3 ms·

> the genocide being perpetrated on the Uyghur people A "genocide" in which nobody is being killed. The fact that anyone is even using the word "genocide" reg

> the genocide being perpetrated on the Uyghur people A "genocide" in which nobody is being killed. The fact that anyone is even using the word "genocide" regarding Xinjiang with a straight face is a perfect example of how extreme the propaganda in the US has become in the last 5 years. It's also a perfect example of US media not doing its job to hold the US government accountable when it makes absurd claims (à la WMD in Iraq).

Freak_NL 5y ago
You may wish to look up the definition of genocide. Genocide is about extinguishing an ethnic, racial, or religious group. One way is to simply murder everyone that belongs to it. It is effective, but hard to do without consequences. Another, perhaps more insidious way is to prevent that culture from propagating, thus destroying it in the long run. Tools you can use are involuntary birth control, displacement, and indoctrination. Which is what is happening in Xinjiang. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/uyghurs-subjected-to-genocide-by-china-unofficial-uk-tribunal-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/uyghurs-subjec...
muricula 5y ago
The UN defines genocide as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Killing members of a group is not necessary for something to be genocide. I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word, but I don't think your objection holds up to scrutiny. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition...
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  You left out a critical part of the definition of genocide: those actions have to be carried out with the intent to physically annihilate the group. That's why, for example, birth control policies are only genocide if they're intended to completely physically annihilate the group. China's 1-child policy severely restricted the growth of the Han population, but it wasn't genocide, because there was no intent to physically annihilate the Han. The 3-child policy that the Uyghurs and the Han are now equally subject to is not genocide: there's no intent to physically annihilate the Uyghurs, and indeed the Uyghur population continues to grow. > I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word The legal definition is essentially the same to the colloquial usage of the term. The problem is that people pushing the "Uyghur genocide" narrative almost always leave out the physical annihilation requirement, which is right at the beginning of the official definition (which you linked). I have to say, though, that it's a slick rhetorical trick: 1. Allege "genocide," which everyone understands as mass murder of an ethnic group. 2. When someone points out there's no mass murder, claim (incorrectly) that the technical definition of "genocide" is completely different from how the public understands the term. Even if it were true that the technical definition of genocide were completely different from the colloquial definition (it isn't), this would still be a dishonest rhetorical move.
atlasunshrugged 5y ago
This is just flat out disinformation. UK Tribunal calls it a genocide: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59595952 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59595952 Forced Sterilization of Uyghur women: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-response-sterilization-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-response-... Mass internment camps: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chinas-operating-manuals-for-mass-internment-and-arrest-by-algorithm/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chi... Survivor Testimony: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/uighur-xinjiang-re-education-camp-china-gulbahar-haitiwaji https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/uighur-xinjian... Multiple governments pass motions declaring it to be genocide or that the serious risk of genocide existed: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/trump-china-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/trump-china-x... Do I need to go on?
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  Anyone can set up a "tribunal" to come to whatever predetermined conclusion they want. This "tribunal" was set up by a literal US-government-backed Uyghur separatist group (the US government is very good at setting up of these sorts of "government-in-exile" groups for countries it doesn't like, like the former "Iraqi National Council"). The chair of the "tribunal" was previously chair of the Falun Gong cult's "tribunal" on organ harvesting. The tribunal admitted that it couldn't find evidence of mass killing, but still decided that it was a genocide, as absurd as that is, because that was the predetermined conclusion the "tribunal" was created to affirm. This is how the propaganda game is played. Nobody is being killed, and killing people is pretty much the some qua non of genocide. Anyone can throw around "genocide" as a rhetorical trick. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq - genocide? US sanctions against Afghanistan are causing widespread hunger - genocide? Of course not, because genocide actually means something, and we shouldn't hollow out the word to score geopolitical points. What's happening in Xinjiang? The Chinese government is using police-state methods to destroy the Uyghur separatist movement and to go after religious extremism that it thinks endangers the state and society. The government is certainly violating a great many people's civil rights and dragging up people with only vague connections to the separatist movement or religious extremism. At the same time, the government is pouring money into the region in order to try to raise living standards, on the theory that that will dry up support for separatism and religious extremism in the Uyghur population. As a result, incomes and life expectancy among Uyghurs are increasing. The Uyghur population is also increasing. There's a real "there" there, but it has nothing to do with genocide, and calling it "genocide" is frankly just propaganda. To those claiming that this somehow meets the technical UN definition of "genocide," this is simply untrue: the definition requires a deliberate attempt to physically annihilate (not culturally assimilate) an ethnic group. Historically, this has always been through mass killing. The definition says that attempting to annihilate a population by completely stopping any member of the group from giving birth would be genocide, but nothing of the sort is being alleged. The Chinese government has a 3-child policy, and the Uyghur population continues to grow, in fact.

Freak_NL 5y ago

You may wish to look up the definition of genocide. Genocide is about extinguishing an ethnic, racial, or religious group. One way is to simply murder everyone that belongs to it. It is effective, but hard to do without consequences. Another, perhaps more insidious way is to prevent that culture from propagating, thus destroying it in the long run. Tools you can use are involuntary birth control, displacement, and indoctrination. Which is what is happening in Xinjiang. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/uyghurs-subjected-to-genocide-by-china-unofficial-uk-tribunal-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/uyghurs-subjec...

muricula 5y ago

The UN defines genocide as: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Killing members of a group is not necessary for something to be genocide. I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word, but I don't think your objection holds up to scrutiny. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition...

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
You left out a critical part of the definition of genocide: those actions have to be carried out with the intent to physically annihilate the group. That's why, for example, birth control policies are only genocide if they're intended to completely physically annihilate the group. China's 1-child policy severely restricted the growth of the Han population, but it wasn't genocide, because there was no intent to physically annihilate the Han. The 3-child policy that the Uyghurs and the Han are now equally subject to is not genocide: there's no intent to physically annihilate the Uyghurs, and indeed the Uyghur population continues to grow. > I realize the legal meaning of genocide is different than how some people generally use the word The legal definition is essentially the same to the colloquial usage of the term. The problem is that people pushing the "Uyghur genocide" narrative almost always leave out the physical annihilation requirement, which is right at the beginning of the official definition (which you linked). I have to say, though, that it's a slick rhetorical trick: 1. Allege "genocide," which everyone understands as mass murder of an ethnic group. 2. When someone points out there's no mass murder, claim (incorrectly) that the technical definition of "genocide" is completely different from how the public understands the term. Even if it were true that the technical definition of genocide were completely different from the colloquial definition (it isn't), this would still be a dishonest rhetorical move.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

This is just flat out disinformation. UK Tribunal calls it a genocide: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59595952 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59595952 Forced Sterilization of Uyghur women: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-response-sterilization-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/asia/xinjiang-china-response-... Mass internment camps: https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chinas-operating-manuals-for-mass-internment-and-arrest-by-algorithm/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chi... Survivor Testimony: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/uighur-xinjiang-re-education-camp-china-gulbahar-haitiwaji https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/uighur-xinjian... Multiple governments pass motions declaring it to be genocide or that the serious risk of genocide existed: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/trump-china-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/trump-china-x... Do I need to go on?

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Anyone can set up a "tribunal" to come to whatever predetermined conclusion they want. This "tribunal" was set up by a literal US-government-backed Uyghur separatist group (the US government is very good at setting up of these sorts of "government-in-exile" groups for countries it doesn't like, like the former "Iraqi National Council"). The chair of the "tribunal" was previously chair of the Falun Gong cult's "tribunal" on organ harvesting. The tribunal admitted that it couldn't find evidence of mass killing, but still decided that it was a genocide, as absurd as that is, because that was the predetermined conclusion the "tribunal" was created to affirm. This is how the propaganda game is played. Nobody is being killed, and killing people is pretty much the some qua non of genocide. Anyone can throw around "genocide" as a rhetorical trick. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq - genocide? US sanctions against Afghanistan are causing widespread hunger - genocide? Of course not, because genocide actually means something, and we shouldn't hollow out the word to score geopolitical points. What's happening in Xinjiang? The Chinese government is using police-state methods to destroy the Uyghur separatist movement and to go after religious extremism that it thinks endangers the state and society. The government is certainly violating a great many people's civil rights and dragging up people with only vague connections to the separatist movement or religious extremism. At the same time, the government is pouring money into the region in order to try to raise living standards, on the theory that that will dry up support for separatism and religious extremism in the Uyghur population. As a result, incomes and life expectancy among Uyghurs are increasing. The Uyghur population is also increasing. There's a real "there" there, but it has nothing to do with genocide, and calling it "genocide" is frankly just propaganda. To those claiming that this somehow meets the technical UN definition of "genocide," this is simply untrue: the definition requires a deliberate attempt to physically annihilate (not culturally assimilate) an ethnic group. Historically, this has always been through mass killing. The definition says that attempting to annihilate a population by completely stopping any member of the group from giving birth would be genocide, but nothing of the sort is being alleged. The Chinese government has a 3-child policy, and the Uyghur population continues to grow, in fact.