You are doing genocide denial when you claim that genocide can happen without being accompanied by mass death. Genocide is the crime of crimes because it always involves mass slaughter of innocent people, to bring about their end. The invention of “”“cultural genocide”“” without any of the accompanying mass violence effectively whitewashes genocide as a concept.
Downplay what? A reeducation/deradicalization program isn’t fucking genocide on its own, it has to be accompanied by mass death, and when you say it is you are the one that’s donwplaying the crime of genocide as a concept. Even the boarding schools they used in the genocide in North America had mass graves, because genocide is always accompanied by mass death and to claim otherwise is whitewashing.
It’s the crime of crimes because it’s the worst violence that can be inflicted on a group.
Accepting all that, that’s still essentially colonization, no?
Is there nuance I’m missing here? China’s seemingly codified cultural repression genuinely makes it hard for me to consider supporting them, whether or not they advance the cause of the average worker
They also don’t do cultural genocide, look at videos of random tourists visiting Xinjiang and you’ll see some locals speaking Uyghur, you’ll see mosques, museums, traditional Uyghur food, etc. The previous repression was meant to curve terrorism, it seems to have worked, and things have relaxed afterwards. I don’t see how any of this fits the picture of colonialism.
Well it certainly doesn’t fit the picture I was described! I was told Uyghers were being killed in some cases, and rehoused en masse in others.
If what you’re saying is right, and the Uygher culture is allowed to continue unharried outside of radical minorities then I would agree that doesn’t really compare to the horrors of colonization!
Is it actually illegal to be queer there too? Or is that also exaggerated?
It isn’t illegal to be queer, but gay marriage isn’t really legal either. It’s an upbill battle ironically held back by the fact that the PRC is a democratic country, and the older generations are still more socially conservative. As time goes on it has been getting better.
In addition to the older generations thinking queerness is yucky, there’s also the problem of the West using our rights as a bludgeon to justify sanctions and wars. I’ve seen Westerners try to justify the genocide in Gaza because “they’d throw you off a roof for being queer!” As if Israel isn’t actively blackmailing us into being informants by threatening to out us to our families.
This is all to say that anti-queer sentiment has become deeply rooted among the masses, themselves.
Ah, bummer. I’m aware of how it’s used in identity politics, but I’d never considered how that use might foster distrust in an already culturally repressive populace. Sounds complicated, and I’m sure the aftereffects of imperialism haven’t done anything to help the nations they left devastated feel positively about a trend they might identify as foreign in that way.
I largely agree, though Israel has used many nonlethal methods for a long time. There is a lot of violence involved in the process that doesn’t require death. Forced relocation is a pretty classic tactic, for example, which Israe has made ample use of in their ongoing genocide
The violence requires death, is the thing. People don’t just allow themselves to be forcibly relocated (as per your example), they will fight to stay on their land unless they face the threat of death (and many do stay, and die). Behind every “nonlethal” process is a death machine that makes it possible in the first place. That’s why colonization is always accomplished through mass death.
I’m trying not to get too caught up in semantics here. It sounds like you’re saying that the relocation that the Chinese government puts Uygher people through cannot be comparable to the relocation that other cultures have been put through, and that the lack of a mass death toll is serviceable evidence for that claim. Do I have that correct?
If so, it’s a good point! I think I had a presumption that the true nature of their (and any government’s) crimes was hidden. It does seem a bit far-fetched that it would be possible to cover up the kind of mass death that you’re saying would come with a colonization, so it’s a more reasonable metric than just making assumptions based on vibes I suppose. You’ve at least given me a less propagandizeable thing to research _
China isn’t preventing or discouraging intermarrying or intermixing with Uighurs, which is a key feature of apartheid. Neither do they have to use separate lanes of the road, carry special IDs marking their ethnicity, or forced to use different emergency shelters.
I use those examples because the real-world example of apartheid, Israel, is currently doing all of those things today.
I agree. I’m saying apartheid could be used to describe what many liberals believe is happening with Uighurs in Xinjiang, not what is actually going on.
Although even then I don’t think many people are arguing Uighurs are seperated legally in the way that you described anyway.
Lol Uyghurs amiright? 😂
Violence breeds violence, more news at 11.
Can you find evidence of even a single dead Uyghur?
Yeah, my buddy Uyghur Jim. He told me that China killed him, so we can’t hang out any more.
RIP, hope he gets better
🤔
You are doing genocide denial when you claim that genocide can happen without being accompanied by mass death. Genocide is the crime of crimes because it always involves mass slaughter of innocent people, to bring about their end. The invention of “”“cultural genocide”“” without any of the accompanying mass violence effectively whitewashes genocide as a concept.
Lol bro over here trying to downplay the horrific treatment of a whole people and claim everyone else is the problem 😂
Downplay what? A reeducation/deradicalization program isn’t fucking genocide on its own, it has to be accompanied by mass death, and when you say it is you are the one that’s donwplaying the crime of genocide as a concept. Even the boarding schools they used in the genocide in North America had mass graves, because genocide is always accompanied by mass death and to claim otherwise is whitewashing.
It’s the crime of crimes because it’s the worst violence that can be inflicted on a group.
So I’m not trying to defend the other poster but genocide by definition does not have to include mass death. And can include any of the following
In the real world there hasn’t been a genocide that didn’t involve mass death. 3, 4, and 5 all require a lot of killing to actually work.
Oh wow, a transphobic lib? So surprising.
A): Hey what do you think about the Russian intervention in the Ukranian civil war, and
B) The horrific treatment such as?
I’m genuinely undereducated here, not an op…
Accepting all that, that’s still essentially colonization, no?
Is there nuance I’m missing here? China’s seemingly codified cultural repression genuinely makes it hard for me to consider supporting them, whether or not they advance the cause of the average worker
They also don’t do cultural genocide, look at videos of random tourists visiting Xinjiang and you’ll see some locals speaking Uyghur, you’ll see mosques, museums, traditional Uyghur food, etc. The previous repression was meant to curve terrorism, it seems to have worked, and things have relaxed afterwards. I don’t see how any of this fits the picture of colonialism.
Well it certainly doesn’t fit the picture I was described! I was told Uyghers were being killed in some cases, and rehoused en masse in others.
If what you’re saying is right, and the Uygher culture is allowed to continue unharried outside of radical minorities then I would agree that doesn’t really compare to the horrors of colonization!
Is it actually illegal to be queer there too? Or is that also exaggerated?
It isn’t illegal to be queer, but gay marriage isn’t really legal either. It’s an upbill battle ironically held back by the fact that the PRC is a democratic country, and the older generations are still more socially conservative. As time goes on it has been getting better.
God damn, you actually checked it out. I’m genuinely not used to that level of intellectual honesty on the internet
In addition to the older generations thinking queerness is yucky, there’s also the problem of the West using our rights as a bludgeon to justify sanctions and wars. I’ve seen Westerners try to justify the genocide in Gaza because “they’d throw you off a roof for being queer!” As if Israel isn’t actively blackmailing us into being informants by threatening to out us to our families.
This is all to say that anti-queer sentiment has become deeply rooted among the masses, themselves.
Ah, bummer. I’m aware of how it’s used in identity politics, but I’d never considered how that use might foster distrust in an already culturally repressive populace. Sounds complicated, and I’m sure the aftereffects of imperialism haven’t done anything to help the nations they left devastated feel positively about a trend they might identify as foreign in that way.
Meant to curb terrorism. Lol. Sure.
We weren’t all born yesterday. We’ve heard all this before.
In recent years, ETIM has set up bases outside China to train terrorists and has dispatched its members to China to plot and execute terrorist acts including bombing buses, cinemas, department stores, markets and hotels. ETIM has also undertaken assassinations and arson attacks and has carried out terrorist attacks against Chinese targets abroad. -The UN
There’s literal footage of the terrorist acts. Do you expect China to let terrorists slaughter civilians?
When we look at how colonization in the real world happens we see it is accomplished, again, through mass death.
See: Israel
I largely agree, though Israel has used many nonlethal methods for a long time. There is a lot of violence involved in the process that doesn’t require death. Forced relocation is a pretty classic tactic, for example, which Israe has made ample use of in their ongoing genocide
The violence requires death, is the thing. People don’t just allow themselves to be forcibly relocated (as per your example), they will fight to stay on their land unless they face the threat of death (and many do stay, and die). Behind every “nonlethal” process is a death machine that makes it possible in the first place. That’s why colonization is always accomplished through mass death.
I’m trying not to get too caught up in semantics here. It sounds like you’re saying that the relocation that the Chinese government puts Uygher people through cannot be comparable to the relocation that other cultures have been put through, and that the lack of a mass death toll is serviceable evidence for that claim. Do I have that correct?
If so, it’s a good point! I think I had a presumption that the true nature of their (and any government’s) crimes was hidden. It does seem a bit far-fetched that it would be possible to cover up the kind of mass death that you’re saying would come with a colonization, so it’s a more reasonable metric than just making assumptions based on vibes I suppose. You’ve at least given me a less propagandizeable thing to research _
I suppose apartheid can be used instead of cultural genocide.
China isn’t preventing or discouraging intermarrying or intermixing with Uighurs, which is a key feature of apartheid. Neither do they have to use separate lanes of the road, carry special IDs marking their ethnicity, or forced to use different emergency shelters.
I use those examples because the real-world example of apartheid, Israel, is currently doing all of those things today.
I agree. I’m saying apartheid could be used to describe what many liberals believe is happening with Uighurs in Xinjiang, not what is actually going on.
Although even then I don’t think many people are arguing Uighurs are seperated legally in the way that you described anyway.
It would be just as incorrect