The loose use of the word "genocide" in recent years is extremely concerning. Nothing that is going on in China can be called a "genocide." No one (that I am aware of) is even alleging that China is carrying out any mass killings of any group.
The use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Uyghurs is transparently propaganda, which began with Mike Pompeo during the Trump administration. Even the US State Department said they had no evidence of genocide, but Pompeo went ahead anyways and officially labeled it "genocide."
You can very justly criticize China's crackdown on what it views as separatism in Xinjiang, but it's beyond the pale to label a situation "genocide" when nobody is being killed, and when life expectancy and income of the group supposedly being genocided is increasing.
Every single Muslim majority country sent ministers and parliamentarians there, invesigated for months, and have not found any such thing. And yet, the exact same set of countries who lied to entire world about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs are claiming it to be true.
...
100 year old atrocity propaganda. Nothing more different than how the British smeared the Germans by saying that they raped babies in Belgium.
> Sorry, you mean some of the same countries who are extraditing Uyghurs to China?
Yeah, the same countries who extradite known terrorists to the country they committed their terrorist acts at. Much better than CIA's rendition flights that kidnapped whomever CIA wanted without even asking that country's government.
> I realize I'm inconvenient for you and your party line.
I should have apologized for disturbing your US State Dept. propaganda first...
When someone plays the terrorist card and at the same time condemns the former Dubya Bush administration one has to question the validity of their accusations.
And btw even if they were "terrorists" that doesn't legitimize genocide
The problem with that statement is that China isn't carrying out genocide.
This would be the first "genocide" in history in which the targeted group continued to grow in size, and in which it saw its life expectancy, income and educational levels increase.
There are actual terrorists on this world. There is actual democracy on this planet too. American establishment having usurped both terms and having hollowed them out in its discourse does not mean that they do not exist elsewhere.
> genocide
That genocide is as real as the Iraqi WMDs. Or democracy-loving Syrian 'freedom fighters'. Or the 'Libyan Opposition'.
It would be a lot easier to talk about this subject if it hadn't been so shamelessly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
The Chinese government has, by all appearances, carried out a harsh crackdown on what it views as separatism and religious extremism. It has forced large numbers of people to go through political indoctrination, based on suspicions of being sympathetic to the Uyghur separatist movement or of harboring fundamentalist religious beliefs.
The Chinese government has also begun imposing the 3-child policy on Uyghur families. The 1-child policy used to only apply to the Han majority. It has been relaxed to 3 children, but is being applied more broadly.
However, the Uyghur population continues to grow. The Uyghur language continues to be an official language in Xinjiang and it is one of the primary languages used to teach children in state schools. And as I said before, life expectancy and average incomes are increasing among Uyghurs.
The Chinese government doesn't intend to "remove" the Uyghur people. It is trying to stamp out separatism, both by implementing harsh police methods and by pumping money into the region to improve living standards.
This is not what a genocide looks like. That term is just propaganda in this case, meant to influence people who aren't at all familiar with the situation in Xinjiang.
> If you know of any Native Americans currently being genocided, please do call someone about it.
it seemed to imply that the native american genocide was over. maybe not, I probably missed context earlier up thread. I was disagreeing with that statement.
yes of course I agree that the active sterilization / genocide / cleansing of Uighur Muslims in China exists and is a human rights violation and should be stopped. I'm not going to compare its magnitude to the native american one because one is centuries-old and ongoing and one has been going on for several years (maybe longer, I have not studied it) and both are bad. hope that answers your question.
The claims of sterilization, genocide and cleansing are largely propaganda.
This propaganda takes a kernel of truth (China began enforcing the 3-child policy on Uyghurs, who were previously exempt - the policy previously only applied to the Han majority), and distorts it beyond all recognition (China is sterilizing all the Uyghurs).
Given the public's utter lack of knowledge about China in the US and Europe, it's easy to sell this sort propaganda.
It would be so much easier to discuss the actual issues (such as China's harsh crackdown on separatism in Xinjiang) if the US government were not so shamelessly distorting them for political reasons. One almost finds oneself having to defend the Chinese government, because the US government has so little compunction about pushing big lies like the "Uyghur genocide." China did use heavy police measures and political indoctrination to go after people it suspects of supporting separatism. No, it's not trying to wipe out the Uyghurs (or to do anything even remotely like that).
Lakota checking in to tell you that a basic reading of history would confirm that you’re pretty wrong.
Please don’t what-about the Uyghurs to Native American history because it’s disrespectful both ways, and minimizes their suffering. For all the conflict with Europeans, our historical experiences with them, painful as they may have been and remain, were much more nuanced and complicated than what is happening in China. I have also never met anyone native who thinks of our history as a genocide, and I’m involved in tribal politics.
Honestly even calling our history a genocide is a dramatic simplification that removes our agency (all too common in non-native takes). We fought back and won some things, lost others. That’s not something you can say about victims of genocide.
despite not wanting to discount your lived experience, I am more inclined to believe settler colonialist theory (drawing on work from trained scholars, both indigenous and not) which suggest that European settlement did lead to what was in fact genocide.
I think once manifest destiny and the American Indian wars started, a case could be made. Indian removal[0] at the very least seems like ethnic cleansing, and there are plenty of accounts of wholesale massacres of natives by European settlers and soldiers.
