- 10 Feb 2021 16:52
#15156039
Sure if you wish to call it genocide. I think its a bit sloppy if one thinks of destruction of a culture compared to mass murdering of a people in order to eliminate them as opposed to subdue them.
Although I guess this is also contingent on how one considers the coercive measures of population control also. Which are pretty brutal but as I see it tend to be generalized to all demographics as prt of Chinas repressive population control which seems to have some support of the goal even if criticism of the methods.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232678774.pdf
Although this could’ve changes.
And it does seem that China changed its policy towards ethnic minorities to be stricter and on par with the majority Han Chinese.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4881898/china-xinjiang-uighur-children/%3Famp%3Dtrue
As part of their ‘ethnic equality’.
This is also touched upon in the AP article of the shift in policy.
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
Now considering the last paragraph, it is interesting the statistics emphasize massive sterilization in Hanan where a lot of Han Chinese are.
But as nasty as this is, it still requires to go further to denote that the Ughyer are particularly targeted in such a policy in a massive disparity. It is claimed but on the face of it, one has to differentiate the policy and so far it seems asserted but not shown, particularly if it relies on errors like Zenz's
To which my impression is that many roads then lead to Adrian Zenz, who regardless of his background, needs to be considered on the terms of what he asserts.
To which the major criticism I see asserted is an inflated statistic by shifting decimal point.
Zenz's source
https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Sterilizations-IUDs-and-Mandatory-Birth-Control-FINAL-27June.pdf
The citation
https://web.archive.org/web/20200712091001/https://s2.51cto.com/oss/201912/05/1822362d5f7ccc8ff5d87ecdba23e64c.pdf
The interpretation someone made was:
So if this statistic is the strongest evidence in regards to forced sterilization of Ughyer's in Xingjian, then Zenz made a significant error which undermines the speculated results of how many were actually sterilized via IUDs.
And I don't read any Chinese dialect, so someone might be able to clarify the source differently.
Also if we can't trust the Chinese governments reporting of the statistics, then we similarly have no grounds for Zenz's claim which cites such a source. Wikipedia itself isn't a source although a good starting point to find the source. Luckily others have been scrutinizing so that we can only scrutinize them rather than have to do all the leg work.
Obviously his work would need to be considered as a whole but I think a lot of critics are right in pointing out that many of the sources all lead back to Zenz primarily among a few others to back their claims. So really need to argue Zenz and whether his work is really that significant. To which the points about his character/credibility as part of the victims of communism and such does not paint a favourable light even though it don't dismiss him outright as wrong. As credibility is of course important but not the final say. One establishes credibility in alls sorts fo ways otherwise why listen to someone?
I am open to it being valid to call it genocide although I think it is still a crappy term if one means cultural genocide destruction. Although I reiterate that the killing or erasure of an actual peoples, not their culture would be prompted by the significance given to the sterilizations. To which there does seem to be some basis to be skeptical of the scale in which it is reported to be on and that the Uygher's are being target in regards to sterilization any more than the rest of the Chinese population.
And again this I think is where the genocide term is sloppy in that this can readily be interpreted either in the mass murder of the people or as the destruction of the culture which underpins them as an ethnicity. Which does seem te be a more viable case for in that I do think China is likely engaging in a form of colonialism. BUt not in terms of Gulags and forced labor camps as much as something comparable to the indigenous schools in western colonies like the US and Australia. The whole 'civilize the barbaric' but in this case a different twist of assimilating to the state and to undermine separatistm.
Indeed, capital has so thoroughly fractured the social fabric that there exists less of a basis for groups to unify around than previously. Only a shift to relations of solidarity could repair such damage in resisting the intrusion of markets into everyday life.
I think it'll be hard to undermine China also and agree with a comment someone else made where it'll be like Tibet, largely ignored and resigned to recognizing China's rule there.
I would also add that I am sympathetic to @Heisenberg characterization of the BBC documentary as looking a lot like a boarding school and many of the examples offered really sounding much like expectations around education in the west. Like having to send your kids to school or suffer legal consequences, wearing uniforms (in the US its not common but in Australia, I wore school uniforms my entire schooling until university). The piece seems to assume the airs of control where the appearance is disagreeable to one's belief of what it is characterized by. But to dismiss entirely appearances is not to properly explain them and resort only to speculation. I do not value the eschewing of appearances but that which can better explain them, such is the development of a scientific understanding that one better situates the facts in relation to one another.
At present, the facts aren't as damning as the rhetoric.
And this I don't think in itself denies the discriminatory attitudes and colonial interests of China in the region but just that this doesn't provide the damning case of it.
noemon wrote:China's cultural genocide against the Uyghurs is quite rather obvious by all measures.
Genocide per se within the strict UN definition is also evidently arguable.
Sure if you wish to call it genocide. I think its a bit sloppy if one thinks of destruction of a culture compared to mass murdering of a people in order to eliminate them as opposed to subdue them.
Although I guess this is also contingent on how one considers the coercive measures of population control also. Which are pretty brutal but as I see it tend to be generalized to all demographics as prt of Chinas repressive population control which seems to have some support of the goal even if criticism of the methods.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232678774.pdf
While Chinese citizens experience constraints on their reproductive freedom through family planning programs, most recognize the need for policies that keep the population in check.3 4 Public acceptance of the need to reduce the population tend to legitimize the government's use of coercion to attain population
t 346 targets, and resistance would probably only raise the level of coercion. While some level of coercion seems to be evident from various reports, the extent of such is difficult to ascertain.
...
345. LEE & FENG, supra note 24, at 133.
The need for some kind of family planning policy is so widely accepted that during the spring of 1989, when millions of Chinese took to the streets of Beijing and elsewhere to voice their dissatisfaction with the government over a wide variety of political and social issues, virtually none of the criticism was aimed at the family planning policY.
Although this could’ve changes.
And it does seem that China changed its policy towards ethnic minorities to be stricter and on par with the majority Han Chinese.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4881898/china-xinjiang-uighur-children/%3Famp%3Dtrue
As part of their ‘ethnic equality’.
This is also touched upon in the AP article of the shift in policy.
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world, with teh Uighurs and others getting more points on college entrace exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions. Under CHina's now-abandoned 'one child' policy, the authorites had long encoruaged, often forced contraceptives, sterilization and abortion on Han Chinese. But minorities were allowed two children - three if they came from the countryside.
Under President Xi Jinping, China’s most authoritarian leader in decades, those benefits are now being rolled back. In 2014, soon after Xi visited Xinjiang, the region’s top official said it was time to implement “equal family planning policies” for all ethnicities and “reduce and stabilize birth rates.” In the following years, the government declared that instead of just one child, Han Chinese could now have two, and three in Xinjiang’s rural areas, just like minorities.
But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law.
Now considering the last paragraph, it is interesting the statistics emphasize massive sterilization in Hanan where a lot of Han Chinese are.
But as nasty as this is, it still requires to go further to denote that the Ughyer are particularly targeted in such a policy in a massive disparity. It is claimed but on the face of it, one has to differentiate the policy and so far it seems asserted but not shown, particularly if it relies on errors like Zenz's
To which my impression is that many roads then lead to Adrian Zenz, who regardless of his background, needs to be considered on the terms of what he asserts.
To which the major criticism I see asserted is an inflated statistic by shifting decimal point.
Zenz's source
https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Sterilizations-IUDs-and-Mandatory-Birth-Control-FINAL-27June.pdf
By 2019, Xinjiang planned to subject at least 80 percent of women of childbearing age in the rural southern four minority prefectures to intrusive birth prevention surgeries (IUDs or sterilizations), with actual shares likely being much higher. In 2018, 80 percent of all new IUD placements in China were performed in Xinjiang, despite the fact that the region only makes up 1.8 percent of the nation’s population.
...
These findings provide the strongest evidence yet that Beijing’s policies in Xinjiang meet one of the genocide criteria cited in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely that of Section D of Article II: “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the [targeted] group” (United Nations, December 9, 1948).
...
[38] Source: 2015 and 2019 Health and Hygiene Statistical Yearbooks, table 8-8-2.
The citation
https://web.archive.org/web/20200712091001/https://s2.51cto.com/oss/201912/05/1822362d5f7ccc8ff5d87ecdba23e64c.pdf
The interpretation someone made was:
The relevant column is 放置节育器例数, the number of IUD's implanted. We have a total 总计 of 3.8 million, with Xinjiang 新疆 accounting for 328,475. Thus 8.7% of China's IUD's occurred in Xinjiang.
(A side note, but what really stands out about this table is not Xinjiang but Henan. In all of China, 86% of vasectomies and 26% of tubal litigations happened in Henan. Unlike IUD's, these are real sterilization procedures that cannot be reversed.)
So if this statistic is the strongest evidence in regards to forced sterilization of Ughyer's in Xingjian, then Zenz made a significant error which undermines the speculated results of how many were actually sterilized via IUDs.
And I don't read any Chinese dialect, so someone might be able to clarify the source differently.
Also if we can't trust the Chinese governments reporting of the statistics, then we similarly have no grounds for Zenz's claim which cites such a source. Wikipedia itself isn't a source although a good starting point to find the source. Luckily others have been scrutinizing so that we can only scrutinize them rather than have to do all the leg work.
Obviously his work would need to be considered as a whole but I think a lot of critics are right in pointing out that many of the sources all lead back to Zenz primarily among a few others to back their claims. So really need to argue Zenz and whether his work is really that significant. To which the points about his character/credibility as part of the victims of communism and such does not paint a favourable light even though it don't dismiss him outright as wrong. As credibility is of course important but not the final say. One establishes credibility in alls sorts fo ways otherwise why listen to someone?
That China is not at nazi-level industrial scale genocide(nobody other than Heisenberg has used Nazi-terminology in here) does not mean that the term 'genocide' is unwarranted or that it is in any way dangerous to use. Fun fact for your Heisenberg, you don't have to be a Nazi copy-cat to do genocide.
Some inmates go home from the camps, nobody claimed otherwise. I have honestly lost count of how many strawmen you have made Heisenberg. Your comment about the BBC demonstrates that the documentary is not biased in any way, shape, or form.
I am open to it being valid to call it genocide although I think it is still a crappy term if one means cultural genocide destruction. Although I reiterate that the killing or erasure of an actual peoples, not their culture would be prompted by the significance given to the sterilizations. To which there does seem to be some basis to be skeptical of the scale in which it is reported to be on and that the Uygher's are being target in regards to sterilization any more than the rest of the Chinese population.
Chinese policy is holistic, it involves a wide variety of measures in order to wipe out the Uyghur group as a distinct ethnic-group within China.
And again this I think is where the genocide term is sloppy in that this can readily be interpreted either in the mass murder of the people or as the destruction of the culture which underpins them as an ethnicity. Which does seem te be a more viable case for in that I do think China is likely engaging in a form of colonialism. BUt not in terms of Gulags and forced labor camps as much as something comparable to the indigenous schools in western colonies like the US and Australia. The whole 'civilize the barbaric' but in this case a different twist of assimilating to the state and to undermine separatistm.
The "west" can barely order its own factories to move away from China let alone intervene in any way.
Calling a spade a spade merely put minor pressure on China to change her ways and hopefully make China stop torturing these poor people, that in my view is the bare minimum people can do.
Indeed, capital has so thoroughly fractured the social fabric that there exists less of a basis for groups to unify around than previously. Only a shift to relations of solidarity could repair such damage in resisting the intrusion of markets into everyday life.
I think it'll be hard to undermine China also and agree with a comment someone else made where it'll be like Tibet, largely ignored and resigned to recognizing China's rule there.
I would also add that I am sympathetic to @Heisenberg characterization of the BBC documentary as looking a lot like a boarding school and many of the examples offered really sounding much like expectations around education in the west. Like having to send your kids to school or suffer legal consequences, wearing uniforms (in the US its not common but in Australia, I wore school uniforms my entire schooling until university). The piece seems to assume the airs of control where the appearance is disagreeable to one's belief of what it is characterized by. But to dismiss entirely appearances is not to properly explain them and resort only to speculation. I do not value the eschewing of appearances but that which can better explain them, such is the development of a scientific understanding that one better situates the facts in relation to one another.
At present, the facts aren't as damning as the rhetoric.
And this I don't think in itself denies the discriminatory attitudes and colonial interests of China in the region but just that this doesn't provide the damning case of it.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
-For Ethical Politics
- By ingliz
- By Skynet
- By Tainari88