The conditions leading to radicalization, even outside of IS or CIA involvement, are only going to get more intense, not less so. Telling someone their culture is important and valued by the majority as it continues to be pushed further to the fringes
In theory, re-education programs can improve the material conditions of people (in the same way investing in education everywhere else does), which should help keep them from being pushed to the fringes of society.
But also, yes, some people do need political re-education. Tens of millions of people in this country just flat-out don't give a shit about the value of human life outside of the lives of their family and friends. That mindset is fundamentally incompatible with any society worth having. Any acceptable solution to that gigantic problem is going to involve re-educating people.
I'm not disagreeing, I just don't think that any heretofore discovered method of re-education actually works.
The third option that I think exists that OP did not discuss is that when investing in a community, you make sure the people who were already there are the ones who benefit. This is the same thing that gets brought up in discussions of marijuana legalization and gentrification in the US.
How many of these new factories in Xinjiang are collectively owned by people from Xinjiang? How many factory forepersons are Uyghurs? Are the new housing housing units being constructed being given to the existing population?
I just don’t think that any heretofore discovered method of re-education actually works.
I can think of at least three existing tools that are pretty effective at influencing mass attitudes:
Mass media, particularly film and TV. For example, consider all the copaganda on existing police shows and imagine if the message was inverted. Instead of a cop planting evidence to nail a guy they know is guilty, they find one piece of potentially exonerating evidence and the message is about how important it is to disclose that to the prosecutor and defense counsel. Instead of a cop roughing up a suspect and getting useful information, a cop roughs up a suspect, gets made-up info that blows up in their face, and they get reprimanded or fired for it. Instead having an entire series about how horrible sex criminals are lurking around every corner, you have a series about some juvenile diversionary program that keeps kids from getting into deeper trouble.
Emotionally jarring messaging. The two examples that come to mind are Holocaust museums and the type of video they show you before you go white water rafting (where they show all the bodies they drag out of the river each year). It's possible to design messaging that really hits hard -- imagine if we had U.S. war crimes museums, or Gilded Age worker abuse museums.
Social/academic/employment consequences. People used to say the n-word all the time. You know how the n-word (largely) disappeared from mainstream society? There started to be serious consequences for saying it. If some talking head on TV said the n-word on a broadcast they'd be fired. What if they could get fired for calling on police to beat up protesters, or denying climate change, or defending U.S. invasions of other countries? It wouldn't, by itself, solve everything (just as driving the n-word from mainstream society hasn't solved racism). But it would create a a cultural current that's at least heading in the right direction, much like how we went from segregation being a legitimate political issue to something that even racists have to agree is wrong if they want to get any mainstream purchase.
But say you're right, and we're not sure any method of re-education will work. The alternative -- letting people who don't give a damn about human lives have real political power -- is more dangerous than at least trying to re-educate those people.
How many of these new factories in Xinjiang are collectively owned by people from Xinjiang? How many factory forepersons are Uyghurs? Are the new housing housing units being constructed being given to the existing population?
This is a fair question, and that's an ideal to strive for, but you can still do good things (e.g.. job guarantees, free education) even if they aren't collectively owned by the people involved. The Civilian Conservation Corps was a step in the right direction even if the workers didn't own their immediate means of production.
In theory, re-education programs can improve the material conditions of people (in the same way investing in education everywhere else does), which should help keep them from being pushed to the fringes of society.
But also, yes, some people do need political re-education. Tens of millions of people in this country just flat-out don't give a shit about the value of human life outside of the lives of their family and friends. That mindset is fundamentally incompatible with any society worth having. Any acceptable solution to that gigantic problem is going to involve re-educating people.
I'm not disagreeing, I just don't think that any heretofore discovered method of re-education actually works.
The third option that I think exists that OP did not discuss is that when investing in a community, you make sure the people who were already there are the ones who benefit. This is the same thing that gets brought up in discussions of marijuana legalization and gentrification in the US.
How many of these new factories in Xinjiang are collectively owned by people from Xinjiang? How many factory forepersons are Uyghurs? Are the new housing housing units being constructed being given to the existing population?
I can think of at least three existing tools that are pretty effective at influencing mass attitudes:
But say you're right, and we're not sure any method of re-education will work. The alternative -- letting people who don't give a damn about human lives have real political power -- is more dangerous than at least trying to re-educate those people.
This is a fair question, and that's an ideal to strive for, but you can still do good things (e.g.. job guarantees, free education) even if they aren't collectively owned by the people involved. The Civilian Conservation Corps was a step in the right direction even if the workers didn't own their immediate means of production.