this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
777 points (93.2% liked)
Political Memes
5510 readers
1341 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.
Genocide apologists will say "The UN did not call it a genocide," or even stronger, "The UN determined it is not a genocide." The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.
Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?
That's because OP wasn't talking about general "crimes against humanity". They're making the specific, and significantly stronger claim, of "genocide".
Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?
So you're saying that instead of addressing the issue at hand you want to start with a premise of "China bad." and just go from there. Great.
Twas a yes or no question
And all through the house
Not a tankie was answering,
Not even right now
That's not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?
It wasn't the topic of the thread and it's not germane to the question of evidence.
It is, at best, a distraction.
No, it's not.
My points were twofold. First, to find out if we could find some common ground. Second, to find out if you actually care about sources and evidence, or judge them retroactively based on whether or not you like the conclusions.
The latter makes the conversation a non-starter, because even within a single report, you'll interpret it in different ways. Within the very constrained lens of not containing the word genocide, to you, it ought to be sufficient. When it comes to crimes against humanity, you don't want to talk about it, start attacking, and dismiss it as "a distraction." On the prior point, I hope that your frustration comes from some doubt within you, causing you discomfort. Keep pulling on that thread.
Good luck with everything. I hope things get better going forward.
Yes, it is.
Your claim of looking for common ground is bullshit. According to the Rome statue, crimes against humanity consist of systemic cases of:
There are plenty of claims that China is practicing these but a glaring lack of evidence.
If you actually wanted to find common ground on that list we could start looking at the biggest perpetrators. A few that stand out is that "enslavement" has a specific exception in the US constitution. It's conveniently tied to prisoners, of which we have the largest number in the world. Or you might look at our allies, who continue to practice both apartheid and murder.
No. You want to stake an other unsupported claim as "common ground."
The point about common ground was to give you a clear opportunity to present your position and intentions. I had my assumptions, but didn't want to unfairly ascribe them to you. It turns out I was right, unfortunately, but as a matter of difference between us, I wanted to address what you actually think, feel, and say. I would appreciate it if you did the same, but you haven't so far.
So to address another position you ascribed to me: I can easily aknowledge that the US is complicit in genocide, war crimes, slavery, and other crimes against humanity, and has been throughout its history. That does not mean the US has a monopoly on evil. That kind of campism is silly.
I've had a remarkably similar conversation to this a while back, except the topic was Palestine, and the other user was a hardcore Zionist. It literally began when I said, word for word, "killing civilians is bad." To paraphrase the rest:
"So it's bad when Hamas kills Israeli civilians?"
"Of course. Is it bad when Israel kills Palestinian civilians?"
Then the same kind of argument followed. Deflections, straw men, selective interpretation and acknowledgement of evidence, personal attacks... the works. It doesn't matter what the protesters say or do, or how many of the protestors are Jews; they're pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic. Any source supporting Israel is valid, anything condemning them is fake news. I was an idiot, I was the one arguing in bad faith... you know. That kind of stuff.
I don't know you, or what's in your heart. I hope that the aggression is coming from discomfort rooted in a sense of doubt, which I can also hope you pursue. You can believe me or not—so far, you haven't—but I really mean it when I say I hope you have a better go of things from here on out. If the nature of this conversation changes, I'm here, but if it doesn't, then it's run its course.
No one needs a monopoly on evil. That would absolutely be silly. I'm also not making any claims that it's good to kill civilians. It's bad whoever does it.
What I am arguing against is blatant hypocrisy. If there's some standard to which we want to hold China then we should be clear what that standard is, what level of evidence we require to establish a violation of the standards and hold everyone to those same levels.
It's ridiculous to claim that China is conducting a genocide on hearsay and circumstantial evidence when that's not the norm. It's absurd to advocate for the isolation of some nations when we're perfectly happy to deal with other nations that do worse, especially when the US does worse itself. It's just dumb to assume that everyone who doesn't buy a paper thin body of evidence is a fascist.
It's not aggression, it's anger. I'll tell you exactly where it's coming from. All my life I've been taught that racism is evil. I've been taught that we should require primary sources when making claim. I've been taught that when people consistently jump to conclusions about a group of people it's almost certainly a form of latent racism.
I see these posts as a new flavor of Yellow Peril. I see the same BS that people use to excuse the mistreatment of other minorities in the US.
Of course, I think it's undeniable that there's anti-Chinese racism, and it can play into attacks on China, especially from the right. The thing is, my criticisms of China are things that I hate about the US and its allies. It's not that China is some strange, unique evil. On the contrary, they're similar.
In another comment, you talked about how genocide requires mass killings, but I wouldn't limit it to that (nor would the UN). And yes, that makes the US complicit. The genocide of Native Americans didn't stop with murder, but included stealing children to "reeducate" them. The eugenecist movement sterilized women without so much as their knowledge, much less their consent—and they were predominantly Black, Asian, and Native American. The Tuskeegee experiments also left people sterilized, and that's just part of how it ruined and ended lives. Obviously we've seen "Islamic extremism" used as an excuse to demonize Muslims in general, ignore material conditions that lead to violent resistance, and justify brutal repression.
We've already talked about evidence, and I don't know what to tell you. You also said that you don't trust any citation in the Wikipedia article, so that's cutting out sources I would absolutely lend weight: the UN, the Asspociated Press, Reuters, academic journals... and if your response to the UN report isn't "technically this would mean it's ethnocide," then I don't think we're going to have a productive conversation.
A while back, I read an article by Dara Horn about the failures of Holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism. One point that really struck a chord with me was that Holocaust education focuses too much on the "They were just like us" angle. Jews weren't oppressed for their similarities, but their differences. To focus on the similarities to conemn their oppression carries with it the implication that, if people are different, it's okay, and the more different they are, the more you can justify hate and oppression.
So imagine my disappointment when I read an article of hers condemning student protests. She repeated the lie about "From the river to the sea (Palestine will be free)" being a genocidal slogan. She juxtaposed it with antisemitic attacks, implying a connection. She denied that it was a genocide, which would of course justify demonstrations. She praised cracking down on student protests in general. She mournfully talked about overlooking Harvard, disappointed that the school she went to was awash in antisemitism, and all I could think was... Harvard is still standing, Gaza is in ruins.
Is the treatment of Uyghurs the same as the treatment of Palestinians? No, not as far as I can tell. It's just that that isn't the threshold. The genocide of Palestinians doesn't only slightly cross the line. And while both antisemitism and sinophobia are undeniably real, have lead to attacks and oppression, and color some of the criticisms of Israel and China, that doesn't represent real criticisms of states, not people. And those criticisms aren't new, they are familiar. It's the banality of evil. It's capitalist empires doing what capitalist empires do.
The original post claimed that anyone who doesn't believe in a Uyghur genocide is a fascist. That's a very specific and extreme position. Even just redefining it as, "ethnogenocide" or "cultural genocide" is shifting the goalposts. They're not even clearly defined terms. If I accuse someone of murder without evidence, it's pretty sketchy of me to then say, "Well, can you at least admit that you've committed some crimes?"
If we're going to discuss a new claim that claim should also be supported by evidence. There's extensive literature on the importance of primary sources when analyzing history or current events. Wikipedia and various media outlets can be excellent resources for initial overviews on a topic but they're not primary sources. It's often difficult to find primary sources, particularly for current and recent events and that just means that claims on the topic aren't supported by evidence. These are all great first approximations but when there's any doubt, primary sources are what ultimately count.
So what do we actually know about the Xinjiang and the Uyghurs?
We can start with the easy ones.
China includes Uyghur text on its currency. That's a pretty cheap thing to do but it's a pretty strange decision if you're trying to suppress a culture. It's easy to verify though.
China has a staggering number of mosques. They're all over the country and it's easy to find Halal food. Xinjiang itself has more mosques than all of Europe and North America combined. There is some controversy here. There are a lot of claims that China is actively reducing the number of mosques. China claims that it's just doing renovations and demolishing unsafe structures. We've all seen what satellite pictures of destroyed buildings look like. We often get them of locations in active war zones. Why don't we have those for Xinjiang? Mosques are also easy to see from space so we can see that they're still there. It doesn't prove lack of intent but it's strange to leave all those religious centers for a culture they're trying to erase.
Xinjian has experience multiple terrorist attacks per year for decades. This is also easily verified. It obviously doesn't justify human rights abuses but it clearly warrants some preventative action. Every nation responds to terrorists in some way, so a critique of a particular response really should provide at least a suggestion for a better one.
China mandates quality of life protocols for inmates who are incarcerated as part of their terrorism prevention practices. We know this because it says so in the "Xinjiang Cables" which Adrian Zenz published as part of his claims about a Uyghur Genocide.
China is making massive infrastructure investments in Xinjiang. It's a key location for the belt and road initiative. If we had any doubt we could just look at all the new construction on satellite images. The effects are harder to verify. China claims that GDP growth in Xinjiang actually exceeds that of the rest of China and independent estimates agree. It's even harder to know how to interpret this. The negative interpretations are either that the wealth is primarily accruing to non-Uyghurs, ie Han, or that the increase wealth itself is a form of cultural genocide. The second seems patently ridiculous. A large wealth increase will obviously change a culture but not in the "genocide" direction." We don't really know how much of that wealth is going to Uyghurs vs Han in Xinjiang but we certainly don't have any evidence that Uyghurs are being economically harmed.
China has mandated that classes be taught in Mandarin. This isn't disputed. It's often cited as evidence of cultural genocide but it's a fairly standard practice. The US is a bit unusual in that it's one of 9 countries that don't have an official language. While language can be an important part of cultural identity it's also an important tool for social interaction. The reason there are so many people who speak English as a second language (or primary language in lieu of their mother tongue) is that it provides significant economic advantages. The same holds true for Mandarin, particularly for people living in China. That's not the same as suppressing Uyghur though. You can find numerous images of publicly displayed Uyghur writing in Xinjiang.
The strongest evidence in support of human rights abuses is from eyewitness testimony. The problem is that we can't generally verify any of it. The explanation is generally that we need to protect their anonymity for the safety of family members who are still in China. That might be true or it might not be. We can't tell. We do have numerous Muslim leaders who have visited Xinjiang and then provided positive and public assessments of the treatment of Uyghurs. The value of confidential informants is in breaking a story, not in supporting it. That requires verifiable sources and the vast majority of the verifiable reporting supports China's version of the situation. In this case I'm using "verifiable" simply to mean that we can check who made the claim and that they actually made the claim, not the stronger requirement of being able to verify that the claim was true.
So in light of all this, what exactly is the "ethnocide" or "cultural genocide" that China is supposedly conducting? What can we confidently point at and say, "We're sure this is happening and it's clear evidence of human rights abuses."