Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Uighurs: 'Credible case' China carrying out genocide (bbc.com)
336 points by undefined1 12 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 287 comments

The world did nothing when same was happening in Tibet and China was a fraction of its current power.

Nothing is going to happen now when China is obviously more powerful. Moreover, none of the Muslim countries care, ME countries will happily sell China oil and Pakistan touts it’s relationship with China.

The world would have done nothing about Hitler if he hadn't started invading the rest of Europe [1]. And the CCP is smart enough to focus on economic domination instead of land-war.

This is my greatest fear for humanity right now.

[1] https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/britain-ado...

Edit: Why would this get downvoted? Do you disagree with the interpretation of history (and extrapolation to our current situation), or do you disagree that this prospect is a bad thing?

Framing everything in relation to WW2 actually holds people back from looking at the problem and formulating an actual solution. Almost every relevant parameter is wildly different: analogies based on simplified similarities are seductive but fundamentally flawed.

It seems like we want to make it happen again just because it's the story we know.

But it's not going to happen again. There might be a bloody conflict, but it will not have meaningful similarities to WW2.


Climate change is the other big one, but given two different sources of great future suffering and dystopia, the one that's rooted in premeditated evil in the heart of man is much more distressing to me than the one that's rooted in stupidity and negligence (not that there are no evil parties benefiting from climate change, but malice upsets me more than greed).

But those are just my personal feelings; there's no ranking tragedies, really, and I feel equally powerless against all of them anyway. So take your pick on which one you're going to lose the most sleep over.

> Not Climate chaos/disaster, ecological+societal collapse, pollution?! Micro-plastics?

China's the leading driver of these things right now, by miles.

> Nukes?

You don't think nuclear-armed superpowers (like, say, China, Russia, and the US) butting heads might, you know, contribute to nukes being a danger in the first place? Or indeed, contribute to nukes being stockpiled in the first place?

The nukes being stockpiled again (or more, as the case may be) globally is the cause of a single country in that list.

Isn’t China’s relationship with Pakistan more about threatening India?

That's the whole point - Muslim countries care about their self-interest over the interest of some muslims in Xinjiang.

Some care about selling oil, some about economy and so on..

Why should they care more or less than the rest of us?

Or phrased differently,

Why should [different religion countries] care less?

(I cannot imagine that there's any good answer to that question)

This bigotted comment is not welcome here.

While this is true, you could say the same for all the ostensible Christian majority countries that both refuse to acknowledge the Armenian genocide that was inflicted by the Turks and the current genocide in Yemen targeting both Shia Muslims and Christians in the region.

Point is pundits like Sam Harris are full of shit - Religion is only ever evoked when the ruling party's self interest and the regional interpretation of scripture align. Such pundits also ignore the inconvenient fact that many Muslim majority countries often have very old Christian communities yet the same is not true of Christian majority countries. I wonder why?

> Such pundits also ignore the inconvenient fact that many Muslim majority countries often have very old Christian communities yet the same is not true of Christian majority countries. I wonder why?

What? Muslim majority countries with old Christian communities are because Christianity spread widely in the Middle East after 0 AD, until 7th century AD when Islam came around. Of course there will be residual Christian communities there. But the Christian majority countries became Christian before 7th century AD and were able to halt the spread of Islam post 7th century (Europe), or the country was colonized after the fact by previous Christian countries (USA, South America) where Islam never made it.

We can give them hassle over it. I think the Chinese still want to be seen as honourable.

How about if we do the courageous thing and give them war till they stop?

We are morally no different than Europe prior to Hitler's invasion; knowingly allowing the genocide of others as long as it didn't affect us.

Cute thought but it's never going to happen. Hitler was a moron who kept prodding the Allies with invasions that were creeping ever closer West. At that point, the third Reich had become an existential threat to the Allies. They would have never went to war over the plight of some Jews and other hated minorities.

China on the other hand manufactures much of the world's consumer goods and has strong trade ties with dozens of nations. It has also never invaded Europe and shows no sign of having any intention of doing so. It also has a large enough army and nuclear armament to completely flatten any European country that chooses to break from NATO and try to pick a fight with it by itself.

NATO nations sell arms and political support to countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel so clearly morality is not a priority here. The real reason why they keep political pressure on China is because it's a rival to the USA and it's (at least in it's own eyes) communist - which is worse than stoning women and gay people to death, and bombing children hospitals and practising apartheid in the eyes of Washington D.C.

There IS one thing different this time, COVID

Things will happen, it just takes time

What's the relation between COVID and this genocide?

What happens in China does not stay in China? Public perception in other words

Yes - we know this. We've known this for a long time.

The question is what now? Western nations have shown no political will to stand up to China.

When the Holocaust was happening, no one cared. The holocaust was stopped because it aligned with a different interest: to stop nazi Germany. The holocaust was only to make the nazi look bad. Otherwise no one cared about Jews either.

Even soldiers who liberated concentration camps at the end of the were shocked at what they found; many people simply didn't know the extent of what happened until after the war.

I'm confused, didn't the camp happen after the war started ? the aryan supremacy theory predates it but not the mass murdering ..

I never really read timeline details about the concentration camps in WW2.

Most people did not know about the Holocaust until after WW2 started.

FDR/senior government and military officials in the US army knew. They made choices to focus on American interests at multiple points, even as they closed on victory on the European front, they prioritized strategic targets over concentration camps. The USSR ended up being the one to free most of the camps, and conquer most of Germany. Strategic targets are definitely important for protecting soldiers, but really the point here is that the military leaders were aware, and the fact the soldiers were surprised/shocked is a result of them not being informed and/or it being a shocking thing to see even when you know it’s coming.

> they prioritized strategic targets over concentration camps.

Well yeah, that's just Winning Wars 101. If the decision is between "let's knock out these strategic targets so that we can end the war quickly and (assuming we know about them) shut down the concentration camps all at once" v. "let's get bogged down by starting with the concentration camps while the enemy continues to churn out arms and war machines and troops because we couldn't be assed to focus on the strategic targets", the former is really the only reasonable choice.

If you want a really damming example more recent than a war our grandparents were children during:

consider that the IDF provided they could get to Entebbe in Uganda at short notice, but failed to muster the moral courage to intervene in Rwanda.

So much for never again.

> FDR/senior government and military officials in the US army knew.

I'd be interested to see the source material for that.

Are you suggesting that in 1939 (when WW2 started) the US knew about concentration camps? I would very interested in seeing some sources for that.

Regardless, even if they did, I said most people did not know. The president, some higher ups and some people in the military wouldn't account for most people.

Even if the general population knew, not focusing on the camps does not mean they did not care. It means ending the war (which would end the camps) was a more important goal than liberating the camps. Why focus on one thing when you can kill two birds with one stone?

No one cared is not correct - a lot of people did. But the holocaust proper started in 1941 and the UK were already full on at war with Germany so there wasn't very much we could do beyond what was already being done.

The powers that be do not care, because they're Muslims.

Do the Muslim countries care, No!

As a muslim, I can tell you that muslims and even non-muslims care a lot. It's a human thing.

Muslim countries are 99% dictatorships, where the leadership doesn't even care about their own people.

That's the interesting part TBH... why is nobody sticking up for them?

Because for all the crap people give America for conducting foreign policy according to its economic interests, everybody else does the same. And right now, doing business with China is lucrative because of their human misery arbitrage.

Because its impossible to say fuck allah in front of a muslim Eduated or not they are way too conformance to religion. I can the same to a christian or any other religion friends and joke about it and does not have to fear.

How is that relevant to the question of why Muslim-majority countries aren't sticking up for Uighurs?

In politics, everything happens primarily to gain or maintain power. If some group of people is not relevant for either, people in power will not stick up for them.

Muslims are hardly a unified front. Look at how many majority-Muslim countries have had civil wars or wars against each other at some point in the last 30 years.

Because Muslim countries by and large are not in geopolitical or economic positions to act unilaterally in any way that is a)remotely effective, and b) not massively costly in economic and political terms.

The willingness to take a financial / trade hit for a random group of people hasn't been a common event as far as governments go... much ever?

Sad but that seems to be the case.

Everyone is utterly dependent on cheap Chinese manufacturing. The price of manufactured goods would probably quadruple overnight if companies had to abandon China.

It’s not just cheap labor. China has all of cheap labor, lax environmental laws, cheap energy, a very manufacturing friendly government, a tech ecosystem, local expertise, and infrastructure. It’s literally the ideal place to manufacture, at least from an amoral economic perspective. Nobody can compete with China in manufacturing except in niche high skill areas.

It’s interesting to read the pro Chinese propaganda on HN. It’s too bad we can’t see the region from where those comments are coming from. It saddens me that people are forced to stand up for a regime that massacres and enslaves its own people.

This one is from Croatia, I can't trust any airquoted credible cases from western media on China, I've seen no evidence thus far and too much of this: https://i.redd.it/4ugpt0499ri61.jpg

It's interesting to see people treat other people's comments as propaganda just because they are expressing a different view.

Please try take a moment to step in someone else's shoes and engage with what they are saying before calling their comments "propaganda". It's not good faith behaviour.

It's very odd, when there's countless witnesses, satalite imagery, press teams finding these places, and the CCP even admitting to education camps that there are people going "it's not so bad" and defending CCP.

Even if the camps are just "re-education camps", thats still really bad.

How do you respond to islamic extremism in your country? Attacks in Tieneman square used to be bad before it was the Uyghurs doing it. Islamic terrorism used to be bad, before it was the Uyghurs doing it. China has a responsibility to deal with this problem, and if there a nice, gentle way to deal with it, I can't think of what it might be.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'extremism' that's just a cheap CCP talking point. It's about the geopolitical importance of xinjiang: https://youtu.be/ZxvYcByv2M8

Nobody has a responsibility to "re-educate" an entire culture. It's a no go, full stop. Especially because there is not a gentle way, what you end up with is still genocide. Mincing words can't change facts.

The CCP consider extremism every form of dissent. By that standard, nobody is a terrorist, because everybody is a terrorist. And the ultimate consequence is that the party feels entitled to do whatever they want to any citizen. Which is again unacceptable.

> It’s interesting to read the pro Chinese propaganda on HN

And the president of the United States himself dismissed Uighur genocide as being part of China’s ‘different norms’.


I work with a lot of folks from China and they are bending over backwards trying to defend the CCP. Their argument almost always boils down to "I know people who live in Xinjiang and they say it's not that bad." Equivalent to someone using their one black friend as proof that they can't possibly be racist.

> I work with a lot of folks from China and they (...)

What you say represents about 50% of Chinese researchers in my lab. Those that immediately return to their country after the PhD and you never hear from them again. The other 50% are the complete opposite: they cannot wait to get their family out of the country and never look back, explaining that the country is ruled by a bunch of crazy psycopaths. Curiously enough, there's almost no interaction between both groups, they politely ignore each other (and they are really polite and professional towards everybody also).

Once upon a time I used to spend way to much time on Omegle (worldwide random 1:1 chat).

Once a chinese girl was online, we chat about our countries, I explain how much I like china as a kid for martial arts, food, aesthetics, it was friendly and casual (chinese people on omegle often expressed worries about the value of their country, I wanted to make her feel at ease).

Quickly though she started to say it's not all rosey, rules are strict, internet firewall.. suddenly she stopped talking. She typed a bunch of omg omg omg i shouldn't have said that omg sorry disconnect.

It was nothing yet I felt fear in her behavior. All that for expressing very mild discontent about her country. First time I ever felt the impact of politicians on people's mind.. also a 'freedom of speech' felt different after that.

This thread is nothing but personal anecdotes.

So, with enough anecdotes we'll reach statistical significance

No, because anecdotes suffer from sample bias since they are self-reported.

You fail to see the 12 month of 24/7 presence on this site and interaction with all countries. To hell with stats.

It's ultimiately a matter of dependency i.e. econmically well-off Chinese people who have dependencies with CCP (e.g. official party member (6.6% of the population), or owning a family business that interfaces with CCP, even if unofficially, etc), V.S. well-off Chinese with little or no dependencies.

To be where they are now (outside of China receiving education, etc), the former group (or their parents/relatives) fought hard to get benefits from their relationship with CCP, while the later group (or their parents/relatives) fought hard to find a path out of this CCP madness.

And thus the contrast.

My grandfather was a minister and a proud CCP member. But he was the type who believes in doing the moral things and never took bribe. He worked crazy hours and get paid penauts. Most of my relatives saw him as foolish because he basically didn't fight to "get benefits from his relationship with CCP" and stayed poor for all his life. And most of his colleagues and superordinates don't like him because you can't help one another to climb the rank (or generate wealth) like this.

> And most of his colleagues and superordinates don't like him

they don't like him not because of the ladder climb, but because him being a goody-two-shoe means that their corrupt activities are more likely to be shown as "wrong", and therefore, more risky for them.

it's like being a good cop in a department where the other cops are bought and paid for.

Thanks for this post. Every support or opposition towards authority boils down to economic incentives. Glad to hear from some one from the inside.

The question is, are their psychopaths crazier than our psychopaths.

I politely refuse to partake in this kind of questions :)

Maybe, maybe not, but our psychopaths are restrained by a government designed to be inefficient and to frustrate tyrants.

We just had an attempted fascist coup in the USA and it failed hilariously. The swamp is a good thing. It’s there to bog down tyrants in mud. Efficient government is dangerous.

My intention was to point out the irony of Chinese nationals wanting to immigrate to the US, ostensibly because China is ruled by a bunch of "crazy psychopaths". When the reality is that the US is also run, at least in part, by a bunch of crazy psychopaths.

But my point was not well taken.

Even though I agree with what you said in terms of internal politics, I think when it comes to geopolitics, things start to get much uglier and multiple times more cruel. And since this topic is about foreign politics, I don’t think the US is any better than China. An American might think different, but I’m not one.

The US is better than China internally, but I mostly agree that China is not substantially worse than the US in terms of foreign policy.

Reminds me of that joke:

I asked my friend from North Korea how life is.

He said he can't complain.

There were a whole series of posts on HN, and other sites by folks who talked about people traveling in the area and not seeing anything.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean / why we would assume you'd notice it ...

On HN and elsewhere people mentioned how they were happy people could travel through the area and not have to worry about "thieves" and they'd make some comparisons to travel in the west, a sort of chilling random concern considering the topic.

Often the same link was posted to a western blogger apparently paid to travel to the region. With the link the posts noted that the blogger didn't mention genocide.

They build huge compounds (found easily through news websites) where they put everyone behind closed doors.


>I know people who live in Xinjiang and they say it's not that bad

Because they have a different definition of "bad". If you follow closely, the mainland Chinese or CCP have different definition of the same word for literally everything.

Why is it bad to force them learn Mandarin and forget about their old language? Where the job markets are and to help them better integrate into the society.

Why is it bad to give them birth control pills? Or reeducating them? etc. They are doing / supporting these regime with a smile on their face as they think they are doing good.

Im pretty sure that people said the same thing about the jews under hitler. Human beings are very good at denying and rationalizing away unpleasent truths.

The US and UK have a long history of funding terrorists in hopes of regime change too. We spent years treating ISIS and their supporters like they were the victims in Syria...

How exactly are you approaching this conversation with your Chinese coworkers?

The simple fact is that we don't know what is going on in Xinjiang and most of the reports in the West about what is allegedly going on there are by people who have a vested interest in making it sound as bad as possible or who likely have links with Western governments. On top of that very few people in the West know anything at all about China, its culture, and its history.

So, as a matter of intellectual honesty, I don't think it is possible to have strong opinion and to use extremely strong terms to describe the situation there as if that was fact.

That's really a common problem when information is withheld. On the one hand it obviously arouses suspicion but on the other hand it also allows over-the-top narratives and rumours to spread, and it is very difficult to separate facts from propaganda, from the other side's propaganda, from fantasy...

An older family member grew up in WW2 Europe under German occupation. I asked them about general everyday life during the war and the holocaust. Besides getting bombed on en route to school, it "wasn't that bad". I don't know if it's justification or stockholm syndrome. Part of me speculates people in these situations suspend their reality as a survival mechanism.

This is the key observation of Imre Kertész's book Sorstalanság about his surviving Auschwitz and Buchenwald as a deported Hungarian Jew. He is frustrated by people asking him postwar about how terrible the camps were. His thinking sort of goes like this: the human spirit is strong and can survive anything an oppressor throws at it, but to ask about the horrors of the death camps is to suggest that they were capable of breaking one’s spirit.

In the end (I don’t know if this counts as a spoiler or not) Kertész even admits to feeling nostalgia for some of the moments in the camps.

Agree. I got lots of Chinese friends, relatives and in-laws and not one of them are willing to openly criticise CCP about it. On the contrary, they are more on the defensive. Tells you the level of brainwashing going on.

Either that or fear.

I'm Chinese. Many languages and expressions in this thread not only detests me but also represent the very opposite of western critical thinking.

I appreciate the western style of logical thinking. You are being taught in schools how to tell the truth and bust lies, to criticize, to doubt, to ask questions no one dares to ask. You are taught definitions of fallacies, the art of debate, the wisdom of introspection.

I envy you, having been taught so many ways to learn, to listen, to ask.

You know, in China, they don't teach you those. They fill you with hard knowledge, 1+1=2 kind of knowledge. There's always only one correct answer: the answer from the textbook, from the instructor, from the authority. No question is asked unless you forgot what you should have memorized.

I envy you, having the freedom to argue 1+1=0 and discover binary.

As Chinese, we've been taught to believe, to repeat, to bow down to seniors, teachers, authorities.

It's the way of life here.

It's also the reason I came to the US.

And yet, here we are.

"You cannot trust anything reported out of China."

"No use in trying to discuss this anyone from China. They are totally brainwashed."

Do you hear the racists in these words? Do you feel the rejection of listening, the denial of communication, the blockage of thinking in those expressions?

Chinese are liars. -- is what they want to say.

Because the west has free speech and free press, so everything the western media report must be the truth. -- is what they believe.

Folks, where is your doubt? Where is your wisdom of knowledge?

Just because Chinese people were taught to remember the only answer, doesn't mean they can't think critically. Have you ever listened to them? Are you dismissing them just because of where they were born or how they were taught?

Just because you have a free press, doesn't mean your media is unbiased. Who are their sponsors? What political spectrum do they stand for? Is it economically or politically beneficial to talk trash about China?

Now you have to ask: What's your defense for the CCP? How brainwashed are you? Do you condemn the CCP for what they alleged doing?

My answer is simple: I will stay doubtful until I have first-hand contact or undeniable evidence showing one way or the other. Until then, I can't say if those allegations are real or not. If they were real, I (and I believe most Chinese people) would condemn the practice, and would like to demand a change.

"I know people who live in Xinjiang and they say it's not that bad." -- It's a very common argument lot of Chinese people would use. Because it's relatively easy to find people living in Xinjiang or who come from Xinjiang online. Me too, had several conversations with folks from the area, some on Telegram where they were using VPN to connect, and some are friends of friends. Of course, we would talk about the headlines all over the western media. And every time, the answer I got is they are still working, living, studying as normal. There were conflicts in some areas in the southern part, but I haven't got any more detail than that.

These conversations are not proof of China not doing what it's been alleged to do. But you have to understand it's much more difficult to prove something you didn't do instead of something you did, and yet these kinds of personal encounters are the closest things we have to give us a perspective of the situation in the area.

To think back, what is the closest encounter you had to the situation in Xinjiang? Did you talk to any victim from the area? Of course, you would immediately argue that CCP wiped clean all witness and evidence, so finding a victim is almost impossible, which is another allegation that's almost impossible to prove otherwise --- how convenient of you.

But anyway, the closest encounter of yours is almost always the media stories you read, from western media, all over the places. But have you ever doubt that why all stories about China are negative? Why people are saying things to discredit every word comes out Chinese people's mouth? Doesn't it feel strange to you?

And it's not easy for someone to speak up for China either. I -- writing these words, am seriously worried about losing my job in the US just because of this. So I'm using an alias account. YouTubers that speaking up for China are constantly being depromoted, demonetized, restricted for sharing, or banned for their words. Is it free speech should look like? Is the west deliberately running some kind of campaign to discredit and disconnect China from the rest of the world?

Of course, that's an allegation without concrete proof. But you can find it is logically sound. There are many political movements and campaigns by the US and other five eye countries trying to contain the political and economical development of China - so their countries can continue to sit on top of the world's hegemony. It's not strange that these political and economical campaigns had affected public opinion and implanted negative views of China in its citizens' minds.

We can have a lot of allegations back and forth. Maybe they are all wrong - or all true. But the bottom line is, what kind of thinking you want to promote.

If you are spreading denial and racism, I would condemn you regardless if your arguments are true or not.

Please, don't let a Chinese person point out your fallacies. We were supposed to not learned that.

"You cannot trust anything reported out of China" does not need to mean what you are taking it as. It is true you cannot trust anything reported out of China. But that's not the same as saying not to believe anything reported out of China. The former is a fact, you should be skeptical instead of blindly trust a country known for propaganda. The latter is racist, saying nothing China says is true. There are a few people saying forms of the latter. But most here seem to be saying more the former, that strong skepticism is needed. This isn't inherently racist, and it even aligns with your whole point here, thus is the opposite of a fallacy.

Sometimes you need to look a bit further than logical correctness. Yes the two sentences are logically equivalent:

"You cannot trust anything reported out of China" "Not all things reported out of China can be trusted"

But the language you choose to use has its emotional implication. Ask any Chinese, which of the two sentences is more biased.

Nitpick, but those 2 sentences are not logically equivalent:

"You cannot trust anything reported out of China" = "Nothing reported out of China can be trusted",


"You cannot trust something reported out of China" = "Not all things reported out of China can be trusted"

I understand the feeling of my follows, they are hot-blood emotional beings.... What I could summarise more abstractly is this: they are not discrediting the news sources abroad, but instead, because chinese society / us people are well connected (in real person). It's almost impossible to hide any major events in China, even with large scale blockage. Everyone talks to everyone. Hence the reaction from a lot of people from China is due to the fact that they understand the situation 'better' than just seeing what's reported.

I had a similar reaction back in 2010 when talking to a scientist from Libya (during the internal conflict). He was in real shock of what's been known for ages of his country in the west. Of course it doesn't mean everything in the western media is wrong. But he knew some facts that had simply not surfaced at all in people's view. I have a similar feeling now.

> because chinese society / us people are well connected (in real person)

Most Uyghurs don't even speak your language. That generalization of well-connectivity doesn't apply at all. Unless you speak Äynu, you are likely talking mostly with Han Chinese in Xinjiang (or Uyghurs who had undergone severe Sinicization).

> It's almost impossible to hide any major events in China, even with large scale blockage

It is impossible to hide "major events" only when jounralists are free to roam around in China.

I have a jounralist friend whose grandfather was a Chinese war hero (i.e. he is a 红三代). He is now a US citizen, and works for a respectable news media. He had internal CCP connections but were denied Chinese visa when he was working on the Uighur story in 2017. This had never happened before, even when he was investigating the controversial story with Bo Xilai.

I appreciate your comment but I didn't imply that the connection was seamless between ethnic groups. Your thinking assumes that there is a huge segregation between the two populations and anyone who cross-over would be 'Sinicization' / radicalisation. But reality is more complex than that. If you been or watched any videos from Xinjiang (unfortunately most not in English) you would see alot of locals (ethnic minorities) supporting the current way of life or even the law enforcement themselves (which I don't want to argue about its right or wrong here).

I don't see how the journalist story relates to this. I know exactly the kind of profile he has. Most people in/out of China know the limit of political freedom and the sensitivity changes according to political tides. It'll be quite strange that he pretends he didn't know the severity. But that's exactly my point: these events muddle the water and hide the real serious issues.

> But have you ever doubt that why all stories about China are negative

This struck a chord with me. I think most people who read news regularly can agree that nearly 100% of the news about China these days are negative, and never anything positive. We can all wonder why that is.

> I think most people who read news regularly can agree that nearly 100% of the news about China these days are negative, and never anything positive.

That's only relevant if you compare it to other topics and there's a discrepancy. There's very little positive content in the political news I read, even when it's about Western countries. If something works or is going well it's almost not news by definition, at least it's less likely to appear on the front page.

Because most of the "positive advances" they make are a direct consequence of their inhumane government that can afford to do whatever it wants or just plain PR. Just look at their COVID response, for example.

Of course it's political as well, but there's no way around that.

Yes, but then you could make entirely the same point about the US. But generally this isn't done, especially not here. That's what makes it xenophobic.

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on first-hand survivor accounts such as these?




These are real people. They aren't Western "plants", and it would be a pretty big conspiracy for them to all coordinate and "lie" about the things they detail. Sure, western media is biased, but I would still trust it a lot more when reporting on such matters than Chinese media because the latter have a lot more to lose and are also single-mindedly focused on controlling the narrative when it comes to any sort of press or public release of information because ultimately they are an extension of the Chinese government in a very direct way.

The problem is that there are always examples where such witnesses or whistleblowers were planted by actors in the US, like Li-Meng Yan, a supposed whistleblower supported by Steve Bannon. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/business/media/steve-bann...

Or the Nayirah case: "In her emotional testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die." Which was all a lie, but a convenient argument for the Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

I certainly think it is possible that these atrocities actually happen in China, OTOH it fits all too well into the anti-China warmongering in the US.

>planted by actors in the US, like Li-Meng Yan

She isn't an actor. She's a bit of a conspiracy theorist type from Hong Kong on the Wuhan lab leak stuff. I'm not sure how that's relevant to anything much here beyond that it pays to check your sources.

Like a normal person, I'm against any inhumane treatment in any form against innocent people. These personal stories from these victims are most likely true. I feel sad and angry about what happened to them and would like to see changes.

You know, even average schools in China looks more like a prison than actual prisons in the west. (Which remind me of this: https://www.schoolprison.com/ )

You will often find 8-12 students packed in a small 10-20m^2 room with thousands of students in each building. Many schools would also have fences or walls all around to prevent students from escaping. Some photos:

https://ss1.bdstatic.com/70cFvXSh_Q1YnxGkpoWK1HF6hhy/it/u=41... https://ss3.bdstatic.com/70cFv8Sh_Q1YnxGkpoWK1HF6hhy/it/u=17...

These re-education camps/concentration camps (whatever you call them) are surely a downgrade from average schools because they are completely out of the government's pocket and constructed in a short period.

Only that, can seem inhumane to many people in developed country, even exaggerated by some BBC documentary, but it's just a reflection of average living condition in China.

It's not difficult to realize part of the CCP's narrative must hold some truth -- the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades. And depending on the "radicalization level" of the people being contained, the security level of these camps must be ranging from a lot more usual to heavily guarded.

So yes, there will be prison-level camps and many near-prison-level camps.

I believe most of these incidents reported by western media are conducted independently by the officials in the camps under stricter lock-down, which provided an out-lawed environment for them to conduct the crimes. However, I don't believe any of these are systematically orchestrated and oversaw by the CCP from the top down. If you argue otherwise, you better provide some strong proof, i.e. recording of high-rank CCP officials admitting such an evil plan. Because it's a very, very serious allegation.

Those individuals who conducted these crimes are directly responsible for what they did and must be held responsible. There also must be regulations on these camps to make sure incidents like these never happen again.

Then where's the justice held? You must then ask. I don't have a solid answer to it. I hope those responsible already got what they deserve. But those verdicts probably won't be made public. You surely can understand why given the heat on all of this.

But I'm more confident that the CCP has placed better regulation on all the camps to prevent such incidents from happening again. The reason is CCP has invited western reporters to visit and investigate on the ground. Of course, they probably won't find any evidence that those incidents ever happened, but they will be shown with all the regulations of these places to a degree that no problem can be found. Surely western reporters also understand that very well -- most haven't responded to the invitation because they know they won't be able to dig more dirt on this.

Another level of discussion is whether it's humane to force/mandate people to attend re-education camps. If you want we can get into that as well.

I think if you really want to help people in those camps, you should start talking about donations, improving their living conditions, providing educational resources, even collaboration on education projects, help them graduate/get out of there, and get a job sooner.

I want to show some folks on HN, even with Chinese people, you can have a civil and reasonable conversation on controversial topics. We are not liars, nor monsters without compassion. We are also normal people, just like you. It's completely up to you to listen or deny.

> But I'm more confident that the CCP has placed better regulation on all the camps to prevent such incidents from happening again.

Regulations are not worth much without enforcement. Enforcement requires inspections to verify regulations are being followed and punishment if they're not. But if the regulations are not being followed, then cheating the inspections is another way to avoid punishment. It's much cheaper to put on a show for the inspectors than to make permanent improvements. So a lot of cheating is to be expected.

> the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades.

How does CCP define terrorists? Do they show you how do they investigate then decide they are terrorists?

CCP can define any attacks as terrorist. In case it's a revolt against inhumane treatment, can they say they are under terroristic attack from CCP?

> the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades

The Chinese crackdown on Xinjiang goes back well beyond the terror attacks. There used to be a secular, non-violent Uighur movement for their rights, including Uighur communists who simply wanted the right to use their own language at all times and not Chinese, like the laws ostensibly allow. However, in the 1980s and 1990s the Beijing regime imprisoned many of those activists or sent them into exile. At the same time, Han settlers were entering the area even though it was clear that this would change the region’s demographics.

Once the secular and non-violent activism was shut down, there arose out of desperation new trends that were violent and/or Islamist. But that doesn’t mean the CCP’s policy of Uighur assimilation and Han settlement didn’t come first.

I appreciate your point. But it is only one-sided story. Both sides have been victims of historical conflict, there is a long history of han ethnic people being driven away too. Arguing who did wrong first is a bit like a religious debate. Look at the globe one shouldn't fail to see it's a common pattern (Palestine etc). To argue who has the ultimate rights to the land is a tricky and dangerous task.

Another observation I have is that there's little mention of the history of Xinjiang itself. The long-standing threat from Russian influence starting from before Republic of China (ROC) period. And the autonomous Muslim defense against russian puppet gov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_... and even the later alliance with the communist party. Sure you could argue from one-side that all that is happening is wrong but unfortunately a lot of the evidence today are from anti-china alliance such as epoch times, which in my opinion really hides the real issues of the chinese society.

You talk about Russian influence as a "threat", and Han influence as something natural that needs to be protected. I appreciate your respectful message, but please notice that another equally defensible position would be the opposite one: considering Han influence a "threat" to be protected against.

I apologise for my choice of words, I'm not a native speaker, nor could I do it in a more diplomatic way.

However I do agree with you, for the opposite it might well see han population as a threat, probably right from the early dynasties. I have by no means implied Russian influence is 'evil', it is simply the historical narrative. It is only natural that from 1900s the powers around that area want to take control in the geopolitics. Same situation today.

My point is that if you understand the situation better (which is hard because of language / culture barriers, similar to middle east crisis), you might be able to know more nuances of the issue.

Your assertion Western journalists haven't visited is false; see a summary here [1].

The whole site is very good - and the independent journalist speaks Chinese and is fairly unbiased (excerpt from site "the US makes a big deal out of the treatment of Muslims in China while underwriting genocide in Yemen"). Especially the analysis on the leaked documents [2].

[1] https://wokeglobaltimes.com/aac16063149c4e37a8e3ee58066c4837...

[2] https://wokeglobaltimes.com/c227d529f6f0469392edbe07980f9f70

I didn't say none of them visited. I even mentioned BBC documentary.

I apologise then; I got the impression that you thought they had not visited because of the following in your post.

> Surely western reporters also understand that very well -- most haven't responded to the invitation because they know they won't be able to dig more dirt on this.

Is this true for Chinese academics though? Are Chinese mathematicians uncreative and uninspired? Are Chinese scientists disadvantaged vs western scientists due to conformist thought?

We were being taught that way, but not all people will become uncreative. In fact it's the opposite, your creativity has nothing to do with how you were taught. It's all about how you think. Even with conformist education there can be evolutionary talents coming out of it. It's my whole point writing this thread.

Beautifully written. But you mislead. You start by criticizing the Chinese education system and then you say there is no way to verify the story of CCP, so CCP may not be the bad people. That the impression you provide in this post and in reply post to this one.

Here's another view point. CCP is anti democracy. Any Chinese citizen who oppose the authority of CCP must be encouraged in the interest to promote democracy.

This is the classic US reason for invading another country, plundering it and then fucking off. It has to be done to spread "democracy". Guess what: It's not very democratic to waltz into some country and tell them how to act and how to appoint their leaders.

I don't think most people consider the CCP the same as Chinese people. I surely don't.

That doesn't mean there isn't a strong correlation with the country and it's political leaders. In my opinion, a country may be judged by it's leaders.

> But you have to understand it's much more difficult to prove something you didn't do instead of something you did

Do you think the authorities could be more transparent about what is happening in these regions?

That would only feed the western media what they want, so no, I don't expect more details from the government. It's almost the de-facto solution that China use to address foreign publicity -- no comment.

But that doesn't mean they will ignore the problem, but on the contrary, they always take care the situation swiftly and always show off their results one way or the other. If you know China enough you should be familiar with how they operate.

What matters is they are giving all the resources to the people in the camp, and implementing strict regulation and accountability for all the activities in the camp, to make sure everything is running humanely and lawfully.

> I don't expect more details from the government.

And yet you trust them to do the right thing. I think that's where most of the disagreement comes from. A politician in the Western world who would try to avoid transparency would be suspect, we would think they did something wrong. I think westerners tend to judge the CCP on the same basis, but apparently you trust them.

What have they done to earn your trust?

How do you make sure that they don't abuse this trust (especially without transparency)?

Surely it would be possible for them to lose your trust, if they abused it. What kind of situation would that be?

This is beautiful, thank you

This becomes part of the problem. China has tried to merge the concept of the country, the people and the government into one homogeneous thing. Now any criticism of the regime is considered "racist"?

In a parallel reality where Germans are a different race, maybe criticizing Nazis is racism.

These days people don't believe medias fully even in the western world.

I think it's more a question of having bad medias (that can and did lie) is probably easier to trust than having no medias. Big communist countries (and other non communist, like Tunisia or some middle east ones) had a history of removing journalists.


> Honestly, it’s not you, it’s the inhuman thugs that pay you to post that.

Please don't accuse people you disagree with of being a shill or someone paid for making the comment. It's against HN rule.

It's always ironic to see people claim their very smart Chinese colleagues being brainwashed, when these colleagues have experience in both east and west - they're not the ones with singular perspective and the information deficit. Chinese who have lived through daily propaganda inherently understands nature of propaganda. Very few take official news sources at face value. Not to mention more multilingual Chinese with English fluency able to share news from across the wall. You can't say the same about anglosphere and Chinese information literacy. The amount of absolutely ignorant western commentary on China is staggering, where as Chinese net actually has western perspectives that somewhat comport with reality. Access to free information ≠ being informed. China's Great Fire Wall is crudely designed to produce ignorance via hardware, the elegant strategy in manufactured consent is ignorance subsumed at the biologic level. Free Fifth Estate generates dogmatism in absence of media literacy and produce a polity seemingly indistinguishable from state media but accompanied by staggering obliviousness. Incidentally, in terms of foreign reporting, BBC is functionally satisfying it's position as state funded propaganda. Those from global south diaspora in the west will attest how egregious BBC foreign reporting is.

US/UK were bombing these Uighur extremists/separatists just a few years ago. Now they are seen as useful pawns in the trade/economic war with China, so the genocide narrative gets mainstreamed by the usual suspects (the same ones that tried to hide the fact that we (US/UK) were arming/training/funding ISIS and visiting Uighur/Turk terrorists in Syria).

You cannot trust anything reported out of China, absolutely nothing. I do not doubt that there are people being slaughtered and massacred as I write, but anything reported out of China must be taken deeply suspicious, especially if it comes from the government. The Chinese government is the single greatest threat to freedom, and human rights this world has ever seen.

You don't need to trust anybody's reporting, you can go browse Weibo or Toutiao or Douyin and go see for yourself what regular Chinese people are saying all across China right now. Sure, anything overly political is (self-)censored and there's some actual paid wumao shills in there, but day-to-day stuff like grumbling about local government incompetence is widespread. Here's the Xinjiang hashtag, go nuts:


The Xinjiang hashtag isn't really a good target, because it's high-profile enough that there's probably a dedicated team of censors monitoring it.

And of course Weibo search doesn't work for Uyghur content. Try finding this post using any of the words in it: https://m.weibo.cn/detail/4606432605644442 I found it by searching for Uyghur words in Latin script to find someone posting in Uyghur, then looking through their posting history.

I think Weibo is pretty much useless as a source of unfiltered information, unless you're already a heavy Weibo user and can just stumble across things instead of having to rely on search.

Self censorship is huge. I admire dissidents living under authoritarian regimes who are brave enough to share their stories, whether they remain there or escape.

Read the thread you're replying to - there's little self-censorship.

How would you measure the amount of self-censorship?

And American imperialism is what, just and benign?


I don't think it's hyperbole. The CCP seeks to control social media by threatening to imprison anyone who speaks against it, even while outside China. And this isn't the first Chinese government to be accused of establishing too much state control over businesses [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tientsin

> Not the great empire builders?

They haven't been a threat for centuries.

> Not the USSR?

The USSR's been dead for 3 decades now.

> Not even, y'know, the ancient chinese empires who subjugated most of asia?

They don't exist anymore, either.

I think you whooshed on the point. Indeed, all those other guys were worse. And they're not here, and we are. China isn't the threat they're being presented as, they're just a convenient point of outrage for a demographic that craves outrage.

In fact, if the upthread point had labelled the PRC the greatest threat to global freedom of the past three decades, then I'd be inclined to agree! But that's not what it said. And we made it through the cold war just fine.

> I think you whooshed on the point.

I could say the same about your own grasp of the point; it doesn't seem relevant at all to bring up historical examples of threats to global freedom when we're discussing current examples of threats to global freedom - the PRC pretty unambiguously being one of them (and the US being another, to be clear).

The original commenter being replied to wrote "that this world has ever seen".

>The Thucydides Trap, also referred to as Thucydides's Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as the international hegemon. It was coined and is primarily used to describe a potential conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

One shouldn't lump all antagonism towards a government together as a single thing.

You can live in China, think the US government has a history of war crimes, subjugation, imperialism, plunder, genocide, and geopolitical treachery, and yet not want to go to war with the US.

You can live in the US, think the Chinese government is engaging in genocide and creating an uniquely dystopian surveillance state where all thought and behavior can be monitored and shaped, and yet not want to go to war with China.

I'm sure this trap is a real phenomenon, but pretty much every large human empire has been powered by a helm regularly committing horrible atrocities, so one hegemon will probably always be able to legitimately condemn a up-and-comer, and vice versa.

I think it can be a bit dangerous to counter such discussion with accusations of war-seeking, because it lets rulers get away with more than they should. At least unless you have specific evidence suggesting the discussion isn't simply a case of people who are genuinely concerned about people for humanist reasons.

It's the full pattern.

Does anyone think the USA actually cares about central asian muslims? With our record and the records of our allies?

Or is this coming from collective anxiety over being eclipsed?

I think the USA (taken as an aggregate of its citizens' views) has a far stronger ethical compass than your comment seems to suggest.

So to answer your question, yes to the former question. Maybe yes to the latter question too, but as an "and" not an "or".

There seems to be a disconnect between what the US says and what it does. I certainly believe US people have a strong ethical compass in their world view, at least from the people I interact with and what I read every day. At the same time, with all the things the US does, especially in the middle East, it's hard to take that "moral compass" seriously.

There is no right way and ethical way to do things in the Middle East - there is just the weird unsolvable status quo and weird things the US or anyone else can do - which might not actually have an effect on anything. I understand the criticism but I never read a book that showed a path forward.

Nobody dragged the US into the middle East. Why is there anything to do beyond acting as honest broker diplomatically?

I'm european (English/German) I am quite happy that the US is in the Middle East...otherwise we all would have to be. I see no chance that the Middle East becomes a nice peaceful place between the Saudis, Iran, Israel and Turkey (all others are just puppets). I am not sure what an honest broker would do, I am not sure that anybody in the relevant parties wants an honest broker. No question there have been terrible mistakes that cost an enormous amount of human suffering. I am not quite sure that the situation would be much different in another world. If the US had not invaded Iraq...would Iraq now be a stable happy country? No, why would it be?

> Nobody dragged the US into the middle East.

Not sure that's a true statement.

Is there any country where there isn’t a strong disconnect between what they say and what they do?

I mean, that’s kind of a human thing.

You have to compare it to what everyone else does in the Middle East. Israel kills Iranians, Iran sponsors militants in Lebanon and Yemen, Saudi butchers Saudis...pick a counterfactual (Saddam's Iraq? Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?) and compare that counterfactual to US activity.

The US as an aggregate of it's citizens' views must be viewed through the lens of it's leadership. From their actions, we can see it doesn't have an ethical compass at all. Unless of course you mean this in the most absolute sense, where there is an ethical judgement being made about drone strikes on children and it is thought to be acceptable.

The American people may care, and it is money to drive American people to think in the direction money planned. If you think the media is on your side, think again.

Think Iraq, all the evidence of WMD

Yes, but I think the point was that the rhetoric above, about a nation that was "single greatest threat to freedom, and human rights this world has ever seen", absolutely sounds like it's written by someone who very much does want to go to war with China.

> sounds like it's written by someone who very much does want to go to war with China.

To me it sounds like they're saying we ought to be wary of the threat China poses to freedom. If they thought we should go to war they would say so. I only see people here calling for awareness and preparedness, not war.

Not going to fully defend the OP but the problem is things like the USSR were, in retrospect, unsustainable. The CCP, on the other hand, may have created just the right blend between totalitarianism, communism, and capitalism that is both sustainable and has global reach. We should not want to end up all-consumed by this form of government given how oppressive it is, and only time will tell just how all-consuming it can become.

Meh. No one thought the USSR was "unsustainable" in the 80's when they were an evil empire. And within the decade they were gone. Nazi Germany didn't look "unsustainable" either, until they lost. All great powers look unbeatable during their ascendance and weak in retrospect.

Could things get worse? Sure. But all I'm saying is that things have already been much, much, much worse. And we came out OK.

I’m not disagreeing with your first point, but the fact is exactly what you said: it’s unknowable until after the collapse if it was the case. One day we will know if that’s true for the current regime. I do think the odds of it being both sustainable and not all-consuming are low, however.

> Meh. No one thought the USSR was "unsustainable" in the 80's when they were an evil empire.

Actually, both the guy who coined that phrase and others did:



"... vastly more able to share their opinions widely and securely than..." CORRECTION - They are able to share their "approved" opinions.

No, they're able to share their opinions opinions. I have chinese coworkers who will, given the opportunity, bitch about their government the same way we do. No, they aren't going to put it in email. They aren't going to use WeChat to do it. But they can absolutely do it. I've seen them do it when they're in the US for meetings. I've seen them do it over dinner at public restaurants in China.

They simply are more "free", by any reasonable standard, than their grandparents in the PRC or their compatriots behind the iron curtain. Quite frankly they're more free to express inconvienent opinions than most minorities were in the US for most of the 20th century.

The PRC government does some awful things. But the kind of hyperbolic nonsense we're engaging in here isn't helping the situation.

>The Chinese government is the single greatest threat to freedom, and human rights this world has ever seen.

How so? Its ability to expand its control beyond its current reach is pretty limited. It is surrounded by the lands and military forces of Russia, India, and the US and its client states like Japan and South Korea.


There are comments on HN right now where people are questioning whether freedom of speech is good in the US by US citizens. Why would someone from China think it’s working after the shit show of 2020 and our own citizens not having confidence?

Yup. Currently live in Asia and many of the less-than-democratic countries are pointing to the US media coverage and saying "see! freedom of speech is dangerous, even the Americans agree. when we restrict your speech we're just trying to keep you safe."

Law goes back to the code of Hammurabi, the start of civilization itself. The sole purpose is to limit the violence and not add to it. If there's anything arbitrary, it's the violence. The Magna Carta showed everyone is restrained by laws, or else there are no laws. We're back to being beasts again living in terror, squandering humanity's elevated position gifted to us, won long ago.

You can misspeak. Therefore, it's impossible for you to tell others what is perfect speech. That's all the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech is. It's unavoidable.

The best lessen enemies in times of contention, not create them. The USA took the gift of the New World and said if we're going to tell other people what to do, what's the minimum we have to do? We don't need to crush riots or deprogram people. Hundreds of cities burnt down in the USA due really dirty political tricks, and we left it alone. If people want to lead in the USA, they have to find a way themselves to overcome it without relying on tyranny, oligarchy or anarchy.

If you’re referring to comments like mine challenging the idea that private websites banning anyone for any reason has anything to do with free speech, you’re wildly mischaracterizing your US audience.

"Private websites" are the contemporary public square, especially so when half the world is locked at home and forced to communicate remotely.

Just because hardly anyone visits a website that aren't those private websites doesn't make them a public square. The analogy holds up IRL: most of our conversations happen on company property or in bars, and hardly anyone goes to the public square to mingle with strangers.

Interesting observation. I think that's very well put. If it's not public property it cannot be a public square where strangers can freely mingle and speak. It makes sense. If you mingle and speak out on someone else's property, they should be able to kick you out whenever they want. OTOH, private property does not necessarily mean the owner can do whatever he wants with whoever uses his property. The owner of a public space like a cafeteria cannot invite someone to leave on a whim. Yes, there's the "Rights of admission are reserved" but this is closely scrutinized and protected by law. I concede however that the consensus regarding this is not generalized [1]

Should Big Tech be accountable for all the content they publish, then? However, since they are not the authors of the content they publish, should their responsibility be something comparable to the responsibility of a traditional newspaper on its classifieds section?

[1] https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/propert...

This is the fulcrum point of this debate - right here.

Okay so what’s the “free speech” principle that demands sending in the government to force those websites to publish against their will?

> force those websites to publish against their will?

I would argue that the will of the websites is to actually allow publishing for the most amount of people. And they censor the opposing political views only because the government-aligned forces make them to. Basically if every corporation needs the government to survive they are going to do everything the government wants, even if they don’t admit to it. They would rather lose half the users than become completely defunct.

Why would you argue that? Do you have any evidence?

> private websites banning anyone for any reason has anything to do with free speech, you’re wildly mischaracterizing your US audience.

If US citizens already have a hard time discerning this imagine someone from China.

It’s amateur capital driven censorship. It’s inefficient, confusing, and divides a nation. Yes it would be viewed as suboptimal from someone familiar with nationalism and censorship in China.

Nonsense. In the US you have to just click another link to find viewpoints not represented on the website you’re currently at. In China you have to use a VPN to view blocked content. As an American I’m ashamed of my fellow Americans who don’t understand this.

There’s a credible case to be made that freedom of speech has allowed the US to prosper.

Who cares if it allowed the US to prosper? Freedom of speech is not about economic output but a value system. This utilitarian moral relativism might make sense in China but it is not part of modern Western culture. It was a civilisational conquest and a difficult one to obtain.

Values are useful. I don’t mean economic prosperity, I mean that our value system has largely worked.

What value system? You still have legal slavery!

There's a credible case it's just a happy coincidence. The large single economy with, until recently, open immigration policy were possibly bigger factors.

The US has prospered in war. It is in fact still basically prospering through war.
xwolfi 12 days ago [flagged]

I'll be blunt, I was raised in a european democracy and live in China, I don't think democracy works anymore lol Trump is a big component, but the Brexit or what they do in Hungary, pff it's just disheartening.

I don't think China will forever sustain that large a monitoring, it's just inefficient the closer they get from an intellectual super power, but I have 0 respect for the US, or their "freedom of being an idiot" that they pretend is the same as freedom of speech.

One thing is sure, with that circus over there, they made us lose 10 years here. Nobody wants to experiment anymore with liberalization.

Please stay in China and be happy there.

What is it that you don't understand about democracy? A referendum was held in the UK in 2016. It was brought about by a Prime Minister who, along with a huge majority of the establishment including the BBC, thought that the result was a foregone conclusion. For sure, they said - most folk will vote to stay in the EU. But the voters decided otherwise. We voted `leave`. Abiding by that decision shows that democracy doesn't work anymore - and Brexit is an example?

But that I understand, the problem in democracy is that you can take bad decision that you glorify because it's made by the people.

It's fine, people can make collective mistakes, but I think we ignore several facts during a referendum like that: - People misunderstand the question - People understand the question but vote to answer another one - People are divided in groups with very different agenda that sometimes are shorterm good for a majority and long term bad for a minority (the elders might vote against the interest of the youth, then die leaving them with the mess)

I vote, and enjoy it, but I also recognize I'm as big an idiot as anyone else, and I don't think this worked in the Brexit instance. The PM proposed the vote for the wrong reason, people voted at a time they were not thinking of the Union long term, people voted massively divided (cities vs country side, England vs the others, old vs young), so what answer did they provide exactly ? That "the people want rid of the EU" or that "British society is so divided it barely even exists" ?

I guess at least in a democracy, mistakes can be reversed, but we seem to do so many I wonder if it's not better here where at least we stick to one single side and pursue it to the end rather than girouette around (in the EU, but with not everything, then out, then surely in again because out was stupid, etc).

You're doing yourself a disservice if you think Chinese people are all brainwashed simpletons. The reality is that people will rationalize anything that benefits them, and Xinjiang is an integral part of One Belt One Road.

Are their friends who live in Xinjiang Han or Uyghur?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all we have are unreliable narrators. The only thing more upsetting for some Americans than a genocide in Xinjiang is no genocide in Xinjiang.

Americans aren't very interested in defending human rights, but they're deeply invested in defending the lie that they are interested in defending human rights.

I live in Hong Kong and that's exactly how I talk with people abroad totally panicking over the situation here. It's... not THAT bad. Certainly not as bad as portrayed, sometimes, west of the world.

Not saying I have any clue about Xinjiang or that the CCP is positive for the country, but I feel uneasy everyone switched from prisoner camps to genocide - it seems to distract away from the actual issue to move into borderline hysteria.

A bit like the HK situation moved from an extradition issue over a taiwan murder to a large "save Hong Kong" hysteria... But whatever, you used the racist card, what can we say ...

Didn’t the situation in Hong Kong escalate from people being concerned about the extradition thing to the Chinese government now suspending elections?

Not really, it escalated towards the police being violent then died with a poof when teenagers realized they fucked us all.

The Chinese gov doesn't care and doesn't want to care, they are being bamboozled by the true winners of the situation: the DAB party using the communist paranoia to consolidate their local power acting as good little patriots (when every law they passed is anti-communist, really, and pro-status quo).

So the DAB suspended the legislative election after they lost the district one, for one year. They can act like that with the blame being directed at China by constantly looking the other way when asked to give an opinion about China and acting as if they were under order. But it serves 0 chinese interest, it makes the entire population hate China and China hate the population, with the DAB cementing itself into the only barrier still there before the army intervenes.

It's so obvious yet so missed by everyone that it's painful to watch. I hope there's a masterplan in Beijing, but I doubt they even understand what people think in Beijing, let alone in Hong Kong, so ...

And the DAB represents a large class of the population, too: the elders, the rent-owners, the large corporations, the traditional post-colonial Hong Kong. That's the people you see on the sideline shaking their head and taking picture in mass when the kids burn a metro station. The journalists don't film it, but I'm there with everyone just commenting at the monkeys while the western media stream them with a close angle as if they were fighting China or for freedom... While nobody is communist in Hong Kong, not even the metro station they hate so much !

I saw my entire family switch to the DAB during the protests so maybe I'm under bias thinking this produced exactly the opposite effect all sides looked for: Hong Kong is not more independent, Hong Kong is not more Chinese, but the DAB sure is more powerful - we'll see what happens if they restore the election, but at this point they can get away with not doing it and say "oh but without us it's the PLA so calm down"

Yes and million things build up over the years.

I take this issue very serious issue and I've spent a significant amount of time researching it. I think there is a settler-colonial project occurring in Xinjiang, but there are some serious problems with many of the western sources that undermine the credibility of this report.

Report https://14ee1ae3-14ee-4012-91cf-a6a3b7dc3d8b.usrfiles.com/ug...

The evidence for most of these accusations come from Adrian Zenz and ASPI. The report says:

> the works of Dr Zenz, ASPI and similar others would be accorded significant weight and would have probative value in establishing the relevant facts.

Adrian Zenz is the key source for almost all of the genocide claims but I think him and his claims should be scrutinized. The Grayzone did a very critical analysis of Zenz and his claims that is worth exporing if you are actually interested in this subject. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-...

I think global attention could help the people of Xinjiang, but not if it’s hijacked by western governments who have an axe to grind with China.

The credibility is in the statements of the Chinese that both deny and defend the practice.

No. The credibility comes from the actual evidence provided.

True. But evidence is also given by the perpetrator through denial and accidental confirmation.

PDF of the legal opinion


from https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/legal-opinion-concludes-...

This is the single most dodgy looking url I've ever shared.

FWIW, usrfiles.com seems to be a CDN associated with wix.com. glanlaw.org has DNS registered with wix, so I expect they're hosting there too.

Funny, at the non-dodgy URL, the opinion is the opposite: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...

"Despite the Trump administration’s declaration of a genocide in Xinjiang, upheld by the Biden administration, some legal experts suspect China’s behavior may fall short of actual genocide."

This opinion by those legal experts with their nitpicky definitions of 'actual genocide' is probably related to the absolute lack of any mass casualties. Not that such technical concerns should stand in the way of nationalist rhetoric.

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for mass casualties, but the OP is arguing a different tack: they're saying that we have evidence for forced sterilization and targeted oppression of the Uyghur culture, which by their sources can be construed as genocide.

As far as I know, forced sterilization only happens when someone exceeds their allotment of children. This is a China-wide policy, in place for decades, that isn't ethnic-specific.

The Uyghurs, in fact, have a higher allotment of children than Han Chinese. Which is.. the opposite of genocide, really, if you're letting their population grow more than the "non-genocided" population.

We will never do anything, because iphone.

American dependency on cheap foreign labor dictates a lot of inaction, from China concentration camps to Middle Eastern human rights violations.

Here is an alternative: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa. Before complaining about the price, try to find any other phone made in USA.

The amount of comments in this thread which appear to assume that 'genocide' means exclusively physical harm is concerning.

Just for the record: as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1], genocide is officially defined as either physical _or_ mental harm.

[1] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

This article downplays the most horrendous act of genocide: systematic, state-endorsed RAPE of Uighur women and girls (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071)

Mass extermination is obvious, but here's another way to destroy a nation: through the deepest, most unutterable form of demoralization.

And I think the reason it's not more in the headlines is precisely because of its nature: we don't want to think about this kind of act, on a mass scale, perpetrated by one of the most powerful nations in the world, indirectly supported by Western economies and politics.

The BBC report is considered credible. The best thing we can do is to spread it, and hope it becomes viral - so that business with China becomes absolutely socially unacceptable.

Indirectly supported by all the cheap unnecessary shit we buy.

This is something that future generations are going to look back at with a lot of shame. It's going to end up being in textbooks as another thing where students wonder why we were OK with genocide happening under our noses.

In the US at least, we are not taking this problem seriously enough. There's a lot of acknowledgement that something bad is happening, but not a lot of clear coordination on an international scale to actually stop it. I am generally a non-interventionist, but this is an area where we need to get more involved and we need to be more forceful about pulling the economic and social levers that we have at our disposal.

It still feels like we're just treating this like "problematic" behavior from a contentious ally, rather than a genocide. At least in the US, we are still not really grappling with the gravity of that word.

We have no leverage and the global economic system doesn’t care enough. Let’s be real, China is the new world super power. The US is still riding the coattails of prior success.

We’re a confused divided country and China has a brutally efficient system of exploitation the US needs.

Moral authority over martial or material. Nature wins without effort. Storms and earthquakes go where they want, regardless of who lives or dies.

The USA doesn't need the competition. Leave us alone please, for just once in our history. Our entire existence, the world has waged war against us.

Imaging black holes. Probes inside the Sun. Ever growing size of matter waves. Find peace please, or I build a horrible weapon of coarse resuscitation, a gravity application of pair production and coherent control that doesn't kill, but keeps people alive.

> Our entire existence, the world has waged war against us.

For the most recent part of it, it has rather been the inverse.

> State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China

> The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials.


But not at odds about the "crimes against humanity" part, right? Basically everyone except the CCP's PR department agrees that China is engaging in an ethnic cleansing.

This article isn't disagreeing with that, it's not debating that the State department over-exaggerated or misrepresented the extent of the problem. Instead, it's arguing a semantic point that "cultural" genocide is harder to pin down than overt WW2-style death camps. It argues that if we call this genocide, then nobody will care about a bigger issue down the road. But given that the United States and other allies have been shockingly derelict in holding China to account over what is widely agreed to be an ethnic cleansing, the decay of the word "genocide" as an accurate descriptor of a coordinated effort to eliminate a culture should not be our top worry right now.

I do not buy the article's concerns. It is wild to me that people can argue we're being too aggressive talking about China right now. We are not being aggressive enough. International courts are not pursuing China strongly enough right now. The CCP is being ignored even though the actual facts of the case are agreed on by almost everyone even in this article -- that China is attempting to eliminate an entire culture, and they are deploying horrifying methods in the pursuit of that goal.

>Basically everyone

Plurality of countries, including majority Islamic countries, have stated positions that still support Chinese actions in XJ as counter insurgency. CCP has and maintained the dominant narrative.

>semantic point

Semantics is the only context that matters if the goal is to trigger legal consequences. Cultural genocide doesn't legally exist, it's a more apt label but one that does not have any diplomatic consequences. Hence effort to over-exaggerate, which has and will fail for the simple reasons that 1) it's not correct 2) China has more support.

>being too aggressive

Outside of possibly a few FVEY countries making effort to coordinate their own deliberations, the majority of the world will not adopt genocide label because they understand the US led initiative is bullshit and self-serving. There's a reason Pompeo tried to bypass straight into genocide despite crimes against humanity being a more appropriate label as determined by the review findings of his own state department. Crimes against humanity, while more formalized than cultural genocide, still does not have comprehensive convention or consequences. No one is obligated to sanction or punish crimes against humanity. And if it ever did, it would open up US actions to similar scrutiny. It's why the Hague Invasion Act exists.


> It would be unambiguously good if the international community (including the US) held itself to a higher standard on human rights.

Sure, then prosecute XJ for what it is, not what it's not. Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. The genocide strategy is not designed to do that, it's a reach designed to undermine China while explicitly not setting the standards higher for everyone else. More cynically, it's partisan domestic politics (from several countries) because curtailing is not realistic. It's feasible to pursue a credible human rights strategy, but this isn't it. It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre. If international community wanted accountability they'd start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide. They can do that right now. Then move to XJ, a system smaller on relative terms, on absolute terms smaller than US prison complex. It affects less than 0.5% of Chinese population. It's not a small issue, but also not a huge one.

> I have a black friend

This is not token "I have a black friend" say so but lopsided "almost everyone in the black community" say so. XJ is counter-insurgency the same way US overreaction to 911 was in the middle east. Except ME countries identify with terrorism from religious extremism, hence their endorsement of Chinese narrative _and_ observes China's effort at systematic solution. That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith. Domestic security trumps human rights, always. Pompeo calling XJ genocide while removing ETIM from terror watch lists at the same time pretty much says it all. There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders. The reason why current human rights frameworks are DOA is because they can't reconcile between sins and security.

> It's exaggerations and propaganda for theatre.

What do you believe is being exaggerated? Do you think the 1st-hand accounts we have are lies?

There's a difference between a semantic argument that says "we agree on everything except the word for this" (ie, the State department's disagreement that sparked this thread in the first place) and an argument that says "China isn't doing the things you say it is."

Which argument are you making?

> That can't be handwaved away into China is genociding for lulz, nor dismissing the plurality opinion as not in good faith.

But it's not in good faith. Unless you want to seriously argue right now that the accounts we have of official-condoned systematic rape and abortion are lies, then an endorsement of this system or an attempt to say that it's not a serious human rights violation is in bad faith. You can't have your cake and eat it, you can't say that there's a good faith argument that China is just responding to an insurgency threat unless you're also willing to dig in and actually say what that argument is.

Do you agree that systematic torture, forced abortions, forced labor of ethnic minorities, reeducation camps for those minorities, and a coordinated effort to eliminate their culture are a crime against humanity?

And on the note of 9/11, what is the good faith argument that the response so far (nothing) is comparable to forcibly changing a regime based on fake information? We're not talking about forcibly changing China's government. I do not care whether or not China is a Communist country, I don't care if it becomes a global leader in manufacturing. Good for it if it does. But it can't do it with forced labor from an ethnic minority.

We have had zero real response to China committing cultural genocide, and people are arguing that's too much response? That's not a good faith argument, I'm not going to pretend it is.


> There's no credibility to human right lectures from wealthy, safe countries that atrocitied their way to wealth and secure borders.

What you're arguing here is effectively that no one is ever allowed to call out any other country on human rights issues because we all have sins. And on one level you're right -- the US is a country built on atrocities, and the US is currently engaged in human rights abuses within its own country. The US has sins.

But the answer to that can not be nihilism. I have no sympathy for this argument, go tell an Uighur that they don't get help because we want to grapple with our white guilt first. People who are being oppressed do not care about the logistics or appearance of how they're helped, they want allies. The Uighur population does not exist to be an object lesson to the West, and the solution to noticing hypocrisy is to improve conditions across the board, not to nihilistically throw up our hands and decide to do nothing.

The US should sanction China and the US should address its own history and ongoing failures with racism, colonialism, and oppression. Feeling bad about US history is not an excuse to stick our heads in the sand. There's a difference between recognizing hypocrisy and trying to correct it, and using hypocrisy as an excuse to lower standards for everyone even further.


You argue that if advocates for Uighur rights were honest, they'd be trying to:

> Use XJ as opportunity to formalize conventions and punishments for crimes against humanity and cultural genocide.

> start sanctioning Canada for self professed cultural genocide.

But this is literally what advocates are trying to do right now when they argue that the current legal definition of genocide is interpreted too narrowly. What you're arguing advocates should do is what they are currently doing -- campaigning for the recognition of cultural genocide as a human rights violation with concrete consequences.

If you want the US/Canada held to more account, and if you genuinely believe that these nations are engaged in cultural genocide, then you should be on board with this campaign -- a formal definition of cultural genocide can be used across the board to try and address some of the hypocrisy that you're very sincerely worried about. If you genuinely believe that the US prison system is a bigger issue, then why aren't you trying to expand the definitions so that the US prison system can be addressed? The EU is already leaning towards an interpretation of US imprisonment as cruel and unusual punishment in certain situations. Increased scrutiny in that area would only be helpful.

This is not the slam-dunk argument you think it is; I would love to get rid of forced labor in US prisons, and I (and other activists on the ground campaigning for prisoner rights) would all love to see more international pressure in that direction. It would be appreciated, please get on it.

But most of the international criticism about the term "cultural genocide" is not really coming from a position of wanting to raise standards across the board, it's coming from a position that argues that any attempt to raise standards at all is illegitimate and unfair. If there actually was a coordinated effort by any of these critics to formalize and broaden consequences for more general human rights violations, I would be on board with it. But there's not, which does leave me questioning what their goals actually are.




Severity and scope mainly. Bad stuff happens as byproduct of program on this scale. My position is numbers and atrocities are exaggerated. GIS study reveals there's 1/3 of the camp as those used to extrapolate the 1M+ figures. Changing testimonies from the same usual suspects is text book atrocity propaganda. The claim it's officially-condoned contradicts leaked memos themselves instructing (relatively) humane treatment which corresponds with earliest testimonies which were tame but also did not move needle. Hence need for exaggeration. TLDR is XJ is an none-event in geopolitical terms if it's comparable to US prison or CAN indigenous reserves where bad things happen as side-effect of scale and power dynamics. They're par for the course hence need to exaggerate into something they're not.

> what their goals actually are.

Neuter human rights + atrocity propaganda as a valid geopolitical weapon, because it engineers dangerous frictions. Fallout from wars has more significant negative outcomes than cultural genocide. The double standards of fabricating greater evils inhibits raising rights i.e. XJ formalized as cultural genocide opens up meaningful tools for Indigenous ppls in Canada. Labelling it as something else absolves such duty. I endorse increasing international pressure on crimes against humanity / cultural genocide to scope where it punishes west and east for benefit and detriment of both. I also acknowledge that there's cynical geopolitical reasons why this is not happening. Finally, a proper reflection on cultural genocide would at least formalize the limits to state powers especially on topics like forced integration, there are so many messed up internal divisions / post-colonial borders keeping countries from prospering - forced integration has been a important tool for stability since time immemorial, we can try to constrain it to what's globally acceptable, or leave it as the current free-for-all.

Hence why the original Genocide accusation had to be laundered first through Zenz / Victims of Communism, why this "opinion" was commissioned by NED funded Uighur organizations. Why lying Pompeo only backed the genocide label at the end of his term despite your linked assessment by his own state department. It's delusional to think commissioned legal opinions still funded by US interests is going to make genocide stick when state department legal minds could not. Articles like this are, and have always been used for purpose of political theatre.

Meanwhile Apple and other companies are actively lobbying against forced labor bill in the US.

I think the most shocking part of that article was the Chinese response. I can imagine a similar response from Nazi Germany.


"Some anti-China forces in the West have concocted and disseminated plenty of false information about Xinjiang and fabricated "lies of the century" in various forms," the embassy said. "They have smeared China's image and slandered its policies on Xinjiang." It added: "Anyone who is fair-minded can see that the true intent of those forces is to suppress and contain China's development... Their moves are driven by a Cold War mentality, hegemonic worldview and zero-sum game mindset. China will never allow such farce and vicious demonization to succeed. Lies may mislead people for a while, but cannot win the trust of the world. Facts and truth will eventually bust all lies."

It reads like a caricature of authoritarian propaganda. They're not even trying to be subtle.

> A legal opinion is the professional judgement of a respected QC - an independent expert in their field - who assesses the evidence and the law and comes to a conclusion. It does not have a legal standing, like a court judgement, but can be used as a basis for legal action.

> This opinion was commissioned - but not paid for - by the Global Legal Action Network, a human rights campaign group that focuses on cross-border legal issues, and the World Uighur Congress and the Uighur Human Rights Project.

The word 'genocide' is a little tricky, it kind of implies death-camps, at least in the popular imagination, I mean, the first basis of comparison I think for most of us is the Nazi Holocaust.

A note below talked about the DoJ's concerns about 'proving genocide' etc. - it's besides the point.

If they are putting 1M people in jail due to their ethnicity and doing this crazy psychological programming, it's bad enough, the 'forced sterilization' and 'removal of children' is a very serious thing as well, but that doesn't need to happen for this to be 'very very bad'.

We might need to use a different word to describe this, that fits a little more directly to what is happening.

If China was not powerful, there would be trade sanctions, if not embargoes, which is something to consider.

The issue needs to be addressed, it steps beyond the CCP's usual arguments of 'internal problems are not your business'.

Do we have good evidence to support the 1M figure?

What’s most sad about all of this is that there is really nothing the US can do to stop the genocide. No matter how many times it’s discussed, no matter how many people and politicians call attention to it, there’s really nothing the West can do. A decision was made between what’s more important: Human rights, or a new iPhone. The West chose the iPhone. China has been killing innocent people and putting them in camps for decades. It will not change unless western government and companies decide enough is enough, and stop buying Chinese goods.

"After the end of the second world war, the British view was grim. It was that the balance of power in the pacific had been totally shattered in favor of the United States. One response by London, was to support Mao Tse-tung's communist insurrection, against the pro-American, Kuomintang government of generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in China. FDR's personal representative in China, general Patrick J. Hurley, saw as a post-war goal, a strong unified China under Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT. The British backed Mao, with the idea that the communists could become the warlords of Bejing and northern China, while the KMT might hang on in the south, below the Yangtze river. Stalin was going to be encouraged by the British to detach Manchuria, Mongolia, and Chinese Turkestan, sometimes known as Xinjiang. The British especially hated Chiang and the KMT, who were the heirs to Sun Yat-sen's opposition to colonialism, and his support for modern economic development. The British by themselves would not have been able to consolidate Mao's regime. They were aided by the pro-British Harriman faction in the United States, including Dean Acheson and general George C. Marshall, who effectively made president Harry Truman their puppet in foreign affairs. The turning point came in 1945 and 1946, when Marshall was sent on a mission to China, which resulted in a half-year cutoff of US military aid to Chiang Kai-shek at a critical turning point in the Chinese civil war. After that, Mao made the long march to sieze most of China by the end of 1949. The British were among the first to recognize Mao's government, and supply him was strategic goods through Hong-Kong. After Mao's victory, the British oligarchs were looking for wars to cut the US down to size in the far east, and restore the balance of power. The result was the Korean war. Korea had been divided north and south between the Soviets and the US, although by early 1950, both had gone home. Harriman's friend Acheson declared that the US had no interest in South Korea, then Kim Il-sung of North Korea attacked. Suddenly Harriman and Acheson discovered that the fate of the free world depended on Korea, and they convinced Truman to fight. Truman ordered MacArthur to do the impossible, to save Korea with inferior forces. MacArthur's defense of Pusan, and then the Inchon invasion defeated North Korea and stunned the British plotters. Their gambit had backfired, and US supremacy was greater than ever. So the British turned once again to their favorite device; treachery. There was in those years a stable of triple agents based in London, especially in the foreign office. These included Kim Philby, the first secretary of the British embassy in Washington. Then there was Guy Burgess, the second secretary at that same embassy. Donald Maclean was the head of the American desk in Whitehall. Other associates of this group included sir Anthony Blunt, of Buckingham Palace, and Lord Victor Rothschild, of British intelligence. There was also Lester B. Pearson, the Canadian foreign minister. These men were triples. On the surface they were British agents. Scratch deeper and they were working for the KGB, which had recruited them at Cambridge in the 1930's, but at the deepest level, they were loyal to the British monarchy. It was British policy to stab the US in the back, so as to restore the balance of power. Having some triple agents around meant that the British could do this and get away with it, with plausible deniability. If the spies should be blown, the British could claim that it had been the KGB all along. The Philby-Rothschild group of triple agents were decisive in the Korean war. Phibly and Maclean were able to send Moscow, Bejing and Pyongyang, all of MacArthurs orders from President Truman. These included restrictions against carrying the war to China, with bombing, blockade, or hard pursuit. When Mao was sure that MacArthur's hands would be tied, he commited massive Chinese forces to Korea in November of 1951. Philby and Maclean obligingly saw to it, that Mao got all of MacArthurs military dispatches. So the communists knew exactly where and when to strike."

Where does this quote come from?

A talk given by historian Webster Tarpley.


This sort of flamewar comment will get you banned here. No more of this please. We're trying for a quite different sort of discussion—one which doesn't jump straight into hell.


> I'm happy to go to war with China, I think it'll be fun to watch. It's affects on me will only be a small percentage drop in assets, so whatever.

Dude, going to war does not mean watching happily at assets' prices dropping. Going to war means actual people dying. And if you'd happily "go to war" with China, I hope it means you're happy to become (and make your family become) among the first people to die at this war - before politicians sign a treaty and revert back to status quo.

> No, China is not committing genocide.

Yes, they are:


> Why do we have to jump to genocide.

Because that is the term for what they do.

The refusal to call it genocide is like putting lipstick on a pig; in the end it's still a pig.

Interesting. According to that America is at stage 8 of 10 in it's Genocide of China.

Has America planned the mass killing of Chinese citizens?


The Millitary Times is not a government publication, and even if it was, there is nothing in this publication that advocates that mass violence against civilians would be part of a war with China.

The United States is not planning an ethnic cleanse or mass killing of Chinese citizens.

It is often the goal of the CCP to conflate criticism of themselves (a totalitarian government) with criticism/bigotry towards Chinese culture/people itself. In reality, those are separate things. Genocide is not a fundamental part of Chinese culture, and opposing genocide is not the same thing as opposing Chinese culture -- on the contrary, to argue that ethnic cleansing is just a cultural difference, or that criticism of ethnic cleansing is a criticism of culture, is itself a wildly insulting insinuation about the people of China.

The theoretical conjecturing of a civilian-run magazine about a purely political conflict is not equivalent to an in-progress government-sponsored effort to demonize and eliminate a cultural minority.

You are denying Pol Pot killing 1 million Cambodians was "genocide".

You are correct, it wasn't a legal pig. That is why the trials had to loophole it around killing the Cham and other minorities. Points for being technical.

As I said even by your legal definition the Chinese are not committing genocide against the Uyghurs.

The report FYI, which I'm not clear why we care what the lawyers at Essex Court Chambers reading news article on the BBC and NYT think on the matter. Are they even legal experts in genocide?


> You are denying Pol Pot killing 1 million Cambodians was "genocide".


> As I said even by your legal definition the Chinese are not committing genocide against the Uyghurs.

Counterpoint: They absolutely are.


Good link, Adrian Zenz is not big on the 'gays' and stuff, off topic but -

Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation - Adrian Zenz - https://www.amazon.com.au/Worthy-Escape-Believers-Raptured-T...

Although it must suck having a Chinese army dragging out info on who their opponents are, I personally are critical of someone who looks at Christian documents to pin down technical data on the Rapture. I don't care if someone doesn't personally approve of homosexuals or believes in the Rapture, but when they publish on it, I use that to judge their other work. And this is were we differ, your 'good' sources are simply not my 'good' sources. The first thing on Wiki or Goggle is not a source to me.

> Good link, Adrian Zenz is not big on the 'gays' and stuff, off topic but -

Off topic, indeed. And a logical fallacy to boot.

> I personally are critical of someone who looks at Christian documents to pin down technical data on the Rapture.

Irrelevant, as that isn't what we're talking about.

Your -- now flagged -- original comment referred to the forced sterilizations too. What you think of Adrian Zenz or the UN definition of genocide is absolutely irrelevant. There are no two ways about it: forced abortions and sterilizations _do_ fullfil the UN definition of genocide.


It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of being a Chinese Turk. And staying different from the rest of the chinese.

Ah, in the name of the West I sincerely apologize for pushing the highly controversial and specific-to-the-West "value" of "disapproving of genocide".

Oh wait, it isn't genocide, it's just some innocent ethnic cleansing, right?

If a group of people's values are disgusting enough they support enslaving and steralizing people they should have western values pushed onto them.

I don't agree with the parent comment's perspective, but isn't it deeply ironic to make this statement?

By 'this statement' do you mean mine or the person I was responding to?

The former. The proposition is a hard sell on a purely logical basis ("if you don't freedom correctly, we'll freedom you") but also in its broader context. Western nations have made great innovations in empire building and genocide from the Opium Wars to the camps, have destabilized a large number of governments, created the threat of nuclear annihilation, then lecture other nations after only a few decades of liberalization; that liberalization having come only as a result of a weakening of their relative power.

I'm not coming at this from the angle of wanting to see the West fail. On the contrary, I think it would be a far better strategic choice to focus on our current crop of governance failures instead of trying to mold other countries, return to looking at first principles instead of "End of History" magical thinking, and come up with stronger incentives and examples for other countries to try the liberal/democratic model of development than just vague appeals to values that don't even sound so great when we are electing populist leaders.

I consider any genocide, opium wars, etc to not be western values. While the west did do those things I do not think they are in line with the values I think should be wide spread.

I think an apt comparison would be members of the military being charged with conduct unbecoming. Just because a member of the military does something bad doesn't mean that those are the values of the military. Just because the west has done some bad things doesn't mean those are western values.

Western values are freedom of speech and religion, not imprisoning political opponents or ethnic and religious minorities. Along with the ability to do most anything you want with relatively low amount of restrictions. There are more things that would be considered western values but I think you probably understand what I mean by western values.

Western governments are comprised of people. These are people who are flawed and do not always do the right thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't ideals worth spreading.

We have Biden and others who say that China is just following different cultural norms. If enslaving people is part of a country's culture and value system then we should try to push the western values onto them.

Take the perspective of your average Chinese household. You have a century and a half of absolutely horrific events one after the other. The nation itself is parceled, invaded, and humiliated in various ways. Then after generations of poverty and misery the living standards don't just rise, but skyrocket upwards to the point where someone born after 1980 lives in a different world. Today, there are multiple opportunities to have a better life even for people in the poorest regions, where there previously was nothing. It is quite literally the single largest increase in living standards in history. If a person from that Chinese household told you that China is deeply flawed and doesn't always do the right thing, but that there are ideals worth spreading, what would you say to them?

Why is authoritarianism the defining trait of that civ, but somehow the centuries of Western colonization and subjugation aren't a defining trait of Western values? If the majority of the activity, funding and development of a military is to intervene in order to maintain economic and geopolitical interests, isn't that a better way to define it than vague abstract values like a soldier's code or "becoming conduct"? Does it matter that soldiers have a nice story to tell themselves when the end aggregate result of their participation is much grittier?

More broadly, aren't positive values the result of economic and political strength? Living standards are dropping and inequality is rising in the US, and the result was a semi-authoritarian and largely unqualified cabinet. So are Western values actually part of the Western character or a consequence of successful empire building and good economic conditions?

> I consider any genocide, opium wars, etc to not be western values.

Well, yeah, if you just arbitrarily define things that the West actively prioritized as “not Western values” because it doesn't fit the mythology you want to create of the West, then you can make any argument you want.

In reality, “Western values” are in deep conflict with themselves because the West is not, and never has been, even loosely ideologically coherent, much less ideologically consistent over time.

Are “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” Western values? Sure, but so is imprisoning, persecuting, and even exterminating religious, ideological, ethnic, and racial minorities, especially ones which refuse to assimilate the dominant culture. If you ignore the evidence that the latter has been, and remains today, a prominent value in the West in favor of mythologizing the former as the exclusive set of defining Western values in this domain, you won't understand either the actual West or the way the rest of the world responds to the West.


> The fact that China has been pretty open about investigators coming to see whats going on

Could you substantiate this? How many international journalist teams were allowed into China?

The press is literally invited to see much of what is happening. [1]

It just scratches the surface.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmId2ZP3h0c

Do you think that video makes the camps look good?

> having an excuse to go to war with China

I don't see any evidence of that. The current administration is pretty friendly towards China.

(China would lose though. Just block the oil and coal supply routes)

We tried "block the oil and coal supply routes" with Japan. The result was an attack on Pearl Harbor.

They did lose, eventually.

While I agree, there are plenty of poor sources getting too much uncritical attention in the press, even by China's own accounts there are a large network of education facilities, trying to hammer in a strong sense of national identity. It is hard not to interpret this as a direct assault on the culture of Uighur people.

It shouls also be viewed in it's geopolitical context - China is desparate to have secure land routes into Europe and the middle east incase things kick off in the South China sea, and by their calculations that security requires (forcefully) integrating the Uighur people into Chinese culture and nationalism. On the other hand, the west will take what opportunity they can to attack China on human rights grounds, despite the hypocrisy of all the human rights abuses around the world they happily ignore (the treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example).

TLDR; we can be critical of western imperialism, while still holding China to account.

> by their calculations that security requires (forcefully) integrating the Uighur people into Chinese culture and nationalism

Of course this won't work. People prefer the freedom to work on what they want, and they contribute more to GDP when given that freedom.

Not to mention the family separations, forced sterilizations, and extrajudicial killings perpetrated on Hispanic people directly by the United States.

We know for a fact most of what is going on, it's not well hidden.

The CCP will give guided tours of their concentration camps to try to prove they are not concentration camps.

Pulling out prisoners, in jail against their will, who say on camera: "I am here for my own good, I am happy".

It's bizarre and frightening.

The bizarre thing is that Western intellectuals will no doubt believe it.

Just like they believed during Soviet Union that gulags were enlightened humanitarian institutions full of happy people.

Western academics and proles are upset by it. It's the realpolitik wings i.e. business and politics that are less directly concerned because it hurts them, or, it's hard for them to do anything about.

Western Academics loved Stalin, even as millions were dying in the Ukraine because:

1) He was a Communist - and the leader of the glorious revolution.

2) The direct news of 'how bad it was' wasn't clear. We didn't have TV to project images and experiences. And maybe there was a snippet or two in the NYT about it, so it was easy to dismiss, fantasize.

3) We didn't really understand these mass control regimes yet. This was a new phenom. This massive, centralized control for the proletariat, the grand experiment wasn't up yet. Communism wasn't truly a dirt word until after the 1950's and 1960's when it was also associated with the Cold War.

The West isn't going to go to war to stop a genocide.

No one in the history of ever has gone to war to stop a genocide. Many have been started to perpetrate one though.

Serbia called and want its bombed army back.

You could probably amend it to "No one in history has ever gone to war against a country they might lose against to stop a genocide."

ISIS too.

No, but they are gonna overblow what's going on in those areas, to use as "cold war" pressure and justify all kinds of measures and actions in a diplomatic / trade war that has nothing to do with caring for the plight of Uighurs...

One would expect by the 10th repetition of the same BS playbook in the last 100 years, people would know by now...

I agree with you.

I think the Chinese government is totalitarian and aggressive, and the standard of due process and human rights is very different of what we consider acceptable in the "west".

I also wouldnt be surprised if things like widespread facial recognition and other types of intrusive vigilance is present (something very bad),I also would not be surprised if the area has received a large Han migration (something more gray, neutral). I also acknowledge that people that they may consider dangerous (number in the tens of thousands? are or have been detained for longer periods) and that the youth population receive education to become integrated to the Han majority.

Having said that,I have seen 0 actual evidence of genocide, beyond very wild speculations. 0 bodies, mass graves, executions,1-million people in jail etc. If I see the evidence I of course will change my mind.

On the other hand almost every notably speaker of the genocide have had an axis to grind against China. From the crazy newborn Christian Zenz, to the Uyghur woman who worked for the CIA and did a reddit AMA, to yes! people like Pompeo or Trump or even the mainstream western media.We are in the middle of a new cold-war.

Uighurs are exempt of the 2-child policy reserved to the Han, and their population have increased in the region compared to the previous decades.China has also be receptive to receive inspection and FWIW the entire muslim block is with China.You could argue that they are being blackmailed, but some of them are rich enough to not depend now or in the future from China.

Anyway, it is going to be interesting once the proposed French laws against Muslims extremism are in place to see if the same standard will be applied to the reporting. Interesting times these.

The standard of evidence for a country with free press cannot and should not be compared to the standard of evidence for a country with no press freedom. China controls flow of information so tightly, that even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.

>even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.

That's rather convenient. Wonder if any global powers with a vested interest could take advantage of this mindset...

Yeah, its convenient, but even more convenient is the mindset of ignoring existing evidence and bending over backwards for the pleasure of profiting off cheap manufacturing.

Free press is a nebulous concept, especially considering that for all but the most naive or disingenuous person the mass media press is an indirect tool of the intelligence services of each country.

> China controls flow of information so tightly, that even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.

You could say exactly the same about the military occupation of every country, or are we getting the whole truth in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen or Iraq?

For me this a case of simply, "Since I am American/European I will believe my press" Well, I am not Chinese, neither American or European so I dont have that automatic loyalty nor prejudice.

I am also not Chinese, American or European, but I will say that prejudice is totally warranted against authoritarian regimes. Free press simply refers to an ability to present an opposing view point, which authoritarian governments despise.

Where is the opposite point the western "free press" saying, maybe China is not committing Genocide? Because reading publications like The Economist, The New York Times or The Guardian you will never find it.Where is the opposite point in the mainstream press asking for GW Bush to be trialed as a war criminal (which he is)?

So according to your logic, both "x is True" "x is False" should appear side by side? That is not the meaning of free press.

No, but nice strawman, congrats. According to my logic , if A does something wrong and it is heavily criticized in the press, when B does the same I expect the same level of criticism and that does not happen at all. Then it is obvious the press is responding to many incentives (political , economical, tribal) which make it not really that free.

> Where is the opposite point the western "free press" saying, maybe China is not committing Genocide?

For example, you are saing it here, on English-speaking website located in USA. And you are not scared of possible consequences for you and your family.

I am pretty sure there are many better examples, but this one is here and now, and hard to deny.


> Elsewhere you may speak your mind without fear of being locked up or killed.

Like Assange did?


> This marks the fifth consecutive year that repressive governments have imprisoned at least 250 journalists. Lack of global leadership on democratic values – particularly from the United States, where President Donald Trump has inexhaustibly denigrated the press and cozied up to dictators such as Egyptian President Abdelfattah el-Sisi – has perpetuated the crisis. As authoritarians leveraged Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric to justify their actions – particularly in Egypt – the number of journalists jailed on “false news” charges steadily increased. This year, 34 journalists were jailed for “false news,” compared with 31 last year.

> Within the United States, no journalists were jailed at the time of CPJ’s prison census, but an unprecedented 110 journalists were arrested or criminally charged in 2020 and around 300 were assaulted, the majority by law enforcement, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. At least 12 still face criminal charges, some of which carry jail terms. Observers told CPJ that the polarized political climate, militarized law enforcement, and vitriol toward the media combined during a wave of protests to eradicate norms that once afforded journalists police protection.

But by all means keep believing in a black and white world.

The difference between authoritarian and democratic states is that CPJ wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. The very existence of a report which documents the actions against journalists wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. How hard is it to understand this ?

Even the most authoritarians of the states have inside groups who oppose them (from the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina, to Saddam in Iraq, to Putin in Russia, to Trump in America), the groups can be more or less tolerated in function on how dangerous they are perceived. See the treatment of the black panther movement and the communist party in America.

The narrative is created by powerful people usually with input of the state. Can you in all sincerity claim that the treatment of the Palestinians from the Israelis is not in the same league or even worst? And yet you dont hear anyone here talking about a genocide there and any criticism of Israel is swiftly called anti-Semitic.

Manufacturing consent, good old Chomsky was right, as usual.

Yes, an attempt is always made by powerful forces to create a narrative. But with CCP (or any successful authoritarian governments) there is no "alternative" view point at all. They are always right, and make no mistakes. I haven't and won't claim that Israelis are any better, but CCP does it against their own citizens time and again (Tibet) and CCP apologists, shills come out with "Everyone does it. There is no free press!" arguments. Yes, the state attempts to create a narrative, but authoritarian governments can hold on to a given narrative indefinitely, while democracies can potentially change policies over a period of time.

CPJ, based in New York. Such an organization would never be allowed to exist in China.

It is the likes of the CCP & Trump who would paint the world as black and white, i.e. you're either with me or against me. The rest of us acknowledge that press freedoms enable a spectrum of viewpoints.

But you just said in the previous comment than A) Journalists were not jailed in the west. B) Freedom of the press was a clear cut issue. I would love to see how your brain works.

Again, the organization you quoted would never be allowed to exist in China. Journalists are sometimes jailed, like any other person, they do not get exemption from breaking the law. They have significantly more latitude outside authoritarian countries.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2021

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