6 ms·

There are various levels of reporting in about what's happening in Xinjiang. I'm curious which ones of the following people here on HN believe are true. A. The

There are various levels of reporting in about what's happening in Xinjiang. I'm curious which ones of the following people here on HN believe are true. A. There is forced re-education, forced de-radicalization, and forced political assimilation (to fight separatism). Some camps are indeed for voluntary vocational education, others are for forced re-education. The number of people who are forced into camps, are a lot less than the alleged 1+ million. No killing/genocide; no erasure of Muslim religion, artefacts or buildings; any brutality in prisons are incidental rather than policy. All people who are forced into camps eventually leave them. B. Like A, except that there are no voluntary vocational camps: all camps are forced. All people leave them after a while. C. Like B, except that people aren't supposed to leave them. Masses of people are imprisoned indefinitely. The alleged 1+ million number is true. Erasure of Muslim religion and artefacts is true. Brutality within camps are true. But no killing/genocide. D. Full killing/genocide ala Nazi Auschwitz, on the full population, everywhere in China. E. None of the above. Would love to hear what you think is exactly going on. Which of the above do people here think is true?

flerchin 6y ago
Seems like something between B-D. Some people leave, some people don't, some people are murdered.
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
I'd think a mix of A and C (massive amounts of both good and ill intent/practices, largely a question of who runs the particular camp). This is based on both living in China in 2009 and seeing the nature of the state apparatus at the time, and having a Uighur roommate in 2012 who spoke a bit about the political situation at that time.
FooBarWidget 6y ago
Does anyone know why the above post gets downvoted, even though it's only inquiring people for opinions, and not even presenting its own opinion? What have I done wrong, and what should I have done differently?
- James_Henry 6y ago
  Because it's presenting a very blatant false dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma It could have not been on purpose, but it doesn't come off as a good faith desire to find out what people believe. I'm not sure how you can really, effectively figure out what specifically people think on this forum, especially because it very well could be the case that most people reading and commenting on this article haven't been following the situation incredibly carefully beyond just having a sense that something really bad is happening in China concerning persecution of an ethnic and religious minority and the occasional headline with a few more specifics.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    Re false dilemma: You mean I got downvoted for not providing an option "E: other, please describe"? And just by lacking such an option, it comes over as bad faith? That seems rather excessive and cynical. Why is it so hard for people to just post a comment describing their opinion, rather than hitting downvote?
    - James_Henry 6y ago
      That's my guess. Also, I think there are some jumps in the severity of things in your examples that probably come off as bad faith. Your list is not quite as bad as A. Just helping the Uighurs, but maybe not in the best way. B. Just killing all the Uighurs. But I think a lot of people have issue with your list not considering the fact that there may be something between full killing/genocide and only some of them being killed (perhaps the more religious? the imams? those whose blood tests show they'll make a good organ donor?) and the idea of "demographic genocide"; or with your list not mentioning the fact that the brutality may not be policy but that it may be tacitly condoned; or your list not mentioning that it doesn't take obvious destruction of artefacts, buildings, or killing of imams to erase a religion or tradition and that it can happen in more subtle ways. Many westerners grow up learning about the potential horrors of western imperialism and colonialism, and they are worried about the sinicization of Islam (and everything else). I realize this comment may come off as rude, but I think that it is a real explanation of the downvotes. It's also important to realize that it's a lot easier for people to vote than to converse, especially when most people know about issues like this from headlines, skimming articles, etc.
Hizonner 6y ago
Too simplistic. Based on the generally available reports, and based on prior probabilities given the way this stuff has tended to work all over the world, I tentatively believe something close to this: There is forced re-education, forced de-radicalization, and forced political (and cultural) assimilation. One major motivation is probably to fight a (largely illusory) danger of widespread separatist violence. In fact, the policy will probably eventually provoke or exacerbate such violence from at least a significant minority. That in turn will confirm in the leader's minds that the entire populace is dangerous, leading to a heavier crackdown. Lather, rinse, repeat. Some voluntary vocational education is available, not necessarily in "camps", but probably in somewhat less restricted residential settings as well as on an "outpatient" basis. This "education" has a significant political component, which is largely unnoticed by the people who create the curriculum. Failure to absorb the political component is failure to absorb the lessons, and is treated as such. Some unknown, but probably not very large, number of people accept this on a truly voluntary basis. Another unknown, but probably larger, number accept it "voluntarily", because they expect full-on involuntary internment if they do not. Both of these "voluntary" groups probably do get privileges like the possibility to occasionally get a pass to leave the camp (or other facility). Neither group is probably as large as the outright involuntary group, but it's hard to tell. Unless you can put on a good show of actually qualifying to "graduate", guitting the "voluntary" group probably has a better than even chance of getting you put into the "involuntary" group. On the other hand, if you're genuinely an enthusiastic member of the "voluntary" group, and you manage to prove it, that's a great thing and you'll get all kinds of rewards. No genocide is intended; assimilation is intended. The goal is not so much to erase any existing cultural identity as to make it subordinate to "Chinese" identity. That includes accepting a healthy helping of Han, but the people defining the goals don't see that, and think of it as accepting "universal values and pro-social habits". The intended assimilation would have the long-term effect of erasure and might meet the UN definition of "genocide"... but that's not really the purpose. There is no intentional genocide in the sense of planned mass extermination. Nobody is killed outright unless they resist with violence. They are, of course provoked to so resist, but that's not really intentional. Of course anything that looks like participation in or aid to rebellion counts as violent resistance. If things escalate enough there may be more dehumanization, and a perceived need for a "final solution", but that's not what the bosses want to do, and they are probably not thinking in those terms at this point. The intent with regard to religion is to tame it, and those in charge feel they're enlightened and lenient for not outright suppressing it. The "taming" includes bringing the practice under state supervision and control, and removing any doctrinal elements that the regime finds threatening or that might in any way tend to undermine the regime's own doctrines. Some of the altered elements are probably important to the religion as it exists and as it is presently seen by its practitioners. It's very hard to create a recognizable "socialist Islam". The re-educators, for their part, cannot understand why anybody would be unwilling to accept the "obviously reasonable" changes they're asking for, and see any resistance as vicious intransigence. The brutality, in or out of the camps, is neither policy nor incidental. It's just what happens when you round people up and tell your troops that they're recalcitrant and anti-social and need to be "re-educated". But Those In Charge are predisposed not to see the brutality as what it is. It's simply tough love for the recalcitrant, with the occasional rare aberration. If a guard manages to make the bosses see something as brutal, that guard is probably punished with extreme severity. Artefacts, buildings or whatever aren't an issue unless they become rallying points or are seen as likely to be rallying points. However, "not an issue" also includes "not very important to preserve". Which may make them into rallying points. The goal is to have everybody in the camps re-educated (or brainwashed, as we crazy outsiders would have it), and released. It's a regrettable reality that certain elements resist this reasonable re-education, and therefore must be detained for very long periods, maybe even for life. It wouldn't be appropriate to release anybody who hadn't actually been reformed. After all, it's for their own good, and don't doubt that the people at the top of this believe that it's for their own good. Of course, if somebody resists "criminally" and becomes an enemy of the state, they may be imprisoned, or, justifiably, executed judicially, or killed as imminent threats to the safety of the state, the state's agents, or the social order. How many people they actually manage to release is hard to tell. Exactly how hard they try, or what they accept as adequate evidence of having been re-educated, is also hard to tell. It probably varies. It's also a regrettable reality that there are many unregenerate elements in the populace. Whether it gets to a million, I don't know. So sort of C with elements of A, but it's more complicated than that. You would think they'd have learned about some of this from the Cultural Revolution, but apparently not.

flerchin 6y ago

Seems like something between B-D. Some people leave, some people don't, some people are murdered.

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

I'd think a mix of A and C (massive amounts of both good and ill intent/practices, largely a question of who runs the particular camp). This is based on both living in China in 2009 and seeing the nature of the state apparatus at the time, and having a Uighur roommate in 2012 who spoke a bit about the political situation at that time.

FooBarWidget 6y ago

Does anyone know why the above post gets downvoted, even though it's only inquiring people for opinions, and not even presenting its own opinion? What have I done wrong, and what should I have done differently?

James_Henry 6y ago
Because it's presenting a very blatant false dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma It could have not been on purpose, but it doesn't come off as a good faith desire to find out what people believe. I'm not sure how you can really, effectively figure out what specifically people think on this forum, especially because it very well could be the case that most people reading and commenting on this article haven't been following the situation incredibly carefully beyond just having a sense that something really bad is happening in China concerning persecution of an ethnic and religious minority and the occasional headline with a few more specifics.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  Re false dilemma: You mean I got downvoted for not providing an option "E: other, please describe"? And just by lacking such an option, it comes over as bad faith? That seems rather excessive and cynical. Why is it so hard for people to just post a comment describing their opinion, rather than hitting downvote?
  - James_Henry 6y ago
    That's my guess. Also, I think there are some jumps in the severity of things in your examples that probably come off as bad faith. Your list is not quite as bad as A. Just helping the Uighurs, but maybe not in the best way. B. Just killing all the Uighurs. But I think a lot of people have issue with your list not considering the fact that there may be something between full killing/genocide and only some of them being killed (perhaps the more religious? the imams? those whose blood tests show they'll make a good organ donor?) and the idea of "demographic genocide"; or with your list not mentioning the fact that the brutality may not be policy but that it may be tacitly condoned; or your list not mentioning that it doesn't take obvious destruction of artefacts, buildings, or killing of imams to erase a religion or tradition and that it can happen in more subtle ways. Many westerners grow up learning about the potential horrors of western imperialism and colonialism, and they are worried about the sinicization of Islam (and everything else). I realize this comment may come off as rude, but I think that it is a real explanation of the downvotes. It's also important to realize that it's a lot easier for people to vote than to converse, especially when most people know about issues like this from headlines, skimming articles, etc.

Hizonner 6y ago

Too simplistic. Based on the generally available reports, and based on prior probabilities given the way this stuff has tended to work all over the world, I tentatively believe something close to this: There is forced re-education, forced de-radicalization, and forced political (and cultural) assimilation. One major motivation is probably to fight a (largely illusory) danger of widespread separatist violence. In fact, the policy will probably eventually provoke or exacerbate such violence from at least a significant minority. That in turn will confirm in the leader's minds that the entire populace is dangerous, leading to a heavier crackdown. Lather, rinse, repeat. Some voluntary vocational education is available, not necessarily in "camps", but probably in somewhat less restricted residential settings as well as on an "outpatient" basis. This "education" has a significant political component, which is largely unnoticed by the people who create the curriculum. Failure to absorb the political component is failure to absorb the lessons, and is treated as such. Some unknown, but probably not very large, number of people accept this on a truly voluntary basis. Another unknown, but probably larger, number accept it "voluntarily", because they expect full-on involuntary internment if they do not. Both of these "voluntary" groups probably do get privileges like the possibility to occasionally get a pass to leave the camp (or other facility). Neither group is probably as large as the outright involuntary group, but it's hard to tell. Unless you can put on a good show of actually qualifying to "graduate", guitting the "voluntary" group probably has a better than even chance of getting you put into the "involuntary" group. On the other hand, if you're genuinely an enthusiastic member of the "voluntary" group, and you manage to prove it, that's a great thing and you'll get all kinds of rewards. No genocide is intended; assimilation is intended. The goal is not so much to erase any existing cultural identity as to make it subordinate to "Chinese" identity. That includes accepting a healthy helping of Han, but the people defining the goals don't see that, and think of it as accepting "universal values and pro-social habits". The intended assimilation would have the long-term effect of erasure and might meet the UN definition of "genocide"... but that's not really the purpose. There is no intentional genocide in the sense of planned mass extermination. Nobody is killed outright unless they resist with violence. They are, of course provoked to so resist, but that's not really intentional. Of course anything that looks like participation in or aid to rebellion counts as violent resistance. If things escalate enough there may be more dehumanization, and a perceived need for a "final solution", but that's not what the bosses want to do, and they are probably not thinking in those terms at this point. The intent with regard to religion is to tame it, and those in charge feel they're enlightened and lenient for not outright suppressing it. The "taming" includes bringing the practice under state supervision and control, and removing any doctrinal elements that the regime finds threatening or that might in any way tend to undermine the regime's own doctrines. Some of the altered elements are probably important to the religion as it exists and as it is presently seen by its practitioners. It's very hard to create a recognizable "socialist Islam". The re-educators, for their part, cannot understand why anybody would be unwilling to accept the "obviously reasonable" changes they're asking for, and see any resistance as vicious intransigence. The brutality, in or out of the camps, is neither policy nor incidental. It's just what happens when you round people up and tell your troops that they're recalcitrant and anti-social and need to be "re-educated". But Those In Charge are predisposed not to see the brutality as what it is. It's simply tough love for the recalcitrant, with the occasional rare aberration. If a guard manages to make the bosses see something as brutal, that guard is probably punished with extreme severity. Artefacts, buildings or whatever aren't an issue unless they become rallying points or are seen as likely to be rallying points. However, "not an issue" also includes "not very important to preserve". Which may make them into rallying points. The goal is to have everybody in the camps re-educated (or brainwashed, as we crazy outsiders would have it), and released. It's a regrettable reality that certain elements resist this reasonable re-education, and therefore must be detained for very long periods, maybe even for life. It wouldn't be appropriate to release anybody who hadn't actually been reformed. After all, it's for their own good, and don't doubt that the people at the top of this believe that it's for their own good. Of course, if somebody resists "criminally" and becomes an enemy of the state, they may be imprisoned, or, justifiably, executed judicially, or killed as imminent threats to the safety of the state, the state's agents, or the social order. How many people they actually manage to release is hard to tell. Exactly how hard they try, or what they accept as adequate evidence of having been re-educated, is also hard to tell. It probably varies. It's also a regrettable reality that there are many unregenerate elements in the populace. Whether it gets to a million, I don't know. So sort of C with elements of A, but it's more complicated than that. You would think they'd have learned about some of this from the Cultural Revolution, but apparently not.