Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
China Uighurs: Xinjiang 'legalises' Muslim internment camps (bbc.co.uk)
102 points by loriverkutya 6 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 27 comments

It has been suggested that, in Xinjiang, "owning too many books" or "receiving email from abroad" contributes to one's likelihood of a police visit and ending up in such a camp.



Textbooks printed before 2009 were burned, and houses are regularly searched just to be sure.

Mandatory checkpoints between parts of the city.

Arbitrary arrests, arbitrary permission-restrictions.


>Xinjiang's new legislation says examples of behaviour that could lead to detention include [...] refusing to watch state TV and listen to state radio [...]

Similar repressive policy was used against the native population of Canada. It failed to achieve its intended goals, destroyed lives, and left behind a painful legacy. It's a shame the CCP has decided to take this dark path.

Did it fail though? Or do you only see the failures?

How many natives went through that? How many ended up with children that are more or less fully assimilated into mainstream Canadian culture?

Taking children by force, confining them in education centers, and violently coercing them to assimilate is counterproductive. A third of them went through the residential school system. The land was fully conquered well before the state setup that system. All it's done is produce generation after generation with very good reason to hate and fear the culture that abused them. Not to mention the related damage going through that does. Been to a few reserves before, and what I see mostly isn't good. I consider it a failure because had governments just done nothing and let them be for the last 100 years we'd surely have the same dominant culture now in place regardless. So much harm done for nothing.

Is there data to support that idea though? Or is it just your gut feeling based on popular opinion?

It deeply, deeply failed. Residential schools were an atrocity. I'd show you articles about them but I'm afraid that no matter what I show you, you'll consider it wrong for some reason, so I ask to try to convince yourself that Canada's residential schools were overall awful.

I'm not making any value judgement, I'm just asking whether or not there is data to state that they didn't accomplish their goals (with some failures along the way)?

Make a good faith attempt to convince yourself that residential schools were an utter failure (e.g. go read up about them in the book of your choice). I am just afraid that I may attempt to do the work myself and be met with someone who has already made up their mind in bad faith and I'd be wasting my time.

If you did make an effort and did indeed find positive effects of residential schools, I'd be more willing to discuss the merits you found.

This story is getting suppressed from HN. As of this writing, it has 25 points and was posted 1 hour ago, but it's already off the front page. In contrast, there's currently a story on the front page about mosh pits that only has 6 points and was also posted 1-2 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18179662

In other news: Y Combinator announced two months ago that it's launching a startup incubator in China: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/14/y-combinator-china-qi-lu/

Is that actually true? Or is there another nuance to the formula that determines what ends up on the front page?

> Is that actually true? Or is there another nuance to the formula that determines what ends up on the front page?

I doubt it. I've noticed that China stories similar to this one are pretty consistently down-weighted once they hit the front page. They'll get knocked to the very bottom of the first page, or more usually the second page, regardless of how many votes they get.

It's a very subtle form of censorship. The post still exists, just with drastically reduced visibility.

HN tends to want to avoid political flamewars. Articles about China tend to devolve into political flamewars. If HN has an algorithm that spots flamewars (and I think they do), that could explain some of the behavior you're seeing.

> HN tends to want to avoid political flamewars. Articles about China tend to devolve into political flamewars. If HN has an algorithm that spots flamewars (and I think they do), that could explain some of the behavior you're seeing.

I don't think that explains it either. On most of the stories I'm talking about (including this one), there are little to no comments before the story is down-weighted. There's no flamewar for an algorithm to spot.

It really feels like topic-based censorship, and likely manual since it seems reactive to popularity.

Great. They're still persecuting people in a way that might legitimately be described as genocidal, but now they're doing it with the support of Chinese law. If we're going to oppress people and stomp all over human rights, let's be sure that we do it legally.


I wonder, what will the reaction of the "respect local laws and regulations" crowd will be to this development?

Yup, remember that the holocaust was "legal", Stalin's purges were legal, the confinement of japanese americans was "legal", ....

This story is deeply upsetting. This is what genocide looks like. I feel so powerless. Is there nothing we can do?

I just wrote an email to info@enoughproject.org to point the fact that this situation is heading towards dangerously close levels to a genocide. I suggest people here do the same to raise more awareness.

I was surprised to see what's happening with the Uighurs doesn't put China on their watchlist despite criterias being fulfilled: http://endgenocide.org/whos-at-risk/

Contact email taken from: http://endgenocide.org/who-we-are/contact-us/


HN admins: this is the kind of alt-right, white genocide, holocaust denialism, nazi talk that you should be banning.

I'm not well versed in spotting white supremacists, so I don't see why this post is that, but I'm very interested. Could you expand on this a bit please?

The first bullet point is about how we have to convince people to include the definition that Han Chinese are white. The implication here is that in order to raise global opposition against the Chinese, you first have to redefine them as white, because whites are the true victims of global outrage. This is part of the "white genocide" conspiracy theory.

The second point talks about how we have to redefine Chinese history to talk about colonisation as something that they did on purpose, not by accident. This is also part of the white supremacist conspiracy theory that Columbus-did-nothing-wrong. The biggest part of white supremacism is that whites are being blamed unfairly. White people (whatever that means, whoever that group may be) are not guilty and are not to be blamed. They are victims of circumstance, unfairly maligned by shrill SJWs/leftists/liberals.

Third bullet point goes on about how someone is to benefit by blaming the now-white, now-colonisers Chinese. Once you identify these oppressors that will benefit from blaming the Chinese (implicitly, unfairly), you can proceed to follow the points of the anti-white conspiracy theory.

Fourth bullet point goes on about war chest funding. A big part of the alt right conspiracy theory is that there's a lot of money coming (mostly from "The Jews!") and that all the opposition you're seeing is paid protesters or crisis actors, cashing cheques from George Soros or similar.

Step 5a has genocide in scare quotes. Because, of course, genocides aren't real. This is from holocaust denialism.

The post is all a play-by-play of some ridiculous but fashionable nonsense.

To your first rebuttal: you say white genocide is a conspiracy theory, which is an interesting point to make given the charge you make in your 5th paragraph. Your shrill tenor leaves me with the impression that you are shooting from the hip because you are excited about an opportunity to "bash the fasc." I humbly suggest you supress this urge if only for tactical expediency. It feels like you are implying that whites cannot be the recipients of genocide (which is false both logically and historically), but more frustrating is you are denying an active genocide (per the UN definition) in South Africa.

Your second rebuttal sidesteps the objective fact that suppressed minorities do not commit genocide when it comes to "the record" (Indigenous populations of North America are a great example, but their are many more). You are projecting upon me the guilt you feel for a history you choose to interpret. It is morally questionable and academically dishonest to blame color groups en masse for any action. Whites are not responsible for Hitler just as blacks are not responsible for the Rwanda genocide. Only people shoehorning history into a political narrative find utility in racinated guilt complexes.

Your third paragraph exposes just how little of my OP you comprehended before both making sweeping judgements as well as making the effort to explain what I am to a third party. If you are marshalling forces, economic or strategic, it always pays to know who stands with or against your enemy/foe. This is such a simple concept that to break it down further would be insulting to both of us.

The fourth paragraph is titillating. I get the feeling you are suggesting there is anything like parity between the funding on the Left and the Right in the US which is preposterous. There are many examples, but the Arizona Senate race is a good one(Sinema vs. McSally). To your scare quotes, I love this kind of bait: as if somehow pointing out that the US's most politically active, wealthiest subgroup with the highest IQ is engaged, wealthy and smart is antisemitism. More to the point, both sides (all sides) engage in political theater in a democracy; when your side does it is necessary and when your foe does it isn't. Our democracy is pay to play (all democracies are, really) and I do not begrudge the Left's playing, though it is comical just how wealthy the "party of the people" is.

Fifth statement: as a historian, this is the worst. Look up the etymology of the term holocaust. The idea that the Jewish genocide was the first (or worst) is incredibly disrespectful as well as dishonest. Genocide does occur, has occurred, and will continue to ocur.

The post was a very dark satire about how futile it is in this era (or any, really) to think we can respect sovereignty and fulfill R2P. Each Step was pulled from a real world incident, and the only one referencing the Jews/Israelis specifically was the one about deluging the UN with motions, which has been done to them by the real Holocaust deniers. I can go point by point, but I'm out of space here. Lmk booboo.

I think you could have put more emotional pejoratives in there, and your lack of effort shows that you probably don't have enough faith in the cause.

Each of those steps is pulled from actual efforts and initiatives to forestall genocide, non of which has worked. When a world power decides to liquidate a percentage of its population, all that can be done is reactionary in nature; to get involved prior to is to initiate the violence and thereby vindicate the genocidaires.

I know you aren't going to argue in good faith. I know responding to your charge is futile. But your petty name calling triggered me, I guess.

"That's just like, your opinion, man"

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact