4 ms·

During the first world war, the UK made a lot of claims about what Germany was doing in Belgium. It turned out that these claims were untrue. The Germans were u

During the first world war, the UK made a lot of claims about what Germany was doing in Belgium. It turned out that these claims were untrue. The Germans were undoubtedly brutal, but they were also not nearly so monstrous as the allies made them out to be. This lead to a lot of people treating early reports of the Holocaust with skepticism. I think the chinese state is also undoubtedly brutal, but nobody claims Australia is committing genocide when they demolish aboriginal holy sites, arrest aboriginal people, or take away their children. A pattern of brutality centered around reproductive rights, the destruction of cultural symbols, and mass incarceration is common to many oppressed minorities around the world. All this stuff is obviously terrible, and China should be condemned for its reversal of a traditionally great record on minority rights, but turning the Ughyurs into proxies for an essentially cynical US-China rivalry helps noone. PS: I also imagine those reports are likely all true. Police are typically brutal. Police in authoritarian regimes are worse. That doesn't make it genocide.

lostlogin 5y ago
You imagine acknowledge the reports may be true, they meet the definition, but it isn’t genocide? Amnesty don’t call it genocide, but also note that all observers are blocked from entry. https://www.amnesty.org.nz/uyghurs-nowhere-feels-safe https://www.amnesty.org.nz/uyghurs-nowhere-feels-safe
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Well, they don't meet the definition the other poster put up - unless you want to interpret it in a very loose sense that would certainly tar a lot of nations, for instance India. I'm not really attached to the word or it's definition. It just occurs to me that 'genocide' is the causus beli for every well-remembered war the west have had since WW2. When the word starts getting thrown around in the middle of a trade war, when US hegemony is being contested, when the world has a new number one in terms of economic and industrial might, well, I think its deployment is basically cynical. Insofar as it has already forced changes for (I think) the better in Chinese government policy, I'm glad. But I also think the airtime would be better spent less cynically, on countries like India, who are probably way easier to pressure and frankly just as bad. If world leaders like the UK go on air to call what's happening in Xinjiang genocide while selling arms to the Saudis so they can bomb the Houthis, then they just look about as cynical as they are. And that's what the Chinese domestic audience probably thinks, because ultimately, the west doesn't have moral credibility when it only makes a fuss over human rights when it's also in the west's strategic interest.

lostlogin 5y ago

You imagine acknowledge the reports may be true, they meet the definition, but it isn’t genocide? Amnesty don’t call it genocide, but also note that all observers are blocked from entry. https://www.amnesty.org.nz/uyghurs-nowhere-feels-safe https://www.amnesty.org.nz/uyghurs-nowhere-feels-safe

pasabagi 5y ago
Well, they don't meet the definition the other poster put up - unless you want to interpret it in a very loose sense that would certainly tar a lot of nations, for instance India. I'm not really attached to the word or it's definition. It just occurs to me that 'genocide' is the causus beli for every well-remembered war the west have had since WW2. When the word starts getting thrown around in the middle of a trade war, when US hegemony is being contested, when the world has a new number one in terms of economic and industrial might, well, I think its deployment is basically cynical. Insofar as it has already forced changes for (I think) the better in Chinese government policy, I'm glad. But I also think the airtime would be better spent less cynically, on countries like India, who are probably way easier to pressure and frankly just as bad. If world leaders like the UK go on air to call what's happening in Xinjiang genocide while selling arms to the Saudis so they can bomb the Houthis, then they just look about as cynical as they are. And that's what the Chinese domestic audience probably thinks, because ultimately, the west doesn't have moral credibility when it only makes a fuss over human rights when it's also in the west's strategic interest.