watch this b4 commenting https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PGjSv3x0fuk
Take a look at this, as it has hardly been secretive.
What is this supposed to prove? Yes, the Chinese governments admits their existence (there is no way around it) and uses very euphemistic terms to describe them. You are saying that re-education and forced assimilation isn’t happening but a quote from what you linked:
[…] one shouldn’t underestimate the power of terrorist indoctrination, which they can only overcome by going to school, learning Chinese, and picking up technical skills
The FAQ proceeds to compare going to school to seeking medical treatment — one may refuse to seek treatment thinking his/her condition isn’t severe, when in fact it is severe or might become severe in the future.
Imprisoning millions, forcing them to learn Chinese and whatever “knowledge” they require to be allowed to leave, and separating families to “educate” the children in different prisons, is very much what you are denying. The Chinese government giving a euphemistic FAQ to children who can’t reach their parents anymore does not make it less secretive.
What is this supposed to prove?
I mean it’s mostly supposed to prove that the New York Times and other sources have vastly exaggerated or speculated on claims rather than investigating them, but okay.
uses very euphemistic terms to describe them.
This is an assumption on your part.
You are saying that re-education and forced assimilation isn’t happening
I still am, it looks to me that again China’s aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.
Imprisoning millions, forcing them to learn Chinese and whatever “knowledge” they require to be allowed to leave, and separating families to “educate” the children in different prisons, is very much what you are denying.
That’s a whole lot of scare quotes for something you’re speculating on. You also didn’t talk about Adrian Zenz at all, which is extremely relevant as that’s been the West’s primary source on this shit.
I mean it’s mostly supposed to prove that the New York Times and other sources have vastly exaggerated or speculated on claims rather than investigating them, but okay.
But why? This wasn’t part of the discussion.
This is an assumption on your part.
They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.
I still am, it looks to me that again China’s aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.
They don’t have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.
That’s a whole lot of scare quotes for something you’re speculating on.
I am not speculating. That is what they are saying. They are saying that they have been indoctrinated and that it can be a long process to re-educate them. We are talking about a whole population here. The separation of families is also not speculation.
You also didn’t talk about Adrian Zenz at all, which is extremely relevant as that’s been the West’s primary source on this shit.
Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.
Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.
It’s highly relevant to this discussion because the sources people are using to back up these claims include the New York Times, which was instrumental in legitimizing similarly unfounded claims about WMDs in Iraq. Claims of genocide fall into the same category as claims of impending attack: they both provide a casus belli to other countries. This is all war marketing.
But why? This wasn’t part of the discussion.
You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.
They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.
This is still an assumption on your part.
They don’t have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.
Yet they are, and what do you know of what they’re doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?
Please stop trying to force a discussion about some western narrative into it, as if this would add anything to the topic.
Where do you get your sources on China? Are you in China? Are you of Chinese descent? Do you live among the Uyghurs? How do you know what’s happening?
I completely agree, tbh. I don’t understand why people are defending this violation of human rights. Which it is, regardless if they’re beating people or not. They’re abducting people without cause and keeping them till they’re ideologically indoctrinated. They admit this, even in the video OP linked. This is very obviously a vile control tactic. To defenders of this: I critically support you in your fight against American imperialism, and in your fight against capitalism, but to defend this is to violate your principles and I hope you come to realize that.
What would be your solution to the problems of extremism, terrorism, separatism, poverty etc that are present in Xinjiang? I am not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious about what would be the better way to handle this.
I would simply not abduct people without cause. If people are doing a terrorism, I would arrest them. Simple as that.
