entirely different language family like most Uyghur people. But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference - people from Inner Mongolia don't speak a Sinitic language either, does that make them equally as un-Chinese as people from Xinjiang? And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
In any case, even Hui face some degree of discrimination in China, documented most recently in national anti-halal actions that expanded well beyond Xinjiang[0]. Like most minority ethnicities in the country, their culture is often joked about or dismissed in ways that "mainstream" Han culture is not. While this may not be blatant bigotry, the discrimination is something that would not be considered appropriate in countries whose people are more welcoming of ethnic diversity.
> But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference
No, speaking a different language is the most fundamental cultural difference there is.
> And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
I asked this question of a Chinese high school student once. His response was that the Chinese didn't want to be conquered by the people of those regions. (Which notably happened in the 13th and 17th centuries.)
Wikipedia says that when the Qing dynasty fell, the idea was brought up that Xinjiang and similar regions should be divested from China as not being Chinese; they see the retention of non-Chinese territory as more a matter of no one being willing to take the responsibility/blame for the country getting smaller.
> assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
Responding separately to this bit of inanity, if we're going to take Chinese official descriptions at face value, the Uyghurs aren't being oppressed in any way. They're in charge of their own 自治区.
US media has a long history of conflating race, religion, and socioeconomic class, in part due to the tangled nature of the 'States own biases and prejudice.
I think this is nearly entirely wrong. It's entirely about power and god.
Xi Jinping has cracked down on Christianity shutting down many churches. China has other ethnicities besides the Han, which don't speak Mandarin. If the Uyghurs had no faith they would be safe.
There is little room for religion unless the religion is centralized and submissive to the state. In some sense religion undermines the state.
In the 21st century, especially under the CCP, they're just competing forces more than direct adversaries, they both strive to do the same thing. And for most of History, the Church was the State.
It's parallels are quite visible, and now most wars are fought not for the deliberate imposition of deities, but rather for the new pantheon of self-declared god's: political leaders.
>And for most of History, the Church was the State.
Would you agree that the "Party" in CCP is something entirely different from what this term means in the west, and that it's closer in its meaning to a secularised version of a centralised church?
> And for most of History, the Church was the State.
This is wildly false. The Church of England is about as close as things get. What historical periods are you thinking of in which the Church and the State were identified?
In my experience the constant outrage over Palestine is driven more by hatred of Israel than concern about Palestinians. Antisemitism is universal in the Muslim world,[1] not so with anti-Sino sentiment. Note that the wealthy Arab states surrounding Palestine aren’t leaping to admit refugees from Palestine.
[1] I think my home country of Bangladesh is thousands of miles away from any significant population of Jews. Yet the casual antisemitism is off the charts.
EDIT: Got some anonymous hate mail from a BDS saying “the tide is turning” and threatening me for my support of the “apartheid state Israel.” Sorry for exposing the things folks say “just between us.”
Well the wealthy Arab states aren't the ones surrounding Palestine - the poor countries that do surround Palestine have taken in an enormous number of refugees - there are 2 million Palestinians in Jordan, nearly as many as there are in Palestine, the vast majority of which descend from those that fled Palestine between '47 and '67. Of the states actually bordering Israel and Palestine, Egypt is really the only one that hasn't pulled its weight.
The sabre rattling by the gulf states is 100% motivated by distracting their people with rage rather than by actual concern for Palestinians - but don't let that distract you from the fact that the states on Palestine's doorstep have genuinely dealt with their share of the human tragedy caused by the conflict. Close to a quarter of Jordan's citizens are now Palestinians, and the intake of refugees in Lebanon even triggered a 15 year civil war when the delicate Christian-Muslim political balance in the country was disrupted.
Before 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do.
" They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do."
Currently Gaza is under partial blockade by Israelis, with extreme consequences on the population and the economy. And colonization continues on west bank, with many many check points... While heavy critics can certainly be made against administration of those territories by Egypt and Jordan, arguments would be welcome to support your view.
Your comment could be read like: Muslim people "support" Palestinians because they are antisemitic... I mostly disagree.
1) While antisemitism was prevalent all over (including in Muslim countries) the world before Israel existed, we've seen a shift in the Arabic world, and more generally in the Muslim population, after the creation of Israel, and the series of conflicts ensuing. e.g. Before the creation of Israel Jewish and Muslim lived in relative peace together in Morocco. So a case could be made that antisemitism is ALSO driven by how Israel was created and behaved (and let be clear, I condemn antisemitism).
2) Jerusalem is an holly city of Islam (and of Christian), so of course, any big thing happening there against Muslim bear much more weight ! This point is not necessity linked to antisemitism.
3) Israel became also the symbol of "Western imperialism" and of the humiliation of third word, and particularly of Muslims. That is a "Western country" that is seen as having stole the land of people and evicted 700.000 people. That is a country that continues colonization, evictions and repression... while being very actively supported for decades by US. This symbolic weight also explain why such attention.
4) And that is an old story, with many episodes. Just like a good TV show (with all the element above), when you've been exposed to many episodes, you are more keen to see the new episodes...
-
DoughnutHole answered you about the refugees. Some countries also support(ed) financially Palestine and Palestinians (in Palestine or refugees).
The only wealthy state neighbouring the Palestinian territories is Israel (which is in some ways more of a suzerain than a neighbour).
Anti-semitism went through the roof when Zionists started taking large tracts of land for a new state that wasn't recognised by its neighbours. Pan-Arabists and muslim groups, knew their land could be next if the precedent went unchallenged and stirred up bigotry in response. The hatred was initially more of the idea of Israel than of Jews.
And they were prepared to throw Palestinians under a bus too, banishing them to a multi-generational life of homelessness and refugee status rather than allow full citizenship, so as to keep pressure on Israel and prevent normalisation of the situation. Of course they don't care about Palestinians either.
Now, in the Gulf states it's about business. Outside the Gulf States it's about domestic politics. But beneath the bigotry, the principled opposition to land annexation by foreign powers still remains.
I think the reason is pretty clear - Western nations can be pressured and people can voice their opinion and protest their own government's actions.
Only a little over 30 years ago China rolled out its military and crushed its own citizens beneath tank treads, then denied the whole thing happened.
Public condemnation against China will do nothing, so Islamic countries don't even try. Plus I would throw in a bit of geopolitcal posturing in that 1) going against China might look a little too much aligning with the US and 2) not pissing off China keeps some sort of partnership with China and it's deep pockets open in the future.
Only a little over 30 years ago USA rolled out its police to blow up its own citizens, razing entire city block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing. They didn't need to deny or cover up anything, obviously nobody got punished for this, because the victims were black.
So, yeah, while the Western people can certainly voice their opinion, it's often because their opinion doesn't matter.
Did you read your own link? The "Aftermath" section where several courts condemned those actions and awarded substantial awards to the victims. The City apologized. Independent commissions condemned the decision.
Can you please list all of the acts of restitution that the Chinese government has done since 1989?
Oh, and ignoring all that, you're posting an awful lot of whataboutisms. I count about 9 of them so far.
While you are right, I think GP still has a point. Those responsible for the MOVE massacre walked from it.
The broader point I think GP tries to make is: the west should not be so quick to point fingers, especially not while it's own fingers are covered in blood.
The US likes to same "human rights violations" about other nations, but then commits many themselves every year, and claims to be above the The Hague court.
I also believe the US has not right to use those terms while it is still misbahaving on such a large scale.
So you're suggesting that the US, since it's guilty of human rights violations, should just be silent when it sees others countries commit human rights violations?
I think that's absurd.
There isn't a country on this planet who hasn't committed some human rights violation in its past.
By your logic, nobody should ever call out human rights violations...ever.
A far better approach is to judge a country by its actions in totality. Yes the US commits human rights violations, but it also has courts where victims can seek restitution, a free press to talk about such violations, free elections where voters can choose leaders who work against human rights violations.
To compare the US and China and say "well they're both guilty of the same sins" is, frankly, bizarre.
Nah. Note how the invocation of move bombing is not even attempt to compare the level of both countries crimes historically. It is literally just attempt to "since America has/did crimes, no one is allowed to criticize China/Israel/Russia".
Moreover, while USA did in fact committed crimes either on own soil or internationally, claiming that it is exactly the same as China or Russia is just wrong. America has its own authoritarians trying to destroy its own democracy. It is has its own sociopaths in leadership too. And still, it is not currently commuting genocide, unlike China or Russia. And whatever wrong America did does not mean it is ok for China or Russia to be imperial or genocidal until America fills itself with angels only.
Ah, right, they apologised. That changes everything :->
What matters is that nobody - not a single one of perpetrators of a bombing organised by police, which killed five random kids, and this is ignoring reports of police shooting at survivors fleeing the fire - got punished. "The city" paid some (public) money, that's all. It's not whataboutism, it's showing that the claim that "public condemnation against China will do nothing" because of Tienanmen is terribly misleading: those same things happen everywhere, you're just assuming they are somehow fundamentally different there. Sometimes they are, but mostly not.
As for the Chinese government: Chinese prime minister responsible for Tienanmen spent the rest of his life in house arrest. Can you imagine this happening in the land of the free?
My impression is that most Muslims don’t real care about Muslims from other ethnic groups. Pakistan and Bangladesh, for example, are happy to suck up to China for the business opportunities. Similarly, the gulf states took few Syrian refugees during the recent crises: https://www.lejournalinternational.fr/Syrian-refugees-why-wo.... More generally, Arabs regard non-Arab Muslims as barely human—e.g. holding Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in near slavery conditions: https://sports.yahoo.com/qatar-world-cup-unpaid-workers-slav...
My impression is that most people do not really care about other groups... unless it indirectly talks about something they are sensible, or they can clearly identify with the victims.
For example people (and media) in France don't care about violence between groups in Africa. We quite never heard about the Congo Wars, about Ethiopia, about the Lord's Resistance Army... But heard a lot about Jihadist movements in Africa or Muslim Nigerians killing Christians, because it resonate with our "experience", and resonate with the world view of some people (Islam vs Christianity).(note that France have a good history of supporting dodgy groups and activities in Africa).
I don't think this is true. Right now there are millions of Ukrainian refugees in Europe being welcomed with open arms, after millions upon million of muslim refugees have already entered the continent.
as you say, proximity. I went to school with people from Ukraine, I went to uni with people from Ukraine, I work with people in Ukraine right now. It's happening in weekend-holiday range from me. Makes it a lot less abstract.
>My impression is that most Muslims don’t real care about Muslims from other ethnic groups.
It's the same reason most "Muslims" don't "care" about Al Qaeda and ISIS. Many Muslim populations, just like the Chinese, are negatively affected by Uighur terrorist and extremist groups.
"Southeast Asia is witnessing evolving security risks from Chinese Uyghurs' involvement in military activities in the region."
Agree to this. Living in a muslim majority country. Personally direct experience 2 suicide bombing. Around one block from my office. This radical Muslim hold the whole country as a hostage.
Yesterday they just have a public rally supporting terrorist.
>more muslims have died fighting AQ and ISIS than any other religious group
I think we are making the same point.
Some of the largest muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan) don't have sympathy for many Chinese Uyghur groups because once they leave China, they train with ISIS/Al Qaeda then plan and commit terrorist acts around Asia.
Many believe the Chinese are doing them a favor with their detention and deradicalization programs.
How can we be making the same point? Yours rests on the statement "It's the same reason most "Muslims" don't "care" about Al Qaeda and ISIS." which is objectively untrue.
Low sympathy due to a few Uyghur terrorists has nothing to do with it. There is no international political solidarity among Muslims based on faith, Palestine has proven that. That's just business and realpolitik.
As for their treatment, who cares what beliefs/excuses the Chinese people have/give? Oppressors always have some BS reason for what they'll support.
I think you’re reading in a subtext that isn’t there. Most people care mainly about what’s happening to their own nationality or ethnic group. Islam doesn’t create a unifying bond that overrides that in the same way Christianity doesn’t. It’s like how Americans don’t care especially about whats happening in France based on shared Christian identity.
Yes, we're asked, repeatedly and specifically, to avoid generalizing about large groups of people --- nationalities, religions, &c. I get that you may have a vantage on this that we don't have, but you still have to be careful about how you communicate it. Some things are tricky to communicate in a forum like this; some things may be so tricky that they aren't worth communicating. I don't know. I just did a double take at the first sentence of your last comment, thought to myself "how would I react if anyone but Rayiner had written this", and told you so. That's all.
> I get that you may have a vantage on this that we don't have, but you still have to be careful about how you communicate it
As a South Asian with a virtually identical vantage point, I can assure you that rayiner has been repeatedly painting a false picture of south Asians in general and south asian muslims in particular.
Making an observation about a group of people is not "xenophobia". Quite the opposite in fact.
If you read the comment more closely, it's not "muslims don't care about muslims", it's, "arabs don't care about southeast asians", which... well, there's a ton of evidence for this unfortunately.
"China also employs diplomatic pressure and financial incentives to secure foreign assistance in its efforts to persecute Uighurs abroad. Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan—one of China’s principal allies and the recipient of billions of dollars in loans as part of the Belt and Road Initiative—has said he accepts China’s explanation of the events in Xinjiang, despite frequently speaking out against Islamophobia elsewhere. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, which is China’s largest oil supplier, defended the CCP’s “right” to carry out “anti-terrorism and de-extremization work” during a 2019 trip to Beijing, where he signed a multibillion-dollar trade deal. The kingdom was one of the thirty-seven nations that signed on to a letter to the UN Human Rights Council praising China’s “remarkable achievements in the field of human rights.” Saudi Arabia, along with other countries such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, have extradited Uighurs at China’s request, and the Associated Press reported last year on the alleged existence of a secret Chinese-run black site in Dubai, where abducted Uighurs had been detained. After an injection of Chinese funds into Turkey’s crisis-hit economy and shipments of vaccines during the height of the pandemic, even Erdoğan appears to have muted his once-strident criticism. Over the past two years, Turkish police have detained over one hundred Uighurs, including a number of activists, and deported several others."
This may be related to the relatively lax response of western governments as compared to the 'full out riot control' approach China takes [1]. As for the international level, China is following a carrot and stick approach there [2] - and they have a long memory [3]
It's more complicated than that. The majority of China's Muslims are Hui, who are ethnically Han Chinese and thus not considered an existential threat to the state. The Uyghurs, on the other hand, are genetically and linguistically different, live in territory that was not originally Chinese (Xinjiang literally means "New Territory") and would genuinely prefer to have their own state.
Of course, the CCP is very averse to any power structures they don't completely control and thus regularly cracks down on all sorts of organized religion (Christian churches, Falun Gong, etc).
> Hui Muslims employed by the state, unlike Uyghurs, are allowed to fast during Ramadan. The number of Hui going on Hajj is expanding and Hui women are allowed to wear veils, but Uyghur women are discouraged from wearing them. Muslim ethnic groups in different regions are treated differently by the Chinese government with regard to religious freedom. Religious freedom exists for Hui Muslims, who can practice their religion, build mosques and have their children attend them; more controls are placed on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Hui religious schools are allowed, and an autonomous network of mosques and schools run by a Hui Sufi leader was formed with the approval of the Chinese government.
So yeah, this is not directed at Muslims so much as it's directed at people of Uyghur ethnicity very specifically. It almost looks like CCP would like to keep the territory, but without the inconvenient indigenous people.
And they use a mix of apartheid (which just by itself is already an internationally recognized crime against humanity) and a bunch of activities at least adjacent to genocide to get there.
The Xinjiang matter is bound up with: (a) the understanding that China is a rising superpower that the West wishes to contain; (b) it has nothing to do with the religion itself (given that China and Islam have a long history of coexistence); (c) that the strain of Islam of concern to Chinese authorities is the same strain used by West to conjure up the Taliban (which then gave us ISIS); and (d) knowledge of the fact that even as way back as the 4th 'Rightly Guided' khalif (Ali ibn abu Taleb) Muslim authorities themselves tended to view extremist and radical views of Islam with concern. There is a strange belief in the West that Muslims have been historically permissive to extremists religious positions whereas the actual facts are entirely contrary.
Two other hot button 'types' that you refer to are:
1 - Explicit derogatory attacks on Islam.
2 - Resisting a colonization effort that has had brutally adverse and tragic consequences for both Muslim and Christian populations of the contested colonial grounds.
Part of the problem is that it's difficult to trust any of these documents. It seems that in this latest dump there are some that are blatantly forged.
Even if the others are genuine, this calls into question the veracity of the others
A lot of what's going on in that tweet you cited is hard to decipher without stepping back and taking stock of the context.
For instance, I don't know what to make of the significance of a cursor being visible in a document that is dumped (it might be a big deal, or it might not be at all) and I don't know how motivated the party is here to use that to prove a particular argument, or what it should or shouldn't prove.
In this case, you apparently have to be already bought in with the idea that BBC and Le Monde have a history of using fabricated info from the U.N., and that a reporter is untrustworthy for reasons explained at length in an entirely different twitter thread that you'd have to read to understand. After being that bought in, the fact that BBC, Le Monde, and/or this reporter are involved is treated as evidence in and of itself that the new info is unreliable. You have to agree with all that to even start in the middle and begin going through this analysis.
To state it plainly, whenever I see something like this that starts so deep in the middle of unexplained context, I treat it like an "indicator" (in the sense of an economic indicator) against the argument, because it feels like I'm being asked to skip critical steps.
"I don't believe it because I'm missing context" is a weak argument to make. The tweets read like the author isn't a native English speaker. The traditional vs. simplified characters accusation should be relatively easy to confirm if you want to put in at least a little effort. Looking up characters as someone who isn't familiar with them at all might be cumbersome but is absolutely possible.
But then again you wonder why such blatant mistakes would be made in the first place, if this was done by someone at least halfway professional.
I genuinely don't understand where the mistake is, even in in your paraphrased version which is intended to caricature. Yes, I really do think that missing context is a good reason to refrain from believing something, and you should too. I find it bizarre that that is disputed.
I actually went into a fair amount of detail about what specifically was contextually inadequate here, all of which you didn't engage with.
It's hard to understand what the tweet is suggesting unless you read the entire thread, one related twitter thread, and chase down an implied history of allegedly questionable BBC reportage the UN is complicit in, and join the author in making assumptions about what it all means. I stated all of this already.
And in additional to all the previous stuff I said, it's not obvious that a difference between traditional and simplified characters prove what you're asked to believe it proves, that it must have come from Taiwan. I'm assuming there's another thread somewhere that goes into detail about how Taiwan uses different characters in other documents, which is the basis for believing different characters here prove that its a forgery?
It's not about the effort involved in comparing the characters, it's about the underlying logic for the argument, which is assumed to have been proven elsewhere but not referenced.
1) software renders not Unicode characters but font glyphs
2) which font glyphs are chosen depends on many factors like installed fonts, OS, language/region settings, and so on
3) people author (and read) characters by how they look on their systems, what codepoints are used is not on anyone's mind
A differently configured system can uncover incorrect codepoint choices or rendering differences across machines, exactly what happened with the author of that tweet (supposedly living in Europe and not having the same old Windows machine as ones used in CCP apparat).
In fact, this happens all the time and is a routine headache for anyone building CJK sites viewed from different countries in the region (for example, I see some traditional Japanese characters, instead of their simplified Chinese versions, on http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/wgrlh/. Is there a hidden meaning? Is the site fake?). When it comes to MS Word and IME in old Windows versions, things are even wilder. I doubt the tweeter didn't know this, most likely it's a stall tactic.
That happens if you have no language hints, or the wrong one, e.g. posting in Simplified Chinese on a Taiwanese website. If this was written in something like MSWord by CCP officials, it should have the proper language hint, so render properly on any OS newer than XP.
"Western lie debunkers" will absolutely jump at any chance to say this is a fake, but that particular take is pathetic and indicative of problems with CJK literacy.
Unicode points and font glyphs are not the same thing, leading to situations where one Unicode character can be rendered as a different one (but similar) depending on OS and setup* -- and people enter and read characters by how they look, not by their Unicode points.
So the document can easily end up with 置's Unicode entity in the source without anyone finding out, even the person who entered it, if it always renders as a simplified version (without the left-bottom vertical line). And it will always render as a simplified version, because everyone involved is obviously using a simplified setup.
(If you have a Big Sur set up the same way as mine, you can observe for yourself by opening the same doc, such as the "Response Plan and Procedure for Escape and Disturbance Prevention During Class Times", in Quick Look and Pages and looking at the end of text following the first Arabic numeral "1" on the first page. Quick Look will show you a traditional/Japanese character at the end, while Pages will have a much better layout and consistently show simplified characters.)
The sad thing is that this initial stalling tactic is effective. Some will be swayed by his simple tweets and not have patience for the subsequent "debunking of the debunk" let alone their own research. This takes away the initial impact of the release.
* Software chooses a different glyph, the font provides a different glyph than required by Unicode standard, and so on. Example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54212157/. There was an in-depth article on CJK posted on HN some time ago, can't remember what it was called.
TL;DR yes, documents authored by CCP officials can easily have traditional Unicode points in them, because it is completely routine for software to be set up in a way that always renders those in simplified way.
That's interesting, I didn't realize that IMEs would silently offer you choices in different sets/styles than the one preferred by the locale, and that OS fonts could actually hide the difference.
If you're saying that an innocent error is what happened, you'd expect to see these weird traditional-in-simplified-context characters to appear across all sections of the documents, and not clustered together in a single paragraph (since that would be evidence that a single paragraph has been written by a different author than the rest of the document)
I believe if they can make it into a document in any number of ways (copy paste, input method, etc.) and no one would be able to tell, their existence alone is not an indicator.
That different authors could have written/rewritten/edited different parts of a document at different points in time is natural, what are reasons to think otherwise?
Religion is only an excuse for hate and violence. Most of the population has already found their favorite enemy in the west, primarily USA, Germany, Israel. State actors and other powerful people have nothing to gain by antagonizing China, who doesn't give a damn. Wait until there is a border dispute between China and Pakistan and suddenly the Muslim world will care about Xinjiang.
> The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region
Not really.
Islam has been present in China for over a thousand years, and the Uyghurs do not represent the majority of muslims in the country, which are actually the Hui (ethnic Chinese who converted) and outside of Xinjiang.
For the Chinese government this is a question of national unity against separatist movements, which is a more ethnic than religious problem, and political control. I'm thinking that they actually prefer Islam, which is unstructured, to the Catholic Church (hence action they regularly take against it) although, obviously from a communist stand-point no religion at all is the best option, and so Islam is not really singled out.
Many muslim countries also have strategic interests in having good relations with China, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, and thus abstain from raising any issues, not least since China has also the advantage of not being involved in the Middle East and of keeping a neutral stance there. Now, there are anti-Chinese terrorist attacks in Pakistan but everyone tries hard to keep a lid of them for these reasons.
If anything, and cynically, the West would very much like muslim extremists to turn their attention more towards China because obviously that would be destabilising for China, and so the anti-islam narrative is pushed at every turn.
Okay this is some amusing and problematic cognitive dissonance.
The West gets attacked because of its military occupations in Mesopotamia. That is the criteria for Jihad. Any random teenage edgelord that happens to be Muslim can always take the pedantic “its my duty” approach at any time. The vast majority do not, any slight provocation from then on encourages that sentiment. China’s approach avoids this because they have no military occupation of traditionally muslim lands. That approach has worked better for China’s national security while operating in islamic areas, they invest and have been masterful at it. The Western/US approach never factored in its own national security, or any attempt at understanding Islam, and its been a disaster for its people and a boon to its defense contractors. The key point is that its never been about “rising up on behalf of all muslims being oppressed” its always been about “excising a cancer from traditionally islamic lands”. And that makes inaction towards Xinjiang and the plight of the Uighurs make way more sense, than the fundamentally rocky assumption that action from some unspecified Muslim people is expected to occur.
Secondly, some Uighars have already done the terror attacks within China, over “small things”. Long before the massive dragnet and crackdown. This is where China’s identity politics come into play, that some other commenters have pointed out. China’s domestic stance and behavior isn't really about Muslims, its about “territorial unity” with an undercurrent of ethnic discrimination. But ultimately the Uighers are on their own, and East Turkistan isn't going to be a thing.
I think there's a lot of suspicion in most Muslim countries towards the motives of the US government when it accuses China of genocide.
Over the last 20 years, the US has waged war in predominantly Muslim countries. A conservative estimate is that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians over the last 20 years, in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many other countries. Add to that US support for Israel, and US support for Saudi Arabia's horrific war in Yemen, and the US has essentially no credibility when it claims to be oh so concerned with the rights of Muslims in China.
In this light, the US' accusations against China over Xinjiang look like cynical political posturing. The obviously hyperbolic nature of the accusations (including deploying the word "genocide," despite the complete lack of evidence that any mass killing is occurring) just make the US' posture on this issue look even more cynical and crass.
> I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation
What international muslim community? And if one existed, why would the international muslim community care about US/European funded anti-china propaganda which has nothing to do with islam and everything to do with ethnic separatism.
We hate muslims. Killed millions of muslims. We hate chinese people. Killed millions of chinese people. But somehow we care about chinese muslims? How does that work? Why is it we are trying to pit chinese and muslims against each other?
> The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region
Did china become zionist all of a sudden? Also, I thought it was a genocide? What happened to the millions of uyghurs that was "exterminated"? What happened to the death camps? What happened to the millions of organs? They are trying to extinguish separatism.
> But maybe any reactions just don't make mainstream news.
Because it's literally manufactured propaganda that nobody believes. There are vlogs of muslims traveling to china all over social media.
First it was a genocide. Millions dead. Death camps all over china. That proved to be nonsense. Then it was cultural genocide. That proved to be nonsense. Now it's religious genocide. Which is even more laughable. The ughyurs aren't even the largest muslim ethnic group in china.
If you ever doubted that the media/news/etc were truly propaganda, just look into the uyghur "genocide". The media with the government agencies invented a genocide.
I am from a Muslim country. There are a few reasons that I can think of:
China is not targeting Islam but the separatist movement. There are few Muslim ethnic groups in China. The other is Hui. The hui enjoys normal religious life without any prosecutions.
The problem of Radical Islam. The rise of Radical Islam the last few years. Some of this group preaches violence and seperatism. Many Moslim feel unconfortable with the Radical Islam and prefer the govt to deal with them. The Hui Muslim does not get long well with Uighur Muslim. The Hui are motsly Sufi and anti Salafi.
Most Muslim distrust western politic and news.
> I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly.
You're not imagining this — Muslim countries support China. See this map of a UN vote to condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang[1]. You'll notice that every Muslim country that didn't abstain defended China. In fact the only countries that condemned China are countries that are militarily allied with the United States.
If you look at any of the "NGOs" that push the narrative that China is oppressing Muslims in Xinjiang, every single one of them is funded either by the National Endowment for Democracy[2][3][4] (an arm of the US State Department notorious for pushing regime change in countries the US doesn't like) or the Australian Strategic Policy Initiative, which in turn is sponsored by several US arms manufacturers[5], such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc. — all of whom would profit massively from a war with China, for which this narrative is manufacturing consent.
Even the site that spawned this discussion seems to be associated with Adrian Zenz. A lot of the claims in Xinjiang can be traced back to his "work". He's a fundamentalist Christian bigot, is a fellow at the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" and claims to have been sent on a mission by God himself to destroy the Communist Party of China. His "work" has been thoroughly debunked many times over.[6]
Frankly, the narrative is bullshit. The Muslim world that has suffered massively at the hands of US imperialism can see right through it and votes accordingly. China has never invaded or bombed any Muslim country. The US has no credibility in the Muslim world.
That’s why, as a westerner, I consider the Uyghur issue not to be ‘our’ problem. It’s terrible what’s happening there, but there are more than 2 billion muslims in the world who can do something about it.
What’s happening to the Uyghurs is definitely a humanitarian catastrophe. The Chinese are eradicating muslims from their territory and if the Muslim world are not willing to do anything about it, than there is little the West can do. You can’t fight other peoples battles they are not willing to fight themselves. We have seen this observation over and over again in human history.
You may not consider it "our problem" but systematic violation of basic rights is a pain for anyone who has empathy with the oppressed and violated. If you don't feel it, my fellow westerner, that is your problem, not ours.
As someone firm in belief in Humanism and Liberalism, i consider it a crime against humanity. It is not an east/west issue and not a religious issue to be of concern only for people of the same religion. China does this because they want the border to be more than a line on the map, to be a border of their socialist nation, a border of thought, culture, language, of national identity. Their central government hates that people in Xinjiang have family in Kazhakstan, Pakistan and Kashmir, that they speak with those people, share traditions and religion and history with them, instead of identifying first and foremost with the nationality of the capital city. For them that is a weakness of their nation, a discrepancy from their ideal, a problem for their central bureaucracy in need of a solution, and the authoritarian-nationalist solution is to destroy the very concept of an Uyghur using violence to the point where it becomes a genocide. This is not a problem of uyghur ethnicity, religion or culture, it is a problem of chinese national-socialism.
And that China subscribes to such an ideology is very much our problem as westerners as well, not only because humanitarianism calls for solidarity with the oppressed, not only because liberalism must oppose such ideologies on principle, but because the world is unifying and the Chinese Government will throw in a billion rigged votes while holding a gun to the head of all those unwilling to agree. Ignoring the chinese governments abuse of the people living inside their borders is like ignoring some rich neighbor beating their kids and shouting they will kill anyone looking funny at them, while they run for major, saying it will all be fine as long as you keep looking away.
They can BUY products from Xinjiang, instead of boycott it, raising the living standard of the region and people will be better off, have more choices. They can open border to people from Xinjiang if they want to go for a short term solution. The evil of everything is poverty, nothing else. No religion, no politics. Thinking how America was the paradise for immigrants in the past, no one hates immigrants when economy is good.
Conversely, I've seen many people in the U.S. argue that terrorist attacks from extremists justified a harsh national security response when the attacks happen to countries like the United States or Israel. Then these same people completely ignore the numerous terrorist attacks from extremists that China has faced[1], and say a strong national security response is completely unjustified.
Many neutral observers agree that Gaza has been turned into a defacto open air concentration camp, a small plot of land that Israel and Egypt keep people and supplies from freely moving about, and assert military control over. Naturally, people sympathetic to the government will try to paint it in a better light, but the same is true with Xinjiang.
Things are never 100% the same, so people can always argue "When _I_ do it it's different." For instance, people in Xinjiang are Chinese citizens, and when they leave the camps they can go anywhere in China, and have the same legal rights. People in Gaza, conversely, are supposed to be members for life, with restricted rights, and this is to be a generational condition (many children are stuck in Gaza as well).
IIRC china invited many nations to xinjiang, not just muslims but some western-aligned countries too. The muslim countries and said it was fine and no major mistreatment was going on, while I believe some western countries refused to go, claiming some sort of taint.
So if you believe something, then you get invited to see what's going on, and you refuse, what does that say about you? It's the makings of a thought bubble.
Edit: Wow downvotes! Looks like I might have spoken to some of your hearts
First, how can you get closer to the truth without ever going to the damn place?
Second, I agree there's a capability of falsification from either side, be it china or a news outlet. But neither does it translate to guilt on either side.
In the absence of such you'll have to consider from the first principles, and you'll find the US/west/people involve have a lot more incentive to keep china down. As such the better entities to trust are the third parties, ala the muslim states.
I'm quite wary of "taking sides"; what's public is alarming, I mostly take it at face value, but don't add weight. I'm not saying the truth is somewhere between the extremes, I suspect the accusations are right, but I don't confuse my suspicion with proof.
If something has no value as evidence, then you should disregard it. If China is a murderous totalitarian state, it will show beautiful, pristine "reeducation camps" to outsiders. If it is not a murderous totalitarian state, it will also show beautiful, pristine "reeducation camps".
You can totally learn about something without physically going there. Satellite imagery, intelligence-gathering... in fact for sure you can learn a lot more from document caches or finding insiders willing to talk than seeing some kind of "micro" insight into these camps. If I find a small handful of victims, well who knows, maybe they were unlucky. If I find a document specifying how to torment those incarcerated en masse, that's a smoking gun.
> You can totally learn about something without physically going there.
And you can make mistakes with that learning too. And this isn't the first time - I recall the CIA claiming some farm buildings being missile silos. This is why you get closer to see if there are any mistakes. Otherwise you're just taking a single narrative and running with it, and repeating it. Multiple perspectives HELP.
Regarding evidence - do consider that it has a potential to be tainted too, similar to the claims about China and camp tours. News outlets don't verify these studies thoroughly and already present it as truth for outrage points.
If a Xinjiang “education camp”, where regular people are jailed and tortured, reminds you of Guantanamo, imagine how much more brutal the likes of Chinese Guantanamo would be, places where dissidents, falling political rivals of the current leadership or those deemed the state’s enemies are imprisoned.
Completely different scale, they are a government perpetrating genocide on their own citizens, could go on and on how they aren't the same.
But the top photo of prisoner with hood and handcuffs and brutish looking military/security look very similar to some of the gross photos we saw of abuse at gitmo.
Might be me putting too much emotion onto it but the guard with the bat looks like a smirk, like how the criminals at gitmo enjoyed abusing and taking those photos.
Ugh. The pictures in that article are horrendous. The "patriots" will say (and in fact do say -- see the linked article about Lyndie England) that the real crime is not the acts committed but making them public. The same is true of course in China with Tiananmen Square or in Russia with the current military operation.
It's funny how self-declared patriots seem to specialize in making the rest of the world hate and revile their country.
I am you're right ;( Sad that you can confuse those.
the photos from gitmo aren't nearly as bad, probably because there aren't many. Most I've seen are just those through the fence photos, again looks too similar to China's concentration camps.
The torture seems similar, but the scale is completely different. In Xinjiang, it’s been at least 1.2 million people making up a sizable portion of all Uighur Muslims. That’s compared to around 800 people in Guantanamo Bay (and only about 40 remaining there).
Guantanamo Bay is completely horrible and should never have happened, but it wasn’t genocide.
Can you point me to the documents describing systemic (EDIT: Systemic, as opposed to a crime committed by a rogue prison guard) torture in those “camps”?
Guantanamo is indeed different, because it was only used for people to extract information from - vast majority of “war against terrorism” victims have been simply killed instead.
1. I'm confused. Your original request was, "Can you point me to the documents describing systemic torture in those 'camps'?" Clearly the BBC article outlines fairly substantial evidence of systemic torture in Chinese-run prison camps in Xinjiang. Would you not agree?
2. It's possible for one to criticize the human rights abuses in American prisons--which absolutely exist, I agree--while simultaneously criticizing the human rights abuses in Chinese prisons. If we must make a comparison of scale, the Chinese ones seem far, far worse, of course. But I don't think we need make a comparison; this thread was about Chinese prison camps, and you asked for evidence of systemic torture (which I provided); that you then choose to bring up "similar" behavior in western countries is...strange.
It's almost like you are trying to change the subject, repeatedly and unsuccessfully.
>systemic (EDIT: Systemic, as opposed to a crime committed by a rogue prison guard) torture
having systemically rogue prison guards (say because they never really get punished and everybody aware about it, and frequently even with tacit approval) is a form of systemic torture. Have been this way in USSR/Russia for example.
Both Zenz and “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation” are colored by heavy ideology and this campaign is obviously timed with the UN human rights chiefs current visit in Xinjiang.
The latter has some promise of shining light on the actual situation and provide some marginal improvements on the ground, whereas the former … well … won’t rest until China is split into a million pieces post soviet style.
1. The populated of "genocided" Uyghur ethnic group has increased from 10.17 million to 12.71 million from 2010 to 2018. This sort of contradicts with the concept of genocide. The increase rate of ~25% is higher than Xinjiang ~14% and much higher than the main ethnic group Han ~2%.
2. I personally tried really hard to track down a source that DOESN'T ULTIMATELY LEAD TO ADRIAN ZENZ but has failed to do so. As GameOfFrowns commented earlier, he is at a position with many reasons to fabricate/exaggerate negative facts against China. If hundreds of articles from many different organizations/countries are based on one single person, it's hard for me not to regard this Adrian Zenz as a pretense. Even interviews with so-called family relatives are connected to this magical Zenz.
Many BBC reports/articles claims a resource of "some investigation" or "some research" that either leads to nowhere or to Adrian Zenz. If one claims that it's barely possible to know what's really happening in an authoritarian country, these reports are at least as untrustworthy as China's claims. It's even more amazing that Adrian Zenz has this power to do the investigation that all other organizations/governments cannot do.
3. My personal option: China started this so-called educational camp because of the peak of terrorism in Xinjiang in 2009. And it's very possible that the anti-terrorism action went beyond what it should have. Investigations, evidence etc. should be encouraged to correct any mistake that have happened and prevent them from happening in the future. That being said, if this motive also goes beyond what it should be and turns into a means against China, the accusation makes no difference from what's accused of.
If you read the UN definition of genocide [0], you'll see that a population increase doesn't contradict (the UN concept of) genocide at all. The key is intent.
The UN definition almost cerrtainly requires mass killing, and a steadily increasing population is extremely strong evidence that there's no genocide, under the UN definition. As the UN points out (per your source), the word "genocide" literally means the killing of a race or tribe:
> It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing.
It's often claimed that the UN definition is somehow radically broader than the popular definition (i.e., extermination of an ethnic or religious group). This just isn't true. In fact, the UN states that its definition of genocide is stricter than the popular definition:
> The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.
The UN definition is very clear that "genocide" means a deliberate plan to physical (not culturally) destroy a group:
> To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
There's simply no evidence that the Chinese government is enacting a plan to physically eliminate the Uyghurs. The claims that China is carrying out a genocide are ludicrous. It's a gambit on the part of the US government: they're making a transparently false, but extremely serious accusation, on the bet that they won't be called out on their lies. Nobody wants to be viewed as a "genocide denier," the Western public knows pretty much nothing about China, and the media is usually willing to go along with the government narrative about "enemy" countries (see: Western media complicity in the lies about Iraqi WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq War).
Finally, even if one were to accept the claim that the UN definition of genocide is broader than the popular definition (it isn't, but let's play along), the people making this accusation would still be engaged in a dishonest rhetorical game. When the public hears "genocide," they think of the Holocaust. That's what the US government wants people to think when it accuses China of "genocide." When really challenged (which rarely happens in major media), defenders of this charge will claim that the UN definition is radically different from the popular definition. But the whole reason they're using this charged word is because they want people to think that what China is doing is equivalent to the Holocaust.
A convenient sleight of hand for international liberals. To the average person, genocide means extermination by mass murder. So people make that incredibly damning accusation, and then when it's pointed out that no such thing is happening, they retreat into a technical definition that no one outside of the NGO/activist world cares or knows about.
Yes. We speak to an audience of people, not dictionaries. If you're talking to a conference of international NGO activists, then that's one thing. But mass media headlines are for the consumption of the common person. You choose your words according to what they mean to your audience.
I hope that this is a genuine leak showing what's going on there.
Just don't like the organisation behind this leak, at all, and don't really trust them. But as long as this leak is objective I can ignore this aspect.
Really sickening to see what's going on in Xinjiang.
EDIT: I said it's sickening to see what's going on and i strongly oppose what China is doing in Xinjang, am I really getting downvotes just because I don't like the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation"?
This is an effort by many. So cut that crap. If you have real doubts spell them out clearly.
Journalists e. g. from German Spiegel.de and other participating newspapers found and spoke directly with relatives of these people, and thus verified that the data leak is real.
It was founded by Heritage Foundation founders and they hold power to influence research directions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_...
Now the report is independently verified so it is legitimate, but that does not mean the foundation does not bring direct political influence in discussions. Heritage Foundation amongst other non-scientific stuff denies Climate Change, promotes theory of Voting Fraud.
I suppose it would be helpful if you provided some grounds on why you do not trust this foundation. There are other messages in this discussion showing distrust in the foundation and Dr. Zenz, but none provide background for that.
I know that I am part of a minority when saying this, and to give some context, I live in a Social Democracy and do like it as it is.
Now, why I don't like this foundation. First off, every bad thing happening in communist countries seems to be attributed to the concept of communism itself, and not to the fact that these countries are ruled by dictators. They also state "we tell the truth about communism because our vision is for a world free from the false hope of communism"
If shit happens in our capitalist countries, this rarely gets blamed on capitalism as a whole, and even if, it's not taken seriously by many. I've never seen someone blame capitalism for what happened at Guantanamo Bay, as an example.
"a world free from [...] communism". It seems like this foundation is part of a majority who doesn't actually educate themselves about communism. As someone who has read what Marx, Engels any many others came up with, I can just shake my head if I read what is written on this foundations website. The big issue with communism is that dictators use this system to enrich themselves, BUT, communism should be a system where the proletariat rules, not a single person.
If anyone would create a "Victims of Capitalism Memorial Foundation", the west would instantly laugh it off and deny such criticism. But as we have seemed to conclude that commies are the bad guys, everyone is fine with people blaming absolutely everything on Communism.
And now to end, no, I am not communist. I live in one of the richest, capitalist countries, in a social democracy. I just don't like it when Communism is being blamed in such weird ways and it especially pisses me off if such things come from the US - a country where news talking heads frequently trash Socialism/Communism as a boogeyman, even if it makes zero sense. Add to that the atrocities that the US has caused in our world (Y'all also do tons of cool stuff, I'm not Anti-US, just objectively critical), atrocities which rarely get blamed on the whole country and instead on groups or even specific people, and I can't take such generalized criticism against whole systems seriously.
China does evil shit all the time as well. Surveillance, the stuff in Xinjang and more, just to also make clear that I am not a chinese puppet. But keep the criticism real.
Comments which mention socialism or communism in a way that doesn't explicitly condemn it are often downvoted to oblivion on HN. I got it once because I mentioned that I thought Tito was an interesting guy. FWIW I'll vouch the comment if it gets made [dead]
Yes, but I notice this in real life as well. As soon as I dare to suppose that merely the theory of communism is not 100% evil, I get treated like a full-on communist defending that "Stalin killed 100 million people".
Can't even blame people that much, used to think the same. Then I read a couple of books, educated myself about different political ideologies and now I'm better able to talk about this topic rationally. I still think a communist state which truly works is very hard to achieve and not that necessary, even just when talking about having to convince people that we or they should try. But I took some 'marxist' principles to heart and base my political thinking around concepts like class conflict and economic/social equality, without feeling or describing myself as communist. I still vote for SocDems, I'm probably just a bit more "extreme" than their average voter.
I see that a lot with all kind of topics and call it "0/1 partisanship" for lack of a better word. I think it's related strongly to in-group/out-group thinking, friend or foe. You are either with us, or against us, but in a radical way: either you agree with everything, or you are the enemy. There is no middle ground, no grey area, no 23% or 42% or 69% only 0 and 1. People lack the ability to differentiate, to have a discussion about the finer detail. Maybe it's the education system not training discourse culture, but i think it is mostly because they don't actually care about the topic, only about the social aspect of being on the same side of a topic.
While it may be true that the criticisms of the Bolsheviks leveled by Kautsky may point to a disapproval of Leninism by Marx and Engels, nevertheless, no non-Leninist socialist revolution has ever occurred, and so the charge of brutal dictatorship is valid and legitimate in historical practice.
[0]Zenz is a born-again christian zealot who imagines himself to be on a mission against Satan (or in this case China) and who build his whole career on "uncovering" Chinese atrocities and aligning himself with questionable orgs like the Muslim Brotherhood.
In our current economy where attention is currency, he has to come up with ever more outrageous material. Now that 100% of reporting about these camps and the "Uyghur genocide" comes from one single source, namely Adrian Zenz, this makes at least me skeptical outright. His anti-China activism is so clearly in line with US interests and CIA activities that it's no surprise he gets a lot of praise from establishment media.
That is why my original comment said that Uyghur activists should avoid Zenz, since that man has all the motivation to fabricate evidence to further his personal (lucrative) crusade.
If he's genuine, that's a pity, but a this point he is unfortunately "burned" and a detriment to Uyghur activism.
This is the sort of background I asked for. Admittedly I've not followed the topic closely, but this is the first time I hear about this sort of connection with Uyghyr activism.
At least in this case the reporting seems to be based on verified information and journalists working independently of Dr. Zenz.
I cannot read the full WSJ article and the teaser doesn't support your statement that he's on a "mission against China", only that "I feel very clearly led by God to do this". Since the teaser doesn't make it clear that 'this' refers to a "mission against China" I'd say it could also refer to uncovering the truth.
Everything else you wrote is basically conspiracy 101: "His anti-China activism is so clearly in line with US interests and CIA activities that it's no surprise he gets a lot of praise from establishment media." ... cause obviously, when someone critizes China it must be a campaign by the shadow cabal of CIA.
> If he's genuine, that's a pity, but a this point he is unfortunately "burned" and a detriment to Uyghur activism.
Burned by whom and for what? All I've read so far are accusations, no proof, not even a shred of evidence of wrongdoing. That someone is highly critical of something doesn't "burn" them in any way. If you have proof that he fabricated evidence feel free to share it.
It's a false believe that only those who declare neutrality can tell the truth and everything said by anyone with an agenda must be a lie made to further their goals. On the contrary those who strive for/against something have the energy required to uncover truth, to tell it again and again even when facing opposition.
Yes we want neutral journalism, but that means to look at all sides and verify the facts, it does not mean to completely disregard something because a source is not neutral. It does not mean to disregard facts because they align with some ideology.
We also want neutral judges, but when the accused says they did not do the crime, and accuser says they did, and the evidence says they did, the neutral judge should not disregard the evidence because it aligns with one side. That is not what neutrality means.
I dont consider myself anti communist. I'm just against every communist regime that has ever been created in the history of mankind. The concentration camps in china are real and brutal. One must take stance against immorality no matter the ideology. If that makes me anti-communist so be it
If these are the requirements to make you Anti-Communist I must ask - Would you be Anti-Capitalist and/or Anti-Democracy as well?
If not, why not? I think we can both find more than enough examples for evil things which were done in or because of capitalist democracies.
I would ask the same question if someone would label themselves as Anti-Capitalist. To understand why one would only be against a single of these systems/ideologies, while potentially being fine with or ignoring others.
The larger picture "leak formation", by which I mean the group of organisations that has formed around the investigations and/or selected for early access by those more directly involved, is much bigger than just that "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation". Plenty of regular news organisations with no excessive bias.
For all I know "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" might be a perfectly well-meaning org without any questionable agenda at all (it's the first time I hear about it), but it certainly looks like it could just as well be quite the opposite. Clearly not the most favorable way for first contact with this story.
I have a big issue with this rule, especially if it's about my own comment: People downvoted my comment without giving a feedback about what they don't like. How should I better myself in this case? I'm not saying that these votes are unjustified, I would just like to know why I received them. I wasn't trolling or insulting someone, so it's not like my comment is objectively bad.
As soon as I added my edit to ask why I was downvoted, people started giving feedback about it, you can check the timestamps yourself. So If I wouldn't have asked for it, I maybe still wouldn't know why people didn't like what I wrote.
Now I know that the rule you posted is as it is and can't be argued against, I just wanted to explain why I broke it. I actually never looked at the HN Guidelines, guess I should.
A downvote simply tells you that people disagree with your comment and believe it's so bad that they don't want to further interact with you or your comment.
IMO it's ok to edit a comment to ask why you're being downvoted. The comment itself is on-topic, and has sparked an on-topic discussion so I don't see the issue.
I'm surprised Cloudflare is blocking me from viewing this site via Tor Browser from one of my favorite cyber cafés. Instead I need to load a domain that's going to put me on all sorts of... radar... and enable Javascript?
Feels bad man.
Oh, look, now as I try to access it I'm getting a 520 error, let's throw a !wayback shebang into the search bar since I already made sure to set my search engine as... uh... not Bing.
For context, I'm from the suburbs of Pittsburgh, and seriously considered joining the FBI when I left college, but ironically the reason I didn't was because they never sorted out how to handle to the duality of the counter intel mission with the more traditional stuff like... busting bank robbers.
I'm going to get up every morning and make posts like this on the internet, with the same damn defcon bag next to me I have for over ten years.
- Greg from Troop 262
PS: And Mike Nelson, if you're reading this, sorry I called you while you're driving, you could have let it go to voicemail rather than pick up then being angry you're talking on the phone while you're driving -- you know I'm always willing to reply :-)