Manufacturing Consent: On Way Out, Pompeo Says Chinese Treatment of Uyghers is 'Genocide' - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15151288
ness31 wrote:From your reply it sounds as though China tries hard to accommodate religious observance in order to give the pretense of functioning pluralism.


Sometimes they try, sometimes they don't. It depends on the local government, whether the mayor has ambitions, or whether the Politburo got its feelings hurt last week by something mean the other powers said.

The problem with Western policy on China is that it's very "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Over the last couple years this has led to China increasingly being like "fuck it, the West is going to shit on us no matter what we do, may as well do what we want." If the West had been a little more consistent in its critiques, the liberalization of the 2000s-2015 could have probably continued - but so be it.

ness31 wrote:But I guess my query (which was quite vague) was more, do they have national pride in their religious customs? Would they show Taoism favour over others? Do they have that capacity?
I’d have thought that was one of the perks of being a superpower with a rich cultural history


Xi has made this a part of his populist appeal, and there has been a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture in the last ten years.
#15151294
Fasces wrote:Why? Why is it excusable for the US/NATO to bomb Iraq, but inexcusable for China to round up Uiyghers?

Dead is dead, Ahmed doesn't care that the drone that took out his village was piloted by a guy with Freedom!!! anymore than he cares the bullet that shot him in the head was fired a filthy commie conscript.


Because of the reason you mentioned as to why China is rounding the Uyghurs up: It's aiming to stabilize its borders, and if it treats its own citizens like that then what will happen when it decides its borders are stable and that it wants to play a much more active role abroad? What will happen when one or more recipients of its loans decide they want to default on them? What would happen if some of its neighbors begin to push back against the Belt and Road initiative for whatever reason or if they have overlapping territorial claims with China?

Is it that surprising that some people want to nip it in the bud?

Fasces wrote:China has demonstrated a willingness to act and sacrifice in the face of crisis over the last year, and is largely through the worst of it - even experiencing economic growth despite the worst global recession since 1929. The West has absolutely floundered. It's politics are more divided than before, in Europe and North America. It's wealth inequality has spiraled. It will get worse and worse as the climate crisis does, bringing with it refugees, resource scarcity, and other challenges.


Are these issues a permanent fixture of the West or will they eventually pass like they have in the past? I think the West has shown it can live up to crises much worse than this pandemic. Current westerners have had it easy compared to their grandparents and great-grandparents.

Fasces wrote:China is a world leader in green technologies, and is actively taking steps to improve its environmental record - while countries like Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have actively regressed over the last five years. Yes, they are still in a bad place, but I think they're positioning themselves well for the future, with more planning and united effort than any Western state.


But China is also heavily dependent on industrial activities (these being mining (includes oil), manufacturing, electricity/gas/water production and construction). They represent 39% of its GDP, for the sake of comparison, industrial activities represent 18.6% of the US' GDP, 17.4% of France's, 21.4% of Italy's, 26.7% of Germany's, 17.7% of the UK's, 20.5% of Spain's, 25.4% of Australia's, 23.3% of Canada's, 17.9% of Brazil's and 30.9% of Mexico's (I'm not going to count South Korea and Japan as Western countries, if you do, industrial activities represent a greater share of their GDP than for large Western economies but not as much as for China's). As such, China is more exposed than these other countries, and it is natural it will do anything it can to develop clean energies - its economy stands more to lose otherwise.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV ... _desc=true
https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/indus ... dded-gdp-0
#15151295
wat0n wrote:It's aiming to stabilize its borders, and if it treats its own citizens like that then what will happen when it decides its borders are stable and that it wants to play a much more active role abroad?


I don't think it has an interest in acting the same way internationally as it does within its own borders, for a whole host of cultural reasons. It doesn't have the same tradition of interventionism, or cultural ideas of travel and intervention abroad that exist in the West. This criticism seems to be presupposing that China will act just like all Western powers have acted, and I don't think its a reasonable assumption to make.

hat will happen when one or more recipients of its loans decide they want to default on them? [/quote]

China has been good about forgiving loans and generally asserting soft power more effectively than the West.

wat0n wrote:What would happen if some of its neighbors begin to push back against the Belt and Road initiative for whatever reason or if they have overlapping territorial claims with China?


The same that happens now, no doubt. China wants regional hegemony and will fight border disputes.

wat0n wrote:Are these issues a permanent fixture of the West or will they eventually pass like they have in the past? I think the West has shown it can live up to crises much worse than this pandemic. Current westerners have had it easy compared to their grandparents and great-grandparents.


I think the West will break under the coming crisis. The system is reaching its logical conclusion. Climate change is not just a political problem, it is fundamentally an economic one - liberal capitalism cannot coexist with sustainable development and plateaud population growth.

wat0n wrote:But China is also heavily dependent on industrial activities (these being mining (includes oil), manufacturing, electricity/gas/water production and construction). They represent 39% of its GDP, for the sake of comparison, industrial activities represent 18.6% of the US' GDP, 17.4% of France's, 21.4% of Italy's, 26.7% of Germany's, 17.7% of the UK's, 20.5% of Spain's, 25.4% of Australia's, 23.3% of Canada's, 17.9% of Brazil's and 30.9% of Mexico's (I'm not going to count South Korea and Japan as Western countries, if you do, industrial activities represent a greater share of their GDP than for large Western economies but not as much as for China's). As such, China is more exposed than these other countries, and it is natural it will do anything it can to develop clean energies - its economy stands more to lose otherwise.


None of this seems to contradict my point. Could you elaborate?
#15151296
Fasces wrote:I don't think it has an interest in acting the same way internationally as it does within its own borders, for a whole host of cultural reasons. It doesn't have the same tradition of interventionism, or cultural ideas of travel and intervention abroad that exist in the West. This criticism seems to be presupposing that China will act just like all Western powers have acted, and I don't think its a reasonable assumption to make.


Maybe, China is indeed known for sinking the most imposing fleet of its time (if not until that time). But then again, the world was not as globalized as it is now, and FWIW the rationale for building the Treasure Fleet is, interestingly, the same the US has for deploying its own navy abroad.

Fasces wrote:China has been good about forgiving loans and generally asserting soft power more effectively than the West.


For how long? One problem the US faced in the Third World during the Cold War is that defaults were often motivated by a desire to provoke it.

How will China react if in a country like Venezuela the current government is replaced by a pro-American one? I doubt it would just put the other cheek, and I wouldn't blame them.

Fasces wrote:The same that happens now, no doubt. China wants regional hegemony and will fight border disputes.


Even if China gets to a point where it can militarily match the US?

Fasces wrote:I think the West will break under the coming crisis. The system is reaching its logical conclusion. Climate change is not just a political problem, it is fundamentally an economic one - liberal capitalism cannot coexist with sustainable development and plateaud population growth.


Why?

Fasces wrote:None of this seems to contradict my point. Could you elaborate?


Sure: China is more susceptible to the more extreme measures advocated to fight climate change than the West is. It's far from clear it will manage to innovate this problem away, if it does then the worst case scenario (from a Western perspective) is that the West will engage in the same sort of technological transfer China has. But if it doesn't, then it will be in worse trouble than the West will since its economy is more dependent on these activities.
#15151301
wat0n wrote:Maybe, China is indeed known for sinking the most imposing fleet of its time (if not until that time). But then again, the world was not as globalized as it is now, and FWIW the rationale for building the Treasure Fleet is, interestingly, the same the US has for deploying its own navy abroad.

For how long? One problem the US faced in the Third World during the Cold War is that defaults were often motivated by a desire to provoke it.

How will China react if in a country like Venezuela the current government is replaced by a pro-American one? I doubt it would just put the other cheek, and I wouldn't blame them.

Even if China gets to a point where it can militarily match the US?


This is just one incident out of millenia of examples. China is self-centered, and looks inward. It doesn't expect non-Chinese to fit into a Chinese system, and doesn't aspire to force them into it. It's currently territorial bellyaching is a response to embarrassment than indicative of a desire for further conquest. This is of course just my impression of the "feel" of the regime based on my exposure to it over the last five years and the history texts of theirs I have read. I can't really get into the reasons why without sounding condescending and like I, a non-Chinese, am explaining their culture on their behalf. I don't feel comfortable doing that.

Suffice to say, even at its worst expressions of nationalist whining, it is incredibly self-centered in an almost Trumpian way. Chinese nationalists want to punish those who defy or insult China with things like sanctions, visa restrictions, and diplomatic pressure. You rarely see attitudes like those expressed on American forums, for example, "glass the Middle East" or "nuke Iran".

wat0n]Why?[/quote]

That could be a whole topic on its own. The brief version is that I think the Western system matured during a unique time in history and it has settled into a competency trap. There are no more new worlds to discover and conquer, and the 'economic growth at all costs' mindset is poisonous. The coming period of economic stagnation at best and contraction at worst is fundamentally at odds with the Western system, and the political situation will continue to deteriorate until it snaps and a new one is born.

[quote="wat0n wrote:
Sure: China is more susceptible to the more extreme measures advocated to fight climate change than the West is. It's far from clear it will manage to innovate this problem away, if it does then the worst case scenario (from a Western perspective) is that the West will engage in the same sort of technological transfer China has. But if it doesn't, then it will be in worse trouble than the West will since its economy is more dependent on these activities.


I just don't think the current political system in the West is capable of fighting anything. Hyper-pluralism, hyper-individualism, and the atomization of society make impossible the collective effort necessary, and Western states will collapse before they rise to the call. The Western state is too weak and subservient to global capitalist interests, and though they have incentive to do so, I don't think they'll put long-term gain ahead of the short term. I'm not going to sit here and write a manifesto, and maybe 2008 and 2020 have radicalized me - but the Chinese system is competent if callous, xenophobic and self-centered.

JohnRawls would say I've been propaganda-addled, but I think my day-to-day life and those sorts of experiences both in China, in the United States, in Cambodia, and in Spain have all done their bit to inform whatever weird ideological stew has brewed inside my head.

That being said, I'm pretty much done with living in Great Powers and all the nonsense that brings. We're looking for some farmland in Uruguay or Chile to ride out the century. :lol:
Last edited by Fasces on 20 Jan 2021 07:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15151306
I don't see any reason why China would change it's behaviour in Xinjiang. Nobody mentions Tibet anymore despite having a much higher opinion of Buddhists then of Muslims and there's no Dalai Lama like figure to raise international support. It also seems unlikely that any of the major Muslim powers will champion their cause since they're dependent on China for infrastructure spending, trade and tourism not to mention PPE and vaccines post pandemic.
#15151309
Fasces wrote:This is just one incident out of millenia of examples. China is self-centered, and looks inward. It doesn't expect non-Chinese to fit into a Chinese system, and doesn't aspire to force them into it.


That is quite comical given China's imperial history. How do you think the Uyghurs came under Chinese control in the first place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Great_Campaigns

Fasces wrote:China has been good about forgiving loans and generally asserting soft power more effectively than the West.


Oh really, show the data that accurately compares how many loans the West and China have forgiven.

Fasces wrote:I think the West will break under the coming crisis. The system is reaching its logical conclusion. Climate change is not just a political problem, it is fundamentally an economic one - liberal capitalism cannot coexist with sustainable development and plateaud population growth.


Unsubstantiated nonsense. China sucks when it comes to the environment in general:
https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/country/chn

And its per capita CO2 emissions are already higher than the EU, despite far lower GDP per capita.

Fasces wrote:China is a world leader in green technologies, and is actively taking steps to improve its environmental record - while countries like Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have actively regressed over the last five years.


More unsubstantiated claims. Have the US, Canada and the UK regressed over the last five years? Show us the evidence. Look up per capita emissions for example.
#15151313
- To date China's imperial ambitions stretch as far as its borderlands and nobody disputes it's sovereignty over Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. In the South China Sea they are criticised for building artificial islands. Meanwhile the world ignores Britain evicting the entire population of Chagos to make space for a US military base.

- You're ignoring embedded emissions. Offshoring and outsourcing your pollution doesn't make European manufacturing cleaner just like pretending that a German tourist's carbon footprint should only be attributed to Germany when he departs Frankfurt and blaming Thailand for any pollution produced on his return flight. Also China is industrialising and needs to to build cities for 1 billion rural residents to move to. Producing cement and steel for these cities is highly energy intensive and leads to high emissions. (They're also criticised for building supply ahead of demand instead of letting migrants live in shanties.)

- China has more high speed rail, renewables and electric cars then the rest of the world combined. Despite being a developing economy it outperforms mature economies in these fields. Britain's gov't had to be taken to court 3 times before it would issue a weaker policy on vehicle emissions for example.
#15151317
AFAIK wrote:- To date China's imperial ambitions stretch as far as its borderlands and nobody disputes it's sovereignty over Xinjiang, Tibet, etc. In the South China Sea they are criticised for building artificial islands. Meanwhile the world ignores Britain evicting the entire population of Chagos to make space for a US military base.


"As far as its borderlands" :roll:. If the UK never gave up control over India/Pakistan it would be part of its "borderlands". I suppose it would be no problem if it put the Muslims there in "reeducation camps". Looks like the West's mistake was to give up its empires. :roll:

AFAIK wrote:- You're ignoring embedded emissions. Offshoring and outsourcing your pollution doesn't make European manufacturing cleaner just like pretending that a German tourist's carbon footprint should only be attributed to Germany when he departs Frankfurt and blaming Thailand for any pollution produced on his return flight.


This is such a lame excuse. If industry flees Germany because of stringent environmental standards, China is to blame for the lack thereof.

Besides, the carbon intensity of electricity generation is far lower in the EU than China. Less than half in fact (co2/kwh):
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics ... -2000-2040

AFAIK wrote:- China has more high speed rail, renewables and electric cars then the rest of the world combined. Despite being a developing economy it outperforms mature economies in these fields. Britain's gov't had to be taken to court 3 times before it would issue a weaker policy on vehicle emissions for example.


China is huge and therefore has a lot more of everything. Utterly irrelevant. The UK has almost twice the renewable energy share (40% vs 26%).
#15151318
Fasces wrote:Would you call efforts by Greek nationalists to abolish Italian schools and language in Corfu/Ionian islands, or to expel and dismantle Ottoman Turkish institutions and villages following WW1, an example of genocide?


The Italians of Corfu perhaps I would, the Turkish-Muslims, no. Comparing Chinese policy in 2020 to Greek policy in 1870(150 years ago) should also speak of your desperation but you don't seem that fazed.

According to historian Ezio Gray, the small communities of Venetian-speaking people in Corfu were mostly assimilated after the island became part of Greece in 1864 and especially after all Italian schools were closed in 1870.[7] However, the Italian language maintained some importance, as can be seen by the fact that poets like Stefano Martzokis (Marzocchi was the surname of the father, an Italian from Emilia-Romagna) and Geranimos Markonos, the first from Corfù and the second from Cefalonia, wrote some of their poems in Italian during the second half of the 19th century.

In 1901, there were almost one thousand people in Corfu who considered themselves to be ethnic Maltese. In Cephalonia the number was 225. There were another hundred Maltese spread among the other lesser islands of the Ionian Group. Maltese emigration to these islands practically ceased when they were returned to Greece in 1864. Because of the union with Greece, a number of Maltese families abandoned Corfu and settled in Cardiff, Wales, where their descendants still live.

The Corfiot Maltese community currently numbers 3,500 people in the entire island. They constitute the center of the Catholic community of Corfu, but not one among continues to speaks the Maltese language. The former mayor of the city of Corfu, Sotiris Micalef, is of Maltese descent.


The Muslims of Western Thrace and the Greeks of Istanbul were exempt from the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey when 1.3 million Anatolian Greeks or Pontic Greeks and Caucasus Greeks were required to leave Turkey, and the 400,000 Muslims outside of Thrace were required to leave Greece, including the Muslim Greek speaking Vallahades of western Greek Macedonia. Consequently, most of the Muslim minority in Greece resides in the Greek region of Thrace, where they make up 28.88% of the population. Muslims form the largest group in the Rhodope regional unit (54.77%) and sizable percentages in the Xanthi (42.19%) and Evros regional units (6.65%).[4] In contrast to the steady number of Greece's Muslim minority since 1923, Turkey's Greek minority has shrunk considerably due to oppression and violence orchestrated by the Turkish state in particular the 1955 Istanbul pogrom.


Turkish Muslims have their own institutions in Greece, schools, mosques and ethno-cultural independence, as do the Italians as well.
#15151319
Fasces wrote:This is just one incident out of millenia of examples. China is self-centered, and looks inward. It doesn't expect non-Chinese to fit into a Chinese system, and doesn't aspire to force them into it. It's currently territorial bellyaching is a response to embarrassment than indicative of a desire for further conquest. This is of course just my impression of the "feel" of the regime based on my exposure to it over the last five years and the history texts of theirs I have read. I can't really get into the reasons why without sounding condescending and like I, a non-Chinese, am explaining their culture on their behalf. I don't feel comfortable doing that.

Suffice to say, even at its worst expressions of nationalist whining, it is incredibly self-centered in an almost Trumpian way. Chinese nationalists want to punish those who defy or insult China with things like sanctions, visa restrictions, and diplomatic pressure. You rarely see attitudes like those expressed on American forums, for example, "glass the Middle East" or "nuke Iran".


Ok, but how do the elites view these challenges? For instance, surely they want to be able to pursue their Belt and Road initiative as quickly as possible, do they?

Fasces wrote:That could be a whole topic on its own. The brief version is that I think the Western system matured during a unique time in history and it has settled into a competency trap. There are no more new worlds to discover and conquer, and the 'economic growth at all costs' mindset is poisonous. The coming period of economic stagnation at best and contraction at worst is fundamentally at odds with the Western system, and the political situation will continue to deteriorate until it snaps and a new one is born.


I think this is rather pessimistic. I actually think we're experiencing yet another round of the Industrial Revolution, even though it is certainly a possibility that eventually the West (and humanity as a whole) will stagnate as far as the whole R&D + mass adoption cycle is concerned.

Fasces wrote:I just don't think the current political system in the West is capable of fighting anything. Hyper-pluralism, hyper-individualism, and the atomization of society make impossible the collective effort necessary, and Western states will collapse before they rise to the call. The Western state is too weak and subservient to global capitalist interests, and though they have incentive to do so, I don't think they'll put long-term gain ahead of the short term. I'm not going to sit here and write a manifesto, and maybe 2008 and 2020 have radicalized me - but the Chinese system is competent if callous, xenophobic and self-centered.

JohnRawls would say I've been propaganda-addled, but I think my day-to-day life and those sorts of experiences both in China, in the United States, in Cambodia, and in Spain have all done their bit to inform whatever weird ideological stew has brewed inside my head.


I don't know. I think these hiccups are a temporary phenomenon, not unlike those from the late '60s until the early '80s were (or the more serious ones in the Interwar period).

Things can definitely turn worse.

Fasces wrote:That being said, I'm pretty much done with living in Great Powers and all the nonsense that brings. We're looking for some farmland in Uruguay or Chile to ride out the century. :lol:


Well, if competent officials is what you're after I don't think LATAM is such a great alternative...
#15151320
@Rugoz
- Don't roll your eyes at me because no one bothered to stand up to China when it invaded Tibet or criticised it for practicing settler colonialism there. Xinjiang's cause will be abandoned once people get bored just like Tibet's was. India isn't anywhere near Britain's borders either. Your comparison might hold water if you changed it to N Ireland.

- I don't think it's fair to hold developing economies to the same standards as mature ones. Just building cities for 600 million farmers to move to would produce more emissions than Europe's established industrial base due the large amounts of steel and concrete required.

- What do you expect China to do? Tell half the country to live in energy poverty for 50 years whilst they wait for renewables to get cheap enough to power their homes and businesses? Getting people out of poverty and growing the countries industrial base is a higher priority.
#15151323
AFAIK wrote:- Don't roll your eyes at me because no one bothered to stand up to China when it invaded Tibet or criticised it for practicing settler colonialism there. Xinjiang's cause will be abandoned once people get bored just like Tibet's was.


Wtf is that supposed to mean? I'm simply revealing the double standards of self-flagellating Westerners and the so-called "friends of China" (pro-China shills).

AFAIK wrote:- I don't think it's fair to hold developing economies to the same standards as mature ones. Just building cities for 600 million farmers to move to would produce more emissions than Europe's established industrial base due the large amounts of steel and concrete required.

What do you expect China to do? Tell half the country to live in energy poverty for 50 years whilst they wait for renewables to get cheap enough to power their homes and businesses? Getting people out of poverty and growing the countries industrial base is a higher priority.


You're right, it wouldn't be fair, because they are not as advanced and have other priorities. But Fasces was claiming China is somehow superior to the West when it comes to the environment, in fact that the West was incapable of dealing with environmental problems. Both are utter bullshit.
#15151326
Rugoz wrote:Wtf is that supposed to mean? I'm simply revealing the double standards of self-flagellating Westerners and the so-called "friends of China" (pro-China shills).

Could you expand on that? I don't follow how your comments relate to mine.
#15151327
Admin Edit: Meme Removed. Articulate your Argument in proper English See Forum Rule 5

Also known as education and training followed by employment in a relevant sector.

Admin Edit: Articulate your Argument in proper English See Forum Rule 5, except the world is laughing at the fantasy. 55 countries support China's deradicalization efforts in xinjiang (encompassing over 1 billion mulsims), as do all western countries in regards to french de-radicalization efforts. So, nobody with even a little cognitive autonomy buying Admin Edit: Articulate your Argument in proper English See Forum Rule 5 in 2020-2021.

Admin Edit: Meme Removed. Articulate your Argument in proper English See Forum Rule 5
#15151332
What argument is there to articulate? We all know its manufactured. The onus is not on me to argue against unsubstantiated rumors made by a politician of a particular state directed at another political entity, as per the thread topic.

All we can really do is laugh at the claims that are built upon a singular source, a crazy religious nut called Adrian Zenz. This was never substantial enough for a serious discussion.

Either you all continue to stray off topic or stay on topic and post more relevant memes. If you want to take this fiction seriously there's an entire Wikipedia article about it, where every 'source' in the footer is sourcing other sources that originally sourced unscientific papers (opinion pieces) from Adrian Zenz in an orgy of manufactured comedy. Don't forget to check the Talk page as it helps demonstrate in the open Wikipedia senior contributors flaunting the sites own academic rules to manufacture the article. :lol:

If you want to get a little off topic, then we could discuss Pompeo and his motives for pushing this narrative. But What's a Pompeo? He loses his job in a couple hours as of this post. I suppose Biden administration will continue to manufacture more 'sources' on the back of Adrian Zenz's childish relevations. But until he's in and doing so, there's little to discuss on that front.

Contributing further to the topic at hand, hope it was worth it:

Image

So many US and European companies do business with China. Pompeo just got his ass blacklisted from all of them.

China's FDI increases by 6.2 percent to record high in 2020: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1213349.shtml

Oh no not like this. But but the decoupling. Press P to Poop on Pompous and his family's future business prospects.
#15151621
wat0n wrote:Ok, but how do the elites view these challenges? For instance, surely they want to be able to pursue their Belt and Road initiative as quickly as possible, do they?


Not at the cost of stability. Belt and Road diplomacy is highly dependent on liberal language regarding the importance of global institutions, bilateral relationships, and stability. Deng had a famous saying "keep a low profile and bide your time" that Xi partially rejected in 2017, calling on China to assume a role of global leadership. It could be tempting to read this as a signal for increased aggression internationally, and China has certainly escalated its level of bluster. However, Wang Huning and Li Keqiang have remained a constant power in the Chinese Politburo and have near autonomy over managing the foreign policy of the Chinese state (this is another thing Western readers get wrong, incidentally - while Xi is unquestionably the head, his relationship with the Politburo is much more of a first-among-equals leadership style that is typical in Chinese governing culture). Li and Wang over the last few years have wanted China to fill the vacuum as a stable, calm, and senior statesman in a coherent and established national order. While they may want to rearrange a few chairs, they eschew any sort of revolutionary change, preferring to advance slowly.

Fasces wrote:Well, if competent officials is what you're after I don't think LATAM is such a great alternative...


I'm more lenient in my expectations of countries with pretensions to becoming great powers with nukes and carriers and whatnot. I want a few acres, some goats, maybe a school to run/work at, some Chinese trade for the wife to have a job and I'll have a happy and quiet life. :D

It is very hard for foreigners to buy land in China, if not outright impossible, and returning to the United States seems very unappealing since this last year. Spanish citizenship makes Latin America easy to move to, though.

Rugoz wrote:That is quite comical given China's imperial history. How do you think the Uyghurs came under Chinese control in the first place?


China has no territorial ambitions beyond those they already had 2,000 years ago. And this is supposed to be an indictment of China. :eh:

Rugoz wrote:Oh really, show the data that accurately compares how many loans the West and China have forgiven.


https://rhg.com/research/new-data-on-th ... -question/

Rugoz wrote:China sucks when it comes to the environment in general:


China is the world leader in both innovating and manufacturing the materials needed for renewable energy production, as well as EVs and other green technologies. The ship has sailed, and China will reap the benefits of being the first to market both domestically and internationally.

Rugoz wrote: Have the US, Canada and the UK regressed over the last five years? Show us the evidence. Look up per capita emissions for example.


China has outpaced the US and EU in closing coal power plants over the last 4 years.

China (1%) has double the number of electric vehicles on the road as either the EU (0.4%) or USA (0.45%), and more than both of them combined in absolute numbers.

China has double the energy production of the US (8 million gigawatts vs 4.5 million gigawatts) produced buy green energy sources.

China (1st) has more investment in green energy technologies than the US (2) and Japan (3) combined.

As climate change becomes more and more serious in the next century, the Chinese economy will see these benefits.

noemon wrote:The Italians of Corfu perhaps I would, the Turkish-Muslims, no. Comparing Chinese policy in 2020 to Greek policy in 1870(150 years ago) should also speak of your desperation but you don't seem that fazed.


A lag in national development. China has historically not been a nation-state, like much of Europe. To avoid being like Spain in 2020, it wants to act like France or Greece in 1870 and create a comprehensive and universal national identity. The best comparison to what is happening in Xinjiang is as part of that development. The abolition of Occ in France. The indigenous boarding schools in Canada and the USA.

If you would call that genocide, then fair play - the Uiygher campaign is a genocide. I personally feel that throwing it all under the genocide label makes it hard to distinguish between widely different actions, but I won't quibble definitions.
#15151623
Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II

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.


China is doing both those things to the Uighurs.

The excuse that she is entitled to in the name of 'national cohesion' is out-of-date and specially ridiculous considering the size and population of China. It betrays a lot about its national character and government.
#15151626
noemon wrote: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.


China is doing neither of those two things you mentioned, nor are they common complaints by any of the usual suspects in Chinese disinformation campaigns. We're really just throwing anything that sticks, hmm?

3) It is not physically destroying the Uiygher population, and nobody is claiming this is happening - criticisms are about reeducation and cultural whitewashing. Quality of life, investment in the region, and so on have only continuously gotten better over the last twenty years, and the Uiygher ethnicity has far better health and wealth metrics today than at any time before thanks to massive Chinese investment since the onset of 1B1R.

5) What? Source? Are you talking about public education? :eh:

This really gets into the damned if you do damned if you don't, incidentally. If China builds schools in Xinjiang, leading to Uiygher areas having among the highest primary school enrollment in the country - they're kidnapping children and brainwashing them to remove them from their ethnic roots. If they leave the province a dilapidated and impoverished backwater with no hope of economic advancement for its residents? Well, now they're deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. All roads lead to evil. :roll:
#15151628
The destruction of the Uighur group does not necessarily imply the death of its members and the forcible transfer of children from the Uighur group to the Chinese group is precisely what China is doing.

The fact that others(who?) are not saying this does make it any less true.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Upon failing to find any of the evidence we shou[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

@Drlee , or it could be that Dr. Makary is right[…]

There is nothing more grating than your apologies […]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

ICE recently put a man on a plane to deport him ba[…]