noemon wrote:That is false because the argument is not that your ad-hom makes your "argument" wrong. It's that you have no argument other than the ad-hom. And an argument is required indeed, such as for example citing figures that prove the figures cited to be wrong.
The figures are very unlikely to be correct, simply because Zenz has a history of fabricating figures. However, see if you can follow along.
Zenz claims to be measuring the delta in birth rates and arguing that this shows that the Uiygher are being systematically eradicated. This is not what the numbers show.
For example, assume Xinjiang has 5 children per mother, and a typical Chinese province has 1.2 children per mother.
If the law starts getting enforced in hypothetical Xinjiang, and the average birth rate goes from 5 to 3, while the birth rate naturally declines in the rest of China (which has already had the birth laws enforced for decades) from 1.2 to 1.16, which group of people had the greater decline in birth rates? The Uiyghers, an almost 80% decline!
Yet, which group of people has a higher birth rate overall? Still the Uiyghers, more than double the average!
Uiygher populations in China and Xinjiang are growing faster
than the national average, and faster than
the Xinjiang average for non-Uiygher. The numbers do not demonstrate what Zenz wants them to demonstrate. Even if Uiyghers have had a greater decline in birth rates, they still outpace non-Uiygher populations.
Forcible boarding schools are called internment camps. Boarding schools are not forcible in any country in the world and not even in China unless you 're a Uighur.
Chinese education, like education in many parts of the world, is compulsary. Parents do not have a right to refuse to send their children to school, though they do have the right to pay for private education.
Rural parts of China do not tend to have markets large enough to support many private education institutions. You still have to send the children to school, despite a lack of options.
Boarding schools are common place in China. I teach at one myself. Half of all rural secondary students in China attend a public boarding school, and 15% of all rural primary school students do as well. In urban areas, the numbers drop to about 20% and 4%.
It is, quite simply, a cultural difference between China and the West. Boarding schools are popular. In order to more effectively concentrate resources, rural areas in China, regardless of ethnic group, tend to use boarding schools. They centralize the school in a small accessible city, and rural parents, especially those working in other areas or otherwise unavailable, send their children to these centers.
Xinjiang is no different. The big difference is that many parents are themselves, thanks to China's overzealous data driven anti-terrorism campaign, are sent to vocational centers / internment camps themselves. Without parents at home, the only option for many children is to attend a boarding school.
Yes, China engages in state-sanctioned atheism and prohibits religious proselytization to minors.
This isn't a targeted action against Uiyghers, but consistent behavior across the whole of China which precludes it being a genocidal action.
But if China did not send these kids to school and gave them special exemptions, they'd be equally criticized. The Western position is simply impossible to satisfy. If you teach the children, you're seperating them. If you don't, you're alienating and isolating them from their peers and sending them down a path of lifetime poverty. If you teach them in Uiygher, you're denying them linguistic skills they need to succeed in the Chinese economy. If you teach them in Chinese, you are erasing their heritage. It's all ridiculous.
wat0n wrote:Very interesting. Do you believe Xi's stance may signal a shift in the works for the long run?
Depends. He's a populist, and popular with the people and less popular with the establishment. He's a more competent, less bombastic Trump, but from a similar ideological place. If he can outmaneuver the Politburo and fill it with loyalists, then he might have more autonomy in the future - but even then, it is hard to say whether he'd change course significantly. Xi has accomplished a lot of his goals - China today is a very different place from ten years ago, even internationally, and he may not want to mess with what is clearly working for him.
I think you could try it if you want. The problem is that the difference between LATAM managers and American ones is fairly notable. I can actually compare now.
Politically, Latin America is not all that stable either.
I've lived in Cambodia and Costa Rica for a year each before. I know the difference in lifestyles and expectations. We're not planning on starting a family, for example, which makes this decision easier. This region also has a lot of opportunities opening up, especially for us as we're fluent in English, Spanish, and Chinese (well, I'm working on Chinese and she's outpacing me on Spanish).