323
China is burning all its bridges with Israel
(asia.nikkei.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
323 points (97.1% liked)
World News
32317 readers
508 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
bit goofy seeing as China continues to prosecute moslems and deny that they do it
Seems like both the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Muslim countries in general that have sent delegates to Xinjiang agree western propaganda about it is false too ¯_(ツ)_/¯
The only ones propagating these claims are imperial core countries that have actually invaded and colonized Muslim nations as you'd expect lol
Always the same map
Can someone "both sides" this issue for me, I keep seeing all this shit saying it's obvious China is committing genocide and another pile of shit saying the opposite. I feel like 90% of my understanding of the issue is based on propaganda from one side or another.
The truth is it's all propaganda from both sides and no one actually knows what's going on. And because I'm saying this anywhere I'm probably going to be downvoted to oblivion as either side will downvote me. However, what we do know is:
What we are sure isn't quite right:
What we could probably conclude:
Final questions:
Thank you for the breakdown. I'm very genuinely curious about this cultural bed sharing thing but the only thing I'm finding is that it's common amongst family, not with guests. (I'm not questioning you, I'm just actually curious about this)
Another question - do you mean to say that you don't think cultural genocide is a thing (whether in this situation or not)? Cause it's definitely a facet of regular genocide, even genocide-lite.
Unfortunately I can't find articles talking about bed sharing without it being from western media. It's obviously not something that's news worthy to begin with. I only know this because of my friends from the Xinjiang region.
The problem with the concept of cultural genocide is that there's a culture to genocide. Culture is defined by the situations and effects of the moment. Culture changes, ebbs and flows. The Menorah is as much a part of Jewish culture as the Torah. But the Menorah was created out of what we today would call cultural genocide. You can't genocide culture that idea is ridiculous, instead the culture will adapt and change with whatever is happening at the moment.
The question then isn't is there cultural genocide, but what if anything we should protect in a culture. USA used to have a culture of racism, we obviously went out of our way to "culturally genocide" that. Should we have not done that? Should the fact that it was part of our culture mean we should protect oppressing black people? In reality, by our own definitions, some cultures do need to be genocided.
Yeah but cultural genocide (ethnocide) doesn't refer to just kill off parts of a culture. It's a systemic approach, usually backed by law, to destroy the entire ethnicity and cultural norms.
Take for example what the Canadian government calls the cultural genocide of indigenous people in Canada. Their intention was not to kill the parts of indigenous culture that they didn't like, but it was forced assimilation through legal action and through removing children from their culture. It was remove/ban/destroy all indigenous culture - very "kill the Indian and save the man". That is cultural genocide.
In your example, the "destruction" of racism in American culture was not led by a government and not led against any ethnic group directly. Nobody was taking Confederate kids away from their family to teach them the "right" way.
Yes cultures change and adapt, but ethnocide is the very intentional move to do everything possible to destroy that culture. Will it adapt? Sure, yes, indigenous cultures have been extremely resilient and survived in Canada. but to say that it wasn't cultural genocide is to ignore the fact that children were literally ripped from their families in order to stop them from practicing their culture, or that cultural meetings and even just any type of meeting within their own groups was outlawed.
That's a quote from our first prime minister. That is what I mean when I say cultural genocide.
Cultural genocide is intentional. And much of the time, as I mentioned before, it is a facet of violent genocide because it leads to deaths and multigenerational trauma. Even if the government wasn't going in and killing people en masse and intentionally - which is how genocide is technically defined - there's no way that this is not a type of genocide.
I mean if that's your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren't separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They're taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That's what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They're going family to family to make sure they don't break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.
Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that's what they're complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It's why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.
*Edit: In fact there's video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it's entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I'm pointing out is, they're absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.
That was an example, but it doesn't necessarily need to be taking the children away. "Re-education" with the intent to remove someone's ethnical/cultural background is cultural genocide. The idea of "kill the Indian and save the man", in this case would be like "kill the Uighur and save the person". But I don't know enough about the specifics in China and I'm not arguing that what they're doing is specifically cultural genocide, I'm just saying that cultural genocide is real and does occur.
And I very strongly disagree that the civil war was cultural genocide. Just because the majority of the people who were on the losing side were white doesn't mean they were targeted indiscriminately JUST for being white (that's the key difference here). They were not targeted because of the way they looked or the language they spoke or where they were born. Racism and oppression are not cultural or human rights.
Equating white American culture to the racism that specifically Confederate and Neo-N*zis were and continue to advocate for is very much "I'm German so the swastika is my heritage" vibes.
Uh yea, it's very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don't like.
We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn't cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it's literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it's applied to a group you don't like you just dismiss it? That's hilariously ignorant.
Also, what's happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they're just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it's just whatever group is next.
Edit. BTW that's why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.
Pretty normal (and necessary) to have a national language lol. 96% of Tibetans can speak their local language since it's part of the curriculum, and Tibetan, Uyghur and other local cultures are highly promoted in Chinese media as mandated by the CPC.
True and good.
Do you watch Chunwan? It's the most watched media in China and its national television, where every year there are displays of traditional Uyghur culture in Xinjiang — dresses, dances, music, etc. Dilraba Dilmurat, the most popular celebrity in China, is of Uyghur descent and performs in those traditional garbs.
Here's one of her performances
Claiming China is "suppressing Uyghur/Tibet culture" or other bs like that is hilarious nonsense to anyone who knows even a little about the country lmfao. If you don't know about the country you're speaking about, you should ask questions and look into it instead of parroting imperial core narratives.
You're not on Reddit full of western liberals. Lemmy is a bit more lefty in comparison.
TIL China's Chunwan/Gala is the most watched television program in the world. Damn.
It's literally the most watched television program on the planet lmao.
Preventing child abuse and indoctrination is very cool and good actually. Wish I wasn't exposed to it as a kid.
What? Xinjiang has some of the largest mosques in the world lol. And a pretty high ratio of mosques to Muslims (about as high as my own Muslim country's actually).
Good. If the capitalist Russian Federation also continued to suppress the church and its leaders like the USSR did and China does, so much of the population would not have become so religious and reactionary.
What's with this obsession with relating Uyghur culture to religion? Sure, so long as it's only adults exposed to religions and it's consensual, fine, but Xinjiang's culture is much more than that, as are those of any region where religions are unfortunately still prevalent.
Religions are generally in decline in every place that's progressing economically, and Xinjiang is no exception. That's a good thing.
This is bullshit. You've been taken for a fool.
Acknowledging the downvotes doesn't make this comment any less cringe or misinformed lol
It's a hot take because while you are right, it's something that all countries do. It's just not necessarily the government that does it. Just look at the culture wars in the US. China's biggest difference is it's controlled by the government. But it also has nothing to do with Xinjiang. They do it to everyone, Hans Chinese inclusive. Technically that's what the great leap forward was. First forcing the Hans Chinese people to assimilate to the government's idea of a unified country. It worked, so they're pushing it everywhere.
Also, it's important to note that the only violent enforcement of this was on the Hans Chinese. This was Tian an men. After that they've gotten really good at subversion. There was only one suspicious killing in the HK riots for example. For as large a protest as it was, it was largely nonviolent. Compare that with BLM in the States.
Hot take! I think it's bad when anyone does it, not just China. Crazy, I know lol. I understand that these are the things that come with running a country but that doesn't mean they are ethical, or even the only options.
Thank you for validating the fact that I am pointing out real things that are actually happening and not just saying "nuh uh" like others have been doing.
Well a problem with your argument is that assimilation is not only not unethical, but absolutely necessary for a functioning society. Imagine if you will for a second if our culture accepted racism and bigotry. It would be necessary to force assimilation on people to stop racism and bigotry. Oh wait, that's happening right now. We're literally forcing a culture of acceptance on a culture of racism and bigotry. Is that unethical? Should we stop? Perhaps we should have colored drinking fountains.
The problem you're having with China is:
The government is the one that's doing it, instead of naturally letting companies like Disney shove it down people's throats.
The assimilation is over reaching.
The biggest problem is #2. We don't know what the fuck that means. Should I be allowed to say the N word if there's no other racism or bigotry? If there's no racism and bigotry, is the N word even racist? Yet we enforce word usage today, just words that only have meaning because we give them meaning. yet it's quite over reaching to censor words no? Where's the line drawn?
Cutting Through the BS on Xinjiang by BadEmpanada is highly detailed with sources in the description.
You could also watch through the countless videos of people travelling through Xinjiang on YouTube and seeing... that it's just a regular place in China.
Xinjiang also gets more foreign tourists than Spain at over 250 million a year, so you could genuinely just go there and see for yourself lol; there's no more restrictions on travel there than any other place in the country now that Covid is mostly over.
That is a terrible video from known scumbag BadEmpanada. He spreads imperialist lies throughout.
It's completely torn apart here by Dr Asatar Bair.
could you possibly share a link that isn't hosted on twitter cause I don't log into twitter anymore as a rule.
This is a mirror. The uptime is bad, so you might need to refresh a few times or try again in 10 minutes if you get an error. https://nitter.privacydev.net/asatarbair/status/1379986675103789058
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Cutting Through the BS on Xinjiang
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The whole conspiracy theory started with a claim of millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”.
However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let's just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.
This is a photo of Rikers Island, New York City's biggest prison. The actual size of a facility interning ten thousand people.
According to Wikipedia, "The average daily inmate population on the island is about 10,000, although it can hold a maximum of 15,000." Let's assume this is a Xinjiang detention camp, holding ten to fifteen thousand people. How many of these would it take to hold one million people?
Let's do some math:
In reality, one million people would probably take more space; all the supposed detention camps we see are much less dense than Rikers.
For comparison, San Francisco is 47 square miles. Amsterdam is 64 square miles. You'd literally need detention camps that total the size of San Francisco or Amsterdam to intern one million Uyghurs. It'd be like looking at a map of California. There's Los Angeles. There's San Diego. And look, there's San Francisco Concentration City with its one million Uyghurs.
Literally visible to the naked eye from space.
CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, but their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD “extrapolated estimates” that “at least 10% of villagers […] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.” Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense from logistics perspective.
Practically all the stories we see about China trace back to Adrian Zenz is a far right fundamentalist nutcase and not a reliable source for any sort of information. The fact that he's the primary source for practically every article in western media demonstrates precisely what I'm talking about when I say that coverage is divorced from reality.
Zenz is a born-again Christian who lectures at the European School of Culture and Theology. This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the “Bible to be the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives,” and whose mission is to “educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.”
Zenz’s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “I feel very clearly led by God to do this,” he said. “I can put it that way. I’m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.”.
Along with his “mission” against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity.
Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist.
The fact that this nutcase is being paraded as a credible researcher on the subject is absolutely surreal, and it's clear that the methodology of his "research" doesn't pass any kind of muster when examined closely.
It's also worth noting that there is a political angle around the narrative around Xinjiang. For example, here's George Bush's chief of staff openly saying that US wants to destabilize the region, and NED recently admitting to funding Uyghur separatism for the past 16 years on their own official Twitter page. An ex-CIA operative details US operations radicalizing and training terrorists in the region in this book. Here's an excerpt:
US has been stoking terrorism in the region while they've been running a propaganda campaign against China in the west. In fact, US even classified Uyghur separatists as a terrorist group at one point https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-was-at-war-uyghur-terrorists-now-claims-etim-doesnt-exist/276916/
Here's an interview with a son of imam killed in Xinjiang https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-19/Son-of-imam-assassinated-in-Kashgar-s-2014-mosque-attack-speaks-out-RqNiyrcRuo/index.html
Here's an account from a Pakistani journalist who has been all over Xinjiang (which borders Pakistan) claims that western media reports on "atrocities" are lies. https://dailytimes.com.pk/723317/exposing-the-occidents-baseless-lies-about-xinjiang/
It's also worth noting that the accusations originate entirely from the west while Muslim majority countries support China, and their leaders have visited Xinjiang many times.
Also notable that whenever western media actually deigns to visit Xinjiang, which is not often, they're unable to produce support for any of their claims of mass imprisonment and oppression, so they opt for insinuations instead https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9
There's a further list of debunking here if you're interested https://redsails.org/the-xinjiang-atrocity-propaganda-blitz/
The whole thing is very clearly a propaganda blitz that US is cynically using to manipulate impressionable people in the west.
Based on the article you linked from quartz, I think you may be misconstruing the claim of 1 million people in detention. The article seems to suggest that the potential million people have been through the process of work or education camps, not that there are a million people actively held in detention at the same time.
There is no evidence for such claims either though.
Technically anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it must be weighed as such, and is not conclusive unless supported with verifiable data. But, that's kinda besides the point.
I was merely pointing out an issue with your methodology, not the overall argument.
These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims. For example, plenty of people from all over the world have been to places like Xinjiang, and there are plenty of local people who speak about this.
Yes the 1 million thing is a claim, which is "supported" by anecdotal evidence. Which as you say needs to be weighted against negating evidence, and can be dismissed by contrasting anecdotal evidence.
Again, not trying to attack your overall argument, just pointing out a problem within the framework of your negation. Mostly because you seem like a person who might care about that.
Fair, I'm just noting that the anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence. Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common, that's using anecdotal evidence. If you had somebody come to you and say there are a lot of car crashes happening, that's just an unsubstantiated claim. I'm saying that what you refer to as anecdotal evidence doesn't even live up to that standard.
I would say that's a semantic dispute.
The incorrect application of logic in this scenario is still making a claim drawn on too little evidence, not an inherent problem with the evidence.
It's not a semantic dispute it's a very important difference. Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don't know whether it's statistically significant or not. On the other hand, hearsay is information that's received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, a rumor. Trying to conflate these two things is disingenuous.
I don't believe that's what anecdotal evidence means. Anecdotal evidence is generally understood to be information based on personal observations.
Hearsay is reporting what other people attest to have observed. Logically and legally they are weighted the same. There is no logical difference between trusting what someone says, and believing what someone says someone said.
I think we are having a misunderstanding of what evidence means. Evidence isn't something that supports reality, it support your argument or theory. There may be anecdotal evidence that a million people are in encampments, but that just means someone reported it. It's not good evidence, and can be dismissed as easily as someone reporting the opposite. However, it is technically defined as evidence.
Again, you're conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing. There is a big logical difference between something that's a verifiable a fact and and assertion. The accusation of a million people being held in encampments is the latter. There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion. Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.
I'm not conflating the two, I'm saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it's just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can't be the only peice of evidence you use. It's not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.
Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.
We've just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?
"Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true."
That is what I have been saying the entire time.
It's clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means. I don't think this discussion is productive at this point. Have a good day.
My friend, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am simply trying to improve your ability to logically frame an argument.
If I wrote a scientific paper and claimed one piece of evidence was enough to prove my theory I would be laughed out of academia.
You as well.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
here's
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Is it goofy to prosecute east turkistan terrorists? I guess it is for westerners whose official policy is to bomb all muslims.