4 ms·

A person held against their will and forced to do labor is a slave whether they're called that or not, especially if they have committed no legitimate offense f

by api 6y ago

A person held against their will and forced to do labor is a slave whether they're called that or not, especially if they have committed no legitimate offense for which such a punishment could be justified. As near as I can tell the Uighurs' "offense" is being of a different ethnicity and being majority Muslim. What the Chinese are doing here is very close to what the USA did in its first century with African slaves.

strogonoff 6y ago
You are right in your last paragraph. The situation in Xinjang is such that for an Uyghur it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says. Any work done with involvement of Uyghur population by default is a situation of forced labour. That’s what the article says. However, using the term “slavery” gives CCP ammunition to fight back. They can point out that Uyghurs are paid. They can claim they are free to refuse (we know they will not out of fear of retribution, but I suspect the need for such nuance only hurts the case).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- berdario 6y ago
  > The situation in Xinjang is such that for an Uyghur it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says ... > The situation anywhere is such that for anyone it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says FTFY As long as you have a police force and prisons, you'll never be able to NOT do what the state says. Now, it's a matter of: - do you disagree with what the state does? - do you agree with what the state does? And all the positions between these 2 extremes. On one end, you have anarchists (and what the state would call terrorists) On the other end, you have statists (and what the anarchists would call authoritarians/fascists/wumao)
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You are obviously eliding the distinction between a state where officials can arbitrarily order you to do anything and a state bound by the rule of law and a constitution enforced by independent courts that limits what the executive and legislature can order you to do.
    - berdario 6y ago
      Yes, because that's a separate/orthogonal (and much more controversial point). I just don't want anarchists to be fooled into supporting the warmongering US propaganda. i.e. do you agree that the state should have the power to do what's described above? I was leaning to say more "no". I basically used to be more of an anarchist. That was probably (also) because I was disappointed in our cronyist, capitalist, disfunctional governments... I'm now finding myself as more of a statist, after realizing how much good is being accomplished in China, and how arbitrary and ridiculous are the falsehoods that the US propaganda is pushing.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Any criticism will give CCP ammunition to fight back in bad faith. They can say "US government oppressed its colored people too" which is true. By refusing to criticize them, you are just doing their work for them and giving them a free pass.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by api 6y ago

strogonoff 6y ago

You are right in your last paragraph. The situation in Xinjang is such that for an Uyghur it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says. Any work done with involvement of Uyghur population by default is a situation of forced labour. That’s what the article says. However, using the term “slavery” gives CCP ammunition to fight back. They can point out that Uyghurs are paid. They can claim they are free to refuse (we know they will not out of fear of retribution, but I suspect the need for such nuance only hurts the case).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
berdario 6y ago
> The situation in Xinjang is such that for an Uyghur it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says ... > The situation anywhere is such that for anyone it is in fact impossible to decline to do what the state says FTFY As long as you have a police force and prisons, you'll never be able to NOT do what the state says. Now, it's a matter of: - do you disagree with what the state does? - do you agree with what the state does? And all the positions between these 2 extremes. On one end, you have anarchists (and what the state would call terrorists) On the other end, you have statists (and what the anarchists would call authoritarians/fascists/wumao)
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You are obviously eliding the distinction between a state where officials can arbitrarily order you to do anything and a state bound by the rule of law and a constitution enforced by independent courts that limits what the executive and legislature can order you to do.
  - berdario 6y ago
    Yes, because that's a separate/orthogonal (and much more controversial point). I just don't want anarchists to be fooled into supporting the warmongering US propaganda. i.e. do you agree that the state should have the power to do what's described above? I was leaning to say more "no". I basically used to be more of an anarchist. That was probably (also) because I was disappointed in our cronyist, capitalist, disfunctional governments... I'm now finding myself as more of a statist, after realizing how much good is being accomplished in China, and how arbitrary and ridiculous are the falsehoods that the US propaganda is pushing.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Any criticism will give CCP ammunition to fight back in bad faith. They can say "US government oppressed its colored people too" which is true. By refusing to criticize them, you are just doing their work for them and giving them a free pass.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]