The Uyghur thread

Please talk about Uyghur topics here.


What is the definition of genocide?  The reason I ask is that there is quite a list of terrible things one group of people might do to another which is not genocide.  Perhaps this is why some people say what is going on in Xinjiang is not genocide.


tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?  The reason I ask is that there is quite a list of terrible things one group of people might do to another which is not genocide.  Perhaps this is why some people say what is going on in Xinjiang is not genocide.

They want to argue about whether the word "genocide" is the right word, to distract from what the government of China is doing to the Uyghur population.


nohero said:

tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?  The reason I ask is that there is quite a list of terrible things one group of people might do to another which is not genocide.  Perhaps this is why some people say what is going on in Xinjiang is not genocide.

They want to argue about whether the word "genocide" is the right word, to distract from what the government of China is doing to the Uyghur population.

Well, if it isn't genocide, it shouldn't be called genocide. 


tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?

One reference:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”

Also of note: “The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.”


Definitions are slippery things, but I do think people should be consistent with them. If, for instance, someone believes that the fighting between the Ukrainian government and Russian backed separatists constituted genocide by the Ukrainian government, then I expect them to use the same criteria in deciding whether China's treatment of the Uyghurs constitutes genocide, or whether Russia's treatment of Ukrainians in territory it is illegally occupying constitutes genocide.


Why does China fear the Uyghurs, I wonder?  And why now?


tjohn said:

Why does China fear the Uyghurs, I wonder?  And why now?

Any independent power structure -- be it religious, political, cultural, etc -- is a threat to a state premised on the continuing rule by a single authority.

Also, China's grown far more nationalistic and insular since Xi's ascension.


DaveSchmidt said:

tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?

One reference:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.”

Also of note: “The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law.”

Article ll of the Genocide Convention (The Gonvention on the Prevention and Punishmnet of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 9, 1948) provides that Genocide includes " Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." 

This is a chart tweeted by an Australian data analyst using from the China Statisical Yearbook:

eta - Here's a link to Article ll of the Genocide Convention which defines Genocide: 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F091964230EADECC12563F700550817


tjohn said:

nohero said:

tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?  The reason I ask is that there is quite a list of terrible things one group of people might do to another which is not genocide.  Perhaps this is why some people say what is going on in Xinjiang is not genocide.

They want to argue about whether the word "genocide" is the right word, to distract from what the government of China is doing to the Uyghur population.

Well, if it isn't genocide, it shouldn't be called genocide. 

I suppose this thread could be about the details of what the government of China is doing, or it could be about what definition to apply to the details.  If it's not going to be about the details, that's a diversion.


nohero said:

tjohn said:

nohero said:

tjohn said:

What is the definition of genocide?  The reason I ask is that there is quite a list of terrible things one group of people might do to another which is not genocide.  Perhaps this is why some people say what is going on in Xinjiang is not genocide.

They want to argue about whether the word "genocide" is the right word, to distract from what the government of China is doing to the Uyghur population.

Well, if it isn't genocide, it shouldn't be called genocide. 

I suppose this thread could be about the details of what the government of China is doing, or it could be about what definition to apply to the details.  If it's not going to be about the details, that's a diversion.

An accurate, explainable term to describe what China is doing to the Uyghurs in needed so that discussions can move on to the details.  Inaccurate terminology is damaging (e.g., defund the police).

What China is doing doesn't seem quite like what the Nazis did to Jews, but perhaps I am wrong.


China is doing something. There's information gathered by people building a case for using "genocide" as the descriptor.  Whether or not they can "make the case", or support a "true bill of indictment" for the crime of genocide, the facts are still the facts.

A 55 page report detailing breaches of the Genocide Convention: Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf (newlinesinstitute.org)

A 105 page opinion which concludes that "there is a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uyghur people in [Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region] amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide." 

Link: 14ee1a_3f31c56ca64a461592ffc2690c9bb737.pdf (usrfiles.com)

The latter document is described as follows:

The Opinion outlines how there is a credible case that, as part of a widespread and systematic attack on the Uyghur people in the region, crimes against humanity are taking place including enslavement, imprisonment, torture, rape, enforced steriliation, enforced disappearance and persecution. Significantly, it further explains the credible case that the crime of genocide is occurring, as there is evidence of an intent to destroy the Uyghur population as such, including through a pattern of Chinese State-mandated conduct. This conduct includes the intentional infliction of serious physical and mental harm to Uyghur people in detention, measures to prevent births within the Uyghur community and forcible transfer of Uyghur children outside of their communities.

World Uyghur Congress | PRESS RELEASE: Authoritative legal opinion concludes that treatment of Uyghurs amounts to crimes against humanity and genocide


One way or another, China is trying to destroy the Uyghur people.

In my humble opinion, it's genocide.


Just came across this article on twitter so I thought I would post it here.  I am still reading about this topic so I will not be engaging in ferocious debate (that's the plan).  I know our country is pursuing a negative relationship with China, so I would not be surprised to find out that the Uighur accusations are just propaganda.  That said, I don't really know.  But, I would not form any strong conclusions based on what I read in mainstream media.  

They also pushed the Russiagate hoax for years which caused a mass dislike of Russia, another country where the US desires regime change.   I wish we had a more cooperative. relationship with both Russia and China and could work together on climate change instead of sanctions and endless war.  

I first became aware of concerns about the Uygher people a few years ago from Danny Haiphong.  He had returned from a trip to China and felt the accusations claimed by the Western mainstream media were either false or misunderstood (I don't remember).  He has continued writing about them and this is his latest piece. 

US 'forced labor' allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1269641.shtml


nan said:

US 'forced labor' allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1269641.shtml

I'm reading "The Avoidable War" by Kevin Rudd (former Prime Minister of Australia, China scholar fluent in Mandarin, currently head of the Asia Society), which is about China's policies and goals, and how to (as the title says), avoid war. For years, he has been immersed in the minutiae of China's policies, media, and government actions.

As it happens, just last night I came across his description of the "Global Times", which takes the role of "bad cop" for China's Communist Party, but is not a "government" voice. He notes that it's "authorized to deliver hard-line messages to foreign countries that the government and the party won't." (p. 208)

"Global Times" is propaganda, and not even propaganda which even tries to appear factual.  It preaches to the "true believers".

There are citations to factual reports which you should have referred to before deciding to recommend that article.


nohero said:

nan said:

US 'forced labor' allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1269641.shtml

I'm reading "The Avoidable War" by Kevin Rudd (former Prime Minister of Australia, China scholar fluent in Mandarin, currently head of the Asia Society), which is about China's policies and goals, and how to (as the title says), avoid war. For years, he has been immersed in the minutiae of China's policies, media, and government actions.

As it happens, just last night I came across his description of the "Global Times", which takes the role of "bad cop" for China's Communist Party, but is not a "government" voice. He notes that it's "authorized to deliver hard-line messages to foreign countries that the government and the party won't." (p. 208)

"Global Times" is propaganda, and not even propaganda which even tries to appear factual.  It preaches to the "true believers".

There are citations to factual reports which you should have referred to before deciding to recommend that article.

The Global Times may very well be a propaganda site, but the points made about forced labor in the U.S. strike me as pretty accurate. It's part of the disgraceful fact of our huge prison population.


drummerboy said:

The Global Times may very well be a propaganda site, but the points made about forced labor in the U.S. strike me as pretty accurate. It's part of the disgraceful fact of our huge prison population.

But that's not the point.  A "whatabout" is still a "whatabout", no matter how accurate the description is of the "whatabout".


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

The Global Times may very well be a propaganda site, but the points made about forced labor in the U.S. strike me as pretty accurate. It's part of the disgraceful fact of our huge prison population.

But that's not the point.  A "whatabout" is still a "whatabout", no matter how accurate the description is of the "whatabout".

Is it whatabout-ism, or is it simply calling out hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.?


drummerboy said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

The Global Times may very well be a propaganda site, but the points made about forced labor in the U.S. strike me as pretty accurate. It's part of the disgraceful fact of our huge prison population.

But that's not the point.  A "whatabout" is still a "whatabout", no matter how accurate the description is of the "whatabout".

Is it whatabout-ism, or is it simply calling out hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.?

Seriously, no. They're freakin' concentration camps in China, where people are imprisoned for the "crime" of being not Han or being Muslim, or both.


nohero said:

nan said:

US 'forced labor' allegations in Xinjiang nothing but imperial projection

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1269641.shtml

I'm reading "The Avoidable War" by Kevin Rudd (former Prime Minister of Australia, China scholar fluent in Mandarin, currently head of the Asia Society), which is about China's policies and goals, and how to (as the title says), avoid war. For years, he has been immersed in the minutiae of China's policies, media, and government actions.

As it happens, just last night I came across his description of the "Global Times", which takes the role of "bad cop" for China's Communist Party, but is not a "government" voice. He notes that it's "authorized to deliver hard-line messages to foreign countries that the government and the party won't." (p. 208)

"Global Times" is propaganda, and not even propaganda which even tries to appear factual.  It preaches to the "true believers".

There are citations to factual reports which you should have referred to before deciding to recommend that article.

I can't speak for the Global Times, but Danny Haiphong, the author of this article is a noted and respectable journalist.  He has great integrity and does not write propaganda. I have followed him for several years and he writes on many political topics.  If the other journalists who contribute to this publication are like Danny, then you are full of beans. 


I only cited a noted expert, but in any event -

nan said:

I can't speak for the Global Times, but Danny Haiphong, the author of this article is a noted and respectable journalist.  He has great integrity and does not write propaganda. ...

Source?


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

The Global Times may very well be a propaganda site, but the points made about forced labor in the U.S. strike me as pretty accurate. It's part of the disgraceful fact of our huge prison population.

But that's not the point.  A "whatabout" is still a "whatabout", no matter how accurate the description is of the "whatabout".

Is it whatabout-ism, or is it simply calling out hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.?

Seriously, no. They're freakin' concentration camps in China, where people are imprisoned for the "crime" of being not Han or being Muslim, or both.

and one could very easily make the argument, given our system's wild sentencing disparities, that we imprison people because they're black.

we never talk about it very much, but our penal system is one of history's great injustices. we mostly choose to ignore it.

is our system that different than concentration camps? by percentage of population we imprison a helluva lot more people than China allegedly has the Uyghurs. (I say allegedly because it's pretty hard to get numbers about this from a closed society like China's)


drummerboy said:

and one could very easily make the argument, given our system's wild sentencing disparities, that we imprison people because they're black.

we never talk about it very much, but our penal system is one of history's great injustices. we mostly choose to ignore it.

is our system that different than concentration camps? by percentage of population we imprison a helluva lot more people than China allegedly has the Uyghurs. (I say allegedly because it's pretty hard to get numbers about this from a closed society like China's)

This would be a great topic for a different thread, with real numbers. 


nohero said:

Source?

Danny Haiphong is a journalist at Black Agenda Report (https://blackagendareport.com/) and on YouTube at The Left Lens.  Black Agenda Report is a long-term alternative news site now run by Margaret Kimberley (who I also really like).  They both started The Left Lens somewhat recently and it is described on the site as follows:

"Welcome to the Left Lens! This channel features videos from a variety of programs: a monthly show with Black Agenda Report's Margaret Kimberley and Danny Haiphong and The Internationalist Transmission, Danny Haiphong's solo program featuring conversations with activists, journalists, and organizers building international solidarity against U.S. interventionism and aggression.

Expect regular content and impromptu livestreams from a revolutionary, anti-imperialist, and socialist perspective."

I think it is a different perspective from yours.  Maybe you should listen in/read sometime. 


The accuracy of claims that China is sending Uyghur's to concentration camps is not dependent on the atrocious reality of the US prison system, any more than the USSR's gulags were any less real because of the apartheid police state of the Jim Crow US.

That's what makes these "whataboutism."


PVW said:

The accuracy of claims that China is sending Uyghur's to concentration camps is not dependent on the atrocious reality of the US prison system, any more than the USSR's gulags were any less real because of the apartheid police state of the Jim Crow US.

That's what makes these "whataboutism."

Well, if it's a fake story, those examples might be where the CIA got the idea.  The point is, why are we spending so much time focusing on alleged human rights violations in other countries when we have SOOOOOOO much guilt on our own plates?  How can we go all the way to China and expose a hidden atrocity (that fits our narrative like a glove) when there are so many out in plain sight in our own country?   If Flint now has clean water it came practically last week.  The person responsible for that crime has had all his charges dropped.  Meanwhile the illness and death continues to affect those families.  It does not even make the news anymore. 

The answer is that this is just being used, as that anti-Putin article in the NYTs, to shape public views on China--which is NATO Enemy #1 and who they want to overthrow as soon as they get done with Russia.  So we are right to be skeptical of this narrative.


As with the article I posted in the other thread, I assume that if you're going to allege it's a fake story, you're doing some work to back that up? For instance, are you looking for corroborating reporting by other outlets? Skepticism is just a start after all. If you're just going to say "I'm skeptical," and do no further work, that's not really worth much, is it?


PVW said:

As with the article I posted in the other thread, I assume that if you're going to allege it's a fake story, you're doing some work to back that up? For instance, are you looking for corroborating reporting by other outlets? Skepticism is just a start after all. If you're just going to say "I'm skeptical," and do no further work, that's not really worth much, is it?

I’m just looking at it from a different angle at the moment. As with the Russia story I have to wonder why, with so much exploitation in the world, this group, despite conflicting reports, gets laser level focus.

China and Russia are NATO’s biggest threats. Have to wonder why we get so many negative news stories about them? Might be because they want us to hate and distrust them. 

Because exploration, in general, gets scant coverage. 


nan said:

I’m just looking at it from a different angle at the moment. As with the Russia story I have to wonder why, with so much exploitation in the world, this group, despite conflicting reports, gets laser level focus.

Why should we care about other people, right?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals