[Heisenberg]

Delete

[Wellsy]

I'm sorry but that is absolute non-sense. The officials in the video tell you that they detain adults for pre-crimes for indefinite periods of time until they deem them satisfactorily transformed.

I rewatched it and I think you're right it is an example of such a re-education camp people wee forced to attend. Though I admit being surprised that at the unscheduled/unannounced visit the reporter saw people leaving on buses. This is peculiar.
But I'll agree that it is an example of such a camp as I can't argue against the clarity in which these are adults forced to attend for erring close to’crimes’. I had thought they might be some of the children of parents in such camps as some seemed so young.

This is just counting beans. Hundreds of thousands and a million is potatoe, potato.

Indeed q quantity of something doesn't negate the quality of what it is. But my point here is only to emphasize my own view that the claim of over a million uighurs seems a speculative claim from Zenz which is widely reported. I acknowledge the forced re-education camps which target uighurs, but contest the amount as being inflated for sensationalism.

When people critic the west of introducing things to the indigenous populations during its colonialism they usually talk of 'genocide', especially when that is confirmed by infrastructure built for purpose.
In China all the hallmarks of state-sanctioned policy are present and multiple policies are explicitly targeting the Uyghur population.

Well you might remember my earlier post about why I find the use of genocide as a term sloppy unless it involves the killing of people or somehow the removal of a peoples existence i.e. Sterilization.
I even mentioned the Australian context of debates on genocide on wiki which stated a point of massacres and documents expressing an intention or want to destroy all indigenous. This distinct from the time of indigenous schools on missionary land when they had been subjugated as a threat and the rhetoric shifts to a paternalism to avoid their extinction.

You speak vaguely here just in the way the use of the term genocide as distinct from forced assimilation/cultural genocide. I affirm the later not the former. Your position I clues both former and after as far as I can tell.

Indeed they are targeting the population and hold anxiety over them as colonial subjects.

The intent is to reduce them and oppress them enough to render them totally subjugated. One way or another this never ends well. China does not seem intent at all on changing her anti-Uyghur policies anytime soon. While the leadership is proud of its work and wants to ramp it up.

Here your first sentence agrees with me and the point of forced assimilation. As distinct from genocide as mass murder or mass sterilization which I think is contentious in it's support of being a clear sign of trying to eradicate them. And subjugation would affirm my point of colonialism in that the Chinese seek to control them rather than utterly destroy them. If you agree with that much we are on a similar page except in specific details where I think you rely on unreliable sources as to the present extent of forced IUD implants and how many are forced into reeducation camps.
The latter or which shouldn't matter too much as you're right that a potato is still potato no matter how many you got.

Are you saying you recognise China's right to brutally subjugate the Uyghurs because of your white guilt?

No.
Thinking rather to your sense of their religious persecution possibly meaning their extermination as an ethnicity. To which I think how I'm not catholic despite my ancestors and that doesn't mean we're of separate ethnicities.
The point being religion and certain practices contributes to but isn't the essential part of what constitutes an ethnicity otherwise people from similar groups but different religions are different ethnicities. So it'd be nonsensical to say Christian uighurs or atheist uighurs.

This point doesn't detract from religious persecution. Only to further attack the idea of genocide as a destruction of a group being informed by such persecution. Oppressing peoples religion is a terrible harm and has even been recognized significantly enough that there are a lot of rights on religious grounds even for inmates in many countries as spiritual health and wellbeing is seen as vital rather than superflous.
But overall I don't think such targeting has the sense of being genocidal. Again, more like forcefully converting and suppressing alternatives like colonialists of the past.

So I agree with you now about the BBC video being an example of a reduction camp. I disagree that the sterilization denotes genocide against the Uighur and see it as simply the combination of Chinas repressive population control. I disagree in the amount of uighurs so far forced into camps as I think the higher figures are dramatic and arbitrary speculation.I also, if you happen to believe it, that religious persecution and oppression constitute evidence of genocide as opposed to being proof of forced assimilation, then I disagree.
This should be as explicit as I can outline my position at present.

I’ll state to be very clear that my criticism of the sloppy and sensationalist characterization of aspects of uighurs oppression doesn’t negate that China is indeed oppressing the uighurs and seeking to subjugate them.

And Ill add that the UN itself seems to denote that genocide isn’t simply cultural destruction on the very page of the definition that is being cited to claim genocide.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.

If this isn’t about killing people or sterilizing to eradicate a group, then it seems clear to me its not genocide. Maybe evidence latter will show as much but there aren’t strong hints other than onflating Chinas historically specific and oppressive population control for the nation as a whole.

In fact the difference of opinion on how the Chinese are treating the Uighur is itself reflected in the AP article.
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

“The intention may not be to fully eliminate the Uighur population, but it will sharply diminish their vitality,” said Darren Byler, an expert on Uighurs at the University of Colorado. “It will make them easier to assimilate into the mainstream Chinese population.”

Some go a step further.

“It’s genocide, full stop. It’s not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it’s slow, painful, creeping genocide,” said Joanne Smith Finley, who works at Newcastle University in the U.K. “These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population.”

I think this is basically the argument arising here. I don’t think there are tankies in this discussion saying China has done nothing wrong. But strong contention over genocide vs forced assimilation.

[AFAIK]

Around 400k sterilisations(330k+60k) took place in Xinjiang in a single year, Uyghur women of breeding age cannot be more than 3-4 million

Did you read the article you posted earlier?

Gulzia Mogdin was taken to a hospital after police found WhatsApp on her phone. A urine sample revealed she was two months pregnant with her third child. [Graphic description of the abortion authorities administered.] Months later, Mogdin made it back to Kazakhstan, where her husband lives.

“That baby was going to be the only baby we had together,” said Mogdin, who had recently remarried. “I cannot sleep. It’s terribly unfair.”

Uighurs are being limited to 2 children per women just as every other ethnic group in the country is. They're not receiving permanent and irreversible medical procedures in their teen's or twenty's .

[noemon]

Indeed q quantity of something doesn't negate the quality of what it is. But my point here is only to emphasize my own view that the claim of over a million uighurs seems a speculative claim from Zenz which is widely reported. I acknowledge the forced re-education camps which target uighurs, but contest the amount as being inflated for sensationalism.
You speak vaguely here just in the way the use of the term genocide as distinct from forced assimilation/cultural genocide. I affirm the later not the former. Your position I clues both former and after as far as I can tell.

I think this is basically the argument arising here. I don’t think there are tankies in this discussion saying China has done nothing wrong. But strong contention over genocide vs forced assimilation.

There is only a hairline between the 2 and they are not mutually exclusive either, that hairline is usually determined by the amount of state effort undertaken.

Roughly 400k sterilisations in a single year in Xinjiang combined with an apparatus of internment camps and a lack of recognition for Uyghur religious practice has all the hallmarks of a lot of state-effort being undertaken against the Uyghurs in particular.

The numbers are particularly potent. If this rate continues there will not be a single female in the Uyghur community capable to produce offspring in a few years.

Aside from that there is also the timing gap that by the time genocide is recognised by the international community it's already too late and that China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This is not some third-world country needing the benefit of the doubt.

But overall I don't think such targeting has the sense of being genocidal. Again, more like forcefully converting and suppressing alternatives like colonialists of the past.

The fact is that many colonialists of the past are considered genocidal.

And Ill add that the UN itself seems to denote that genocide isn’t simply cultural destruction on the very page of the definition that is being cited to claim genocide.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

It is not simply cultural destruction that is being undertaken by China.

The UN Definition:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I think everything except for condition 1 applies to what China is doing to the Uyghurs one way or another.

If this isn’t about killing people or sterilizing to eradicate a group, then it seems clear to me its not genocide. Maybe evidence latter will show as much but there aren’t strong hints other than onflating Chinas historically specific and oppressive population control for the nation as a whole.

But that is not true, the nation as a whole is being treated differently to Uyghurs, and this argument requires the compartmentalisation of everything else.

Uighurs are being limited to 2 children per women just as every other ethnic group in the country is. They're not receiving permanent and irreversible medical procedures in their teen's or twenty's .

If you have evidence of a list of the age groups of Uyghur women in China that have been specially treated, I'm sure we would all be very interested to see it.

You quoted the figure 390 thousand sterilisations in a single year in Xinjiang among a Uyghur female breeding group that cannot be more than 4 million in total.

A divorced woman being unable to have any children with her new husband due to already having 2 from the previous one does not dispute the statement you quoted in any way, nor does it make the case for China any better as it is proof that she is preventing new families from procreating.

[AFAIK]

I don't see how that adds up to cultural genocide since the same policy is enforced throughout China and applies to all ethnicities. Or are you no longer making that claim?

[Rich]

Pretty much sums up my suspicion that radical Islamic group is in the same evil camp as China.

No radical Islamists are in a completely different evil camp to the imperialist, racist, genocidal, expansionist aggressor Han national Socialists. Inside the borders of the greater Chinese Reich, I have no hesitation in giving my unconditional (but critical as the British Socialist Workers Party liked to say) support to both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

[Igor Antunov]

1 child policy only applies to han, not uighurs for 30 years. Uighur population doubles.

I got a formal document right here, read on...

I'm not out to belittle the treatment of people of any group anywhere. I think its wrong (unless absent of other working options) to target a specific group for radical enforcement, even if that group is statistically more prevalent in certain situations. The rampant terrorism necessitated a dramatic response that has borne fruit. Certainly far less dramatic than the Us response to islamic terrorism, yet far more effective without such loss of life. We know they are not being subject to special de-radicalisation programs because of their unique culture-The Hui have never been because they are not radicalized to any capacity. Therefore only islamic radicalism is being targeted, a tiny segment of any majority influenced Islamic society- not a people or a legitimate culture compatible with the modern world. Yes, standing by this is imperialism, china is trying to change a part of a culture-as is France, as is Sweden, as is Britain - but so is meddling in China to save the islamists. It's imperialism on a far greater scale. I'll take the side of the enlightened imperialists thanks very much.

And here it is, bleeding heart western liberals and neocons alike screaming mercy for Islamic extremism in China while they target and kill these groups on a global scale. SO TIRESOME.

90% of 10-13 year olds incarcerated in detention here in Australia are Aborigines. Aboriginal kids in this age group represent less than 5% of the population, yet almost exclusively form part of the child detention body. Obviously this is because they happen to come from broken families, arising from a broken system that not only enslaved this group, but made sure to isolate it after and hook it on the ruinous teet of state welfare. This is a very specific example of ongoing genocide as you all describe it with direct institutional proof vs hearsay regarding China.

Uighurs don't have it Aboriginal/Inuit/American native/african bad, they don't live as alcoholics on reservations or in urban slums. Their average life expectancy is not <60. I see no proof of this. (now bring out the old per capita demographic gdp figures and reconcile them with educational attainment, life expectancy and incarceration rate - I dare you.) They have never had it this bad under China. Quite the contrary. Their socio-economic situation has improved markedly. I like comparing the severity of such treatment in China vs how Canada and Australia - bastions of free and fair, the lucky countries - treat their minorities. Otherwise free of context even a dog farting in the wind in China can be construed as terrible treatment of the cat sitting nearby. The cat is oppressed by bad smells you see, and the dog is a CCP shill, hell bent on world domination.

PROOF:

China is about to make Xinjiang bloom and turn green with the great tibet-xinjiang water diversion project. A 1,000km tunnel from the plateau down into the Gobi desert. They just solved the earthquake problem. How malicious.



If India wants to conserve its access to these river systems maybe it should start by not dumping dead bodies and sewage into them. This is Chinese clean water flowing into India. It is India's to conserve, not dictate.

[Wellsy]

There is only a hairline between the 2 and they are not mutually exclusive either, that hairline is usually determined by the amount of state effort undertaken.

Roughly 400k sterilisations in a single year in Xinjiang combined with an apparatus of internment camps and a lack of recognition for Uyghur religious practice has all the hallmarks of a lot of state-effort being undertaken against the Uyghurs in particular.

The numbers are particularly potent. If this rate continues there will not be a single female in the Uyghur community capable to produce offspring in a few years.

Aside from that there is also the timing gap that by the time genocide is recognised by the international community it's already too late and that China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This is not some third-world country needing the benefit of the doubt.

You know what, after some reflection, I agree that the distinction is a hairline's difference and that whilst I think there is a distinction to be found in the idea of forced assimilation and one which outright rejects the prospect of assimilation and thinks that a people must be killed en masse, implicit in this is the holocaust, a particular western sense of the genocide which can delegitimize forms which simply aren't brutal in extent but are brutal none the less and still destructive of a people as there is a death in a cultural death when one is displaced from one's lands or torn away from the relations they once had with it and forced to conform to a lifestyle that isn't strictly their own.
So I'm going to state that I've changed my mind, the Chinese are committing genocide even though I do not think they're out to eradicate in terms of killing the Uighur, they are certainly destroying their way of life and what underpins it.

And whilst I am still skeptical at this point of whether CHina's brutal two-child policy and population control is really an effort to reduce their birth replacement rate to extinguish them as a people, nor am I confident that it isn't in fact being applied only to women who already have two children already, I do agree that if they're heading that way, inaction could be too late and there is already a significant problem in what is already occurring.
And no, I did not wish to give them some benefit of the doubt on their actions except to press against the sensationalism Zenz and the US. I have tried to express that whilst I am skeptical of some of the speculation of Zenz and find it wrong how many news articles parrot his points uncritically, that there is indeed a serious issue of how the Chinese is targeting and suppressing the Uighur.

The fact is that many colonialists of the past are considered genocidal.

Indeed, and I would say settler colonists are genocidal, I had focused solely on the fact of massacres in the case of Australia and the frontier violence for the US. But I now accept that genocide isn't measured by the holocaust.
I was always focused on colonialism going through stages although they aren't strict moments in that when I think of Australian history I think of a general period of warfare on the frontier and then the following period of assimilation once the people are subdued. But it's just moment in the broader process and the cultural destruction through such reeducation camps could be seen as just a finishing off of the initial conflict and destroying a peoples.

It is not simply cultural destruction that is being undertaken by China.

The UN Definition:

I think everything except for condition 1 applies to what China is doing to the Uyghurs one way or another.

Indeed, I think they do apply. I think a heavy focus on the implant of IUDs comes from the sense of genocide being about murder or physically destroying a people such as through not allowing them to reproduce entirely. I imagine many of us see it as simply extending a policy that whilst brutal already applies to the whole of China. But I think your emphasis is that even if China applies it as a whole, it as a policy in conjunction with other factors still add up to be genocidal in it's implications/effect.
We can even see the emphasis for marriages between the Han and Uighur to sort of 'breed' them out in the same way such ideologies showed themselves in Australia of trying to make the indigenous more 'white'.
Although I am less clear on how the CHinese are dealing with the children of the Uighur other than I thought they were forced to attend schools and be in the custody of the state while their parents were forced into reeducation camps.

But that is not true, the nation as a whole is being treated differently to Uyghurs, and this argument requires the compartmentalisation of everything else.

I think in regards to the two child policy, and sterilization of Chinese I don't yet see a distinction for the Uighur other than perhaps not being permanently sterilized compared to the Han Chinese in Henan with vasectamonies and the sort. And I'm not confident about it applying to all child bearing women across all ages in Uighur without regard for them already having children. Though I don't think it's impossible it is the case in the way the Chinese Other the Uigher and how they're already targeting them.

And a nice text that I think helps exemplify how one ‘kills’ a people while allowing people to remain alive.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520601056240

But just what kind of death is it that is involved in assimilation? The term “homicide,” for instance, combines the senses of killing and of humanity. So far as I know, when it comes to killing a human individual, there is no alternative to terminating their somatic career. Yet, when Orestes was arraigned before the Furies for the murder of his mother Clytemnestra, whom he had killed to avenge her murder of his father Agamemnon, he was acquitted on the ground that, in a patrilineal society, he belonged to his father rather than to his mother, so the charge of matricide could not stand. Now, without taking this legend too seriously, it nonetheless illustrates (as legends are presumably meant to) an important point. Orestes' beating the charge did not mean that he had not actually killed Clytemnestra. It meant that he had been brought before the wrong court (the Furies dealt with intra-family matters that could not be resolved by the mechanism of feud). Thus Orestes may not have been guilty of matricide, but that did not mean he was innocent. It meant that he might be guilty of some other form of illegal killing—one that could be dealt with by the blood-feud or other appropriate sanction (where his plea of obligatory revenge may or may not have succeeded). As in those languages where a verb is inflected by its object, the nature of a justiciable killing depends on its victim. There are seemingly absolute differences between, say, suicide, insecticide, and infanticide. The etymology of “genocide” combines the senses of killing and of grouphood. “Group” is more than a purely numerical designation. Genos refers to a denominate group with a membership that persists through time (Raphaël Lemkin translated it as “tribe”). It is not simply a random collectivity (such as, say, the passengers on a bus). Accordingly, with respect to Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan (concerning both the subtitle of their excellent collection and their reference, in this context, to 9/11), the strike on the World Trade Center is an example of mass murder but not, in my view, of genocide. Certainly, the bulk of the victims were US citizens. On the scale of the whole, however, not only was it an infinitesimal part of the group “Americans” (which, strictly, is not a consideration), but it was a one-off event.48 This does not mean that the perpetrators of 9/11 are not guilty. It means that a genocide tribunal is the wrong court to bring them before. Mass murders are not the same thing as genocide, though the one action can be both. Thus genocide has been achieved by means of summary mass murder (to cite examples already used) in the frontier massacring of Indigenous peoples, in the Holocaust, and in Rwanda. But there can be summary mass murder without genocide, as in the case of 9/11, and there can be genocide without summary mass murder, as in the case of the continuing post-frontier destruction, in whole and in part, of Indigenous genoi. Lemkin knew what he was doing when he used the word “tribe.”49 ...
Vital though it is, definitional discussion can seem insensitively abstract. In the preceding paragraph, part of what I have had in mind has, obviously, been the term (which Lemkin favoured) “cultural genocide.” My reason for not favouring the term is that it confuses definition with degree. Moreover, though this objection holds in its own right (or so I think), the practical hazards that can ensue once an abstract concept like “cultural genocide” falls into the wrong hands are legion. In particular, in an elementary category error, “either/or” can be substituted for “both/and,” from which genocide emerges as either biological (read “the real thing”) or cultural—and thus, it follows, not real. In practice, it should go without saying that the imposition on a people of the procedures and techniques that are generally glossed as “cultural genocide” is certainly going to have a direct impact on that people's capacity to stay alive (even apart from their qualitative immiseration while they do so). At the height of the Dawes-era assimilation programme, for instance, in the decade after Richard Pratt penned his Denver paper, Indian numbers hit the lowest level they would ever register.50 Even in contemporary, post-Native Title Australia, Aboriginal life expectancy clings to a level some 25% below that enjoyed by mainstream society, with infant mortality rates that are even worse.51 What species of sophistry does it take to separate a quarter “part” of the life of a group from the history of their elimination?

Clearly, we are not talking about an isolated event here. Thus we can shift from settler colonialism's structural complexity to its positivity as a structuring principle of settler-colonial society across time.

Perhaps as a continued ambivalence i’m still working through, there is a distinction to be retained between the logic of elimination of a colonialist society converging on genocide but genocide being an extended event in the whole of colonialism.
https://globalsocialtheory.org/thinkers/patrick-wolfe-2/

This logic of elimination often converges with but is not equivalent to genocide, Wolfe argues, because settler colonizers are only concerned with the destruction of indigenous societies to the extent that is required for the settler possession of the land. This is a key point because it helps to explain why societies founded on the elimination of indigeneity also can and do define and protect limited rights for indigenous people through the politics of recognition: cultural protections and individual rights are not equivalent to indigenous sovereignty, and indigenous subjects who are reliant on the state for survival are unlikely to challenge it for control of the land.

[Patrickov]

Inside the borders of the greater Chinese Reich, I have no hesitation in giving my unconditional (but critical as the British Socialist Workers Party liked to say) support to both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Sorry dude, I strongly disagree, as otherwise I will be beheaded by ISIL under the same terror as the CCP if not more.

I care who should do the work as much as whether and how the work is to be done.

[Rich]

Sorry dude, I strongly disagree, as otherwise I will be beheaded by ISIL under the same terror as the CCP if not more.

I care who should do the work as much as whether and how the work is to be done.

So I don't know your exact situation, but obviously I have the privilege of pontificating from my keyboard in a relatively prosperous, pretty peaceful western country. Even under lock down in Britain this is not fascism (or if it is, its a pretty tepid chamomile tea sort of fascism). I was part of a group a little while back told to disperse by the police. I just sat down and meditated, when I opened my eyes the police had fucked off. I'd probably be a little less "brave" if it was the Chinese authorities or Islamic State that were making the suggestions to move on.

In these conflicts innocent people will die, there's no escape from that reality. And I would certainly not morally demand that others give up their privileges when I'm certainly not keen to throw all of mine away willy-nilly.

[noemon]

You know what, after some reflection, I agree that the distinction is a hairline's difference and that whilst I think there is a distinction to be found in the idea of forced assimilation and one which outright rejects the prospect of assimilation and thinks that a people must be killed en masse, implicit in this is the holocaust, a particular western sense of the genocide which can delegitimize forms which simply aren't brutal in extent but are brutal none the less and still destructive of a people as there is a death in a cultural death when one is displaced from one's lands or torn away from the relations they once had with it and forced to conform to a lifestyle that isn't strictly their own.
So I'm going to state that I've changed my mind, the Chinese are committing genocide even though I do not think they're out to eradicate in terms of killing the Uighur, they are certainly destroying their way of life and what underpins it.

And whilst I am still skeptical at this point of whether CHina's brutal two-child policy and population control is really an effort to reduce their birth replacement rate to extinguish them as a people, nor am I confident that it isn't in fact being applied only to women who already have two children already, I do agree that if they're heading that way, inaction could be too late and there is already a significant problem in what is already occurring.
And no, I did not wish to give them some benefit of the doubt on their actions except to press against the sensationalism Zenz and the US. I have tried to express that whilst I am skeptical of some of the speculation of Zenz and find it wrong how many news articles parrot his points uncritically, that there is indeed a serious issue of how the Chinese is targeting and suppressing the Uighur.

That distills my own personal perception of the whole situation.

I think what China is doing to the Uyghurs is indeed a form of forced assimilation that may better be described as 'ethnicide' or even as 'genocide' under the strict UN definition.

I am of the opinion that the sheer size of the operation against the Uyghurs is eye-popping and that both the west and the international community have taken very long to even report on what is happening in China.

That only Adrian Zenz has bothered to search the Chinese archives(in the whole bloody planet!) is in itself a topic worthy of discussion.

Whatever happened to the woke, or to the academics or to the reporters? Nonsense for outrage occupy the airwaves while this has passed under the radar for the past years.

I think we truly are well inside an 'irrational age', making these conversations even more apt and important.

Lastly, I want to apologise if I came off brush earlier, I did not mean to imply something against you Wellsy.

I know that you are a gentleman, of the very few.

[Wellsy]

@noemon, no worries I haven't taken anything personally and understand that it is a tense topic with a lot of things entangled in it. And I certainly came to the thread with few preconceptions of what was actually occurring as I hadn't kept up with the news on the matter and only reflected on the subject in order to further engage in the discussion here.
So that results in me spontaneously pushing on the concept of genocide based on my sense of it as killing people per the holocaust. Then had to think of its connection to cultural genocide/settler colonialism and to what extent they overlapped. I have learned a fair bit just reflecting on that and found an interesting Australian thinker on the subject. This discussion has served me well in thinking more broadly of what constitutes genocide and thus take more serious things that need not be measured to the holocaust as an exemplar of genocide.

Having come to a similar position the only avenue I might speculate further might be what sort of response China's actions warrant. As I have become skeptical of foreign interventions and sanctions as not always being driven by concern for people but political interests. But this is a sad state as the idea of being principally opposed to interventions to stop wrongs is quite unsatisfying. But I am wary of the call to action in many circumstances and what prompts such agitation.
Where the fact of a thing may be true but the motives for believing it are somehow false.

What do you think would be the ideal pursuit against the Chinese on this if any?
I think many are concerned about the increasing tensions between the US and Chinese governments and what it'll mean for ourselves and the world.
I haven't a clear opinion on what to think.

[Wellsy]

Looks like there may be some attempt to rally against China.
[url]m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20210215000887[/url]

[Igor Antunov]

That distills my own personal perception of the whole situation.
That only Adrian Zenz has bothered to search the Chinese archives(in the whole bloody planet!) is in itself a topic worthy of discussion.

Oh sure, he 'bothered' but trust me it's a very short discussion as to why he bothered:


The British government paid him to pull shit out of thin air, given the lack of evidence behind those 'findings' he produced. But he bothered, that's all that counts. Now his 'findings' can be 'formalized' by more charlatans.

[Patrickov]

What do you think would be the ideal pursuit against the Chinese on this if any?

I cannot think of any method which is effective (sanctions are certainly not)
but without undesirable adverse effect (war would mean a win for countries like Russia and India, which IMHO are not too much better)

To put things into perspective, even if China is a free country this will exist in some form.
The Israelites' treatment on the Palestinians is the best example.
Also, just see how Aung San Suu Ki remains popular in Myanmar despite her administration's persecution against the Rohingyas.

The Chinese are only to be despised because they are equally cruel to whoever against them regardless of race.
Both Taiwan and Hong Kong are ethnically identical to the majority of China,
but the Xi Jinping administration is probably eager to annihilate us if the situation calls for it.
After all, the total population of Hong Kong + Taiwan is only about one third of the Communist Party,
which means they do not even have to move other people to fill the gap (as happened plentily throughout the history of China)

[noemon]

Looks like there may be some attempt to rally against China.
[url]m.koreaherald.com/amp/view.php?ud=20210215000887[/url]

Boycotting the Chinese factories in Xinjiang that could be using forced Uyghur labor is a step in the right direction.

This is interesting, a good way to put pressure on China and regardless only good can come of it.

I believe that only economic pressure is available as a policy. Some formula needs to be found to encourage the repatriation of western production lines from China to areas closer to where consumption takes place.

[Istanbuller]

Boycotting the Chinese factories in Xinjiang that could be using forced Uyghur labor is a step in the right direction.

This is interesting, a good way to put pressure on China and regardless only good can come of it.

I believe that only economic pressure is available as a policy. Some formula needs to be found to encourage the repatriation of western production lines from China to areas closer to where consumption takes place.

What will you achieve with boycotting?

[noemon]

What will you achieve with boycotting?

Putting pressure for the anti-Uyghur policies to stop, repatriating production lines, and setting standards for access in western markets.

[skinster]

Putting pressure for the anti-Uyghur policies to stop, repatriating production lines, and setting standards for access in western markets.

And there I was thinking you were just concerned about the Uighurs. Does this have to do with you buying meat or whatever it was for cheaper for your company?

[Istanbuller]

Putting pressure for the anti-Uyghur policies to stop, repatriating production lines, and setting standards for access in western markets.

I don’t see any possibility that it can succeed. It may anger China more.

China doesn’t need Western markets. Domestic market is large enough to make China the number one economy. Chinese economy creates surpluses which is a sign of healthy economy.