6 ms·

In the article he mentions “Their goal is just to exterminate all Uighurs in one way or another”, if that is the case, why not just shoot them all? Why did they

In the article he mentions “Their goal is just to exterminate all Uighurs in one way or another”, if that is the case, why not just shoot them all? Why did they let him out?

iaw 6y ago
> exterminate all Uighurs in one way or another In this context it seems to mean that it's politically easier to "re-educate" the Uighar away than straight out kill the Uighars. If some die during the process China doesn't care but it can't be accused of genocide which would raise more concern globally.
- yeetman21 6y ago
  They are already being accused of genocide, and it isnt doing much to them
yorwba 6y ago
Obviously, that statement is more about his feelings than about the Chinese government's motivation, since he has no special insight into the latter.
gambiting 6y ago
It would have been far easier for Nazis to shoot all "lesser" races too, yet they used to send people to concentration camps first. And yes, people used to be released from those from time to time too. The answer with Nazis was that after arrival at a concentration camp the weak were sent to immediate excution, the rest were kept for labour, and everyone was stripped off their possessions first - which was very convenient because people were told they would be relocated, so they brought valuables with them. That centralized the wealth gathering, execution and labour into a single package, which made a lot more sense than trying to do it on the spot everywhere they went. But specifically in the case of Uighurs - you can eliminate a culture by erasing its identity, without killing the people. That seems to be what China is doing - they are not straight up killing them, just putting them in camps for "reeducation" so they behave and think like model Chinese citizens, with harsh punishments for following their original culture. That way, "Uighurs" as a group will be wiped out without necessarily killing them all.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  The Nazis committed many mass shootings, predating the concentration camps in many cases. Snyder’s Bloodlands is the definitive work on the subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodlands https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodlands
  - emteycz 6y ago
    That just confirms the point. Shooting people wasn't economical.
    - yeetman21 6y ago
      It is more economical than building massive housing complexes and feeding entire populations for years on end
      - gambiting 6y ago
        No it isn't, and it doesn't take much research to find out why. Any time the Nazis did it(like in Lvov) it took a huge amount of work to help with burrying/burning the bodies, Nazis didn't want to do it so they would conscript the local population, which was then likely to strike back as they knew exactly what would happen to them. If you told people you were "relocating" them they were far more likely to come peacefully, and concentration camps provided a very valuable source of labour to nearby areas. As for feeding them....it doesn't take much to find out that they were barely fed anything. Pretty much only the prisoners who received outside parcels with food survived more than a month or two, simply because the prisoners weren't fed, given proper clothing or any care whatsoever. The same with "massive housing complexes" - Auschwitz initially used existing military barracks and then built very simple huts for Birkenau. It's hard to call it housing.
        yeetman21 6y ago
        Completely false. The transportation and logistical requirement alone would have outweighed the costs of a mass grave or pyre.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 6y ago
Probably harder to claim a dead person is alive, than a live person wasn't tortured. Also it's pretty clear that they don't care about eliminating the people - they want to eliminate the culture.
- k_sze 6y ago
  On the other hand, why even torture someone and then let them free so they can speak out against you? Torturing seems like such a hassle. If I were an evil dictator with the means in the modern day and I wanted to really intimidate a population, I would abduct some of that population and just secretly kill them and burn their bodies. Nobody can then prove whether you actually killed them. You could say you re-educated them and then let them go, and their present whereabouts are no longer your business.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
The article explains why they let him out: he apparently also has Kazakh citizenship, and his wife started making noise via diplomatic channels. As to the larger question, most genocides stop short of literally just shooting everyone. That doesn't mean the goal still isn't eradication of a culture. China does care about legitimacy internationally, and simply shooting millions of people into roadside ditches would be a step too far. But this process of concentration camps under the banner of combating terrorism is enough of a fig leaf, and enough of a slow progression, it doesn't generate the same sort of immediate opposition abroad. As we see here sadly.

In the article he mentions “Their goal is just to exterminate all Uighurs in one way or another”, if that is the case, why not just shoot them all? Why did they let him out?

iaw 6y ago

> exterminate all Uighurs in one way or another In this context it seems to mean that it's politically easier to "re-educate" the Uighar away than straight out kill the Uighars. If some die during the process China doesn't care but it can't be accused of genocide which would raise more concern globally.

yeetman21 6y ago
They are already being accused of genocide, and it isnt doing much to them

yorwba 6y ago

Obviously, that statement is more about his feelings than about the Chinese government's motivation, since he has no special insight into the latter.

gambiting 6y ago

It would have been far easier for Nazis to shoot all "lesser" races too, yet they used to send people to concentration camps first. And yes, people used to be released from those from time to time too. The answer with Nazis was that after arrival at a concentration camp the weak were sent to immediate excution, the rest were kept for labour, and everyone was stripped off their possessions first - which was very convenient because people were told they would be relocated, so they brought valuables with them. That centralized the wealth gathering, execution and labour into a single package, which made a lot more sense than trying to do it on the spot everywhere they went. But specifically in the case of Uighurs - you can eliminate a culture by erasing its identity, without killing the people. That seems to be what China is doing - they are not straight up killing them, just putting them in camps for "reeducation" so they behave and think like model Chinese citizens, with harsh punishments for following their original culture. That way, "Uighurs" as a group will be wiped out without necessarily killing them all.

1123581321 6y ago
The Nazis committed many mass shootings, predating the concentration camps in many cases. Snyder’s Bloodlands is the definitive work on the subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodlands https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodlands
- emteycz 6y ago
  That just confirms the point. Shooting people wasn't economical.
  - yeetman21 6y ago
    It is more economical than building massive housing complexes and feeding entire populations for years on end
    - gambiting 6y ago
      No it isn't, and it doesn't take much research to find out why. Any time the Nazis did it(like in Lvov) it took a huge amount of work to help with burrying/burning the bodies, Nazis didn't want to do it so they would conscript the local population, which was then likely to strike back as they knew exactly what would happen to them. If you told people you were "relocating" them they were far more likely to come peacefully, and concentration camps provided a very valuable source of labour to nearby areas. As for feeding them....it doesn't take much to find out that they were barely fed anything. Pretty much only the prisoners who received outside parcels with food survived more than a month or two, simply because the prisoners weren't fed, given proper clothing or any care whatsoever. The same with "massive housing complexes" - Auschwitz initially used existing military barracks and then built very simple huts for Birkenau. It's hard to call it housing.
      - yeetman21 6y ago
        Completely false. The transportation and logistical requirement alone would have outweighed the costs of a mass grave or pyre.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 6y ago

Probably harder to claim a dead person is alive, than a live person wasn't tortured. Also it's pretty clear that they don't care about eliminating the people - they want to eliminate the culture.

k_sze 6y ago
On the other hand, why even torture someone and then let them free so they can speak out against you? Torturing seems like such a hassle. If I were an evil dictator with the means in the modern day and I wanted to really intimidate a population, I would abduct some of that population and just secretly kill them and burn their bodies. Nobody can then prove whether you actually killed them. You could say you re-educated them and then let them go, and their present whereabouts are no longer your business.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

The article explains why they let him out: he apparently also has Kazakh citizenship, and his wife started making noise via diplomatic channels. As to the larger question, most genocides stop short of literally just shooting everyone. That doesn't mean the goal still isn't eradication of a culture. China does care about legitimacy internationally, and simply shooting millions of people into roadside ditches would be a step too far. But this process of concentration camps under the banner of combating terrorism is enough of a fig leaf, and enough of a slow progression, it doesn't generate the same sort of immediate opposition abroad. As we see here sadly.