In reply to a flagged sibling: what's there to see in the edit history? There was an edit war (or maybe I should use the plural, didn't look too closely), which is common on controversial topics, and judging from the talk page it has been resolved with a compromise. Bottom line, dude did coauthor that book, and even the title is telling enough.
Also, unrelated, it's sad that any comment trying to discuss or question what's specifically in the article is quickly downvoted into oblivion -- except this one, curiously -- and only general threads suitable (or unsuitable) for any submission loosely on this topic remain. People are quick to post insinuations about astroturfing too, despite guidelines specifically banning that.
It seems the comments about iraq, yemen, afghanistan them have been downvoted / flagged. I guess this one too. There's a documentary on netflix showing the 13th amendment's relation to the labor camps, shocking to say the least.
I don't think there is anything new in the article. It's the standard rhetoric used by UK/US media. Also notice the conspicuous absence of Saudis, they too are involved in messy labor practices. Oddly enough not a single of these pointless articles will mention that its another country in some sense - Turkestan ... because if thats the context of the debate then US will have to give up puerto rico, california and indian territories and UK ireland and France guiana and so on .... Here's the irony of the whole situation, from their standpoint the chinese too are liberating the places from feudalism and they have made some progress in the regions as opposed to the reckless military interventions of other nations.
The fact of the matter is literally none of the allied powers cared for the genocides in WWII, they even welcomed it. The POWs were also completely ignored post war which is one of the unspoken tragedies. In democratically elected nations it seems the only way to go to war is to paint the other side as a dictator go to war with it. The lies are just tiring at this point.
It is very unfortunate that Saudi Arabia is mentioned by all the supporters of human rights abuses as a benchmark, I don’t see how the absence of mentioning Saudi Arabia is conspicuous at all. The absurdity of it is that normally the countries compared with Saudi are allies [1]
China did liberate the area from feudalism by killing the ppl living there in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide
China intentionally and resettled the uighurs there in first place after having killed 80% of the population that lived there.
How can you make an historical argument without mentioning this small detail?
And you failed to mention the small detail that what you linked to happened in 18th century, not post WWII, or anywhere close to 20th century. Not even led by the same ethnicity — Qing rulers were Manchus. Do we really need to bring up colonialist genocides?
My answer was to a post that brought up "...puerto rico, california and indian territories and UK ireland and France guiana and so on..." Those also were not post WWII.
But the parents argument was that from chinese perspective China has liberated the foreign state Turkestan and brought enlightenment to this region.
Considering the Genocide this interpretation seems somewhat dubious. And yes, i would expect such colonialist atrocities come up same as with other countries.
Also, unrelated, it's sad that any comment trying to discuss or question what's specifically in the article is quickly downvoted into oblivion -- except this one, curiously -- and only general threads suitable (or unsuitable) for any submission loosely on this topic remain. People are quick to post insinuations about astroturfing too, despite guidelines specifically banning that.