• _aj42 [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    4 years ago

    I feel like there's room for nuance between doing whatever the fuck the US did and putting Muslims in camps

    • KiaKaha [he/him]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 years ago

      I figured ‘use various measures to target people prone to far right extremism, teach them why that’s wrong, then provide employment, while investing in the region to address the material conditions that led to the unrest’ was the nuanced approach.

      I’m sure there are ways it can be improved, and I’m sure their approach has its excesses. I’m just so far unconvinced that there’s any better historic approach to draw upon.

      If you know of any, please let me know.

      • ap1 [any,undecided]
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        leave Xinjiang as an autonomous zone, continue to offer voluntary education and work programs and welcome any refugees to China. Carrot vs stick.

        • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          The American South is a region filled with religious extremists, some of whom have already radicalized to the point of committing acts of terrorism. Should we make it its own country and fund their schools to boot? Is that likely to improve the situation or make it worse?

          • ap1 [any,undecided]
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            you can make the same argument for Hamas in Palestine and Herzbollah in Lebanon. Occupying territories which do not want to be occupied is imperialism.

            Edit: sorry, I read "American South" as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people

            • VYKNIGHT [none/use name]
              ·
              4 years ago

              There is a difference between giving the Palestinians their country back vs making a new country to placate religious extremists

              • ap1 [any,undecided]
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                4 years ago

                It's not "making a new country" it's recognizing autonomy of the people of Xinjiang.

            • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Occupying territories which do not want to be occupied is imperialism.

              Is the U.S. occupying Mississippi and Alabama?

              • ap1 [any,undecided]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 years ago

                yeah the american government needs to fuck off and recognise indigenous sovereignty.

                  • ap1 [any,undecided]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    sorry, I misread “American South” in the original comment as in South America rather than Southern USA. In the case of USA, yes an ideal leftwing government in my world would help fund a grassroots leftist resistance for BIPOC rather than forced re-education camps for poor working class white people

          • GPL_ME_TIMBERD [none/use name]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            Likely to improve the situation. Even if the situation does not improve, their failure (and chance to learn from their mistakes) is now in their own hands. Autonomy and self determination are principles that should be upheld... Wherever we can uphold them.

        • VYKNIGHT [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS. This option condemns millions of people to living under a fundamentalist Islamic State, including many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims. This option creates a CIA-aligned state on the border, and jeopardises a key part of the Belt and Road initiative, which is designed to connect landlocked countries for development and geopolitical positioning. This option also threatens the CPC’s legitimacy, as keeping China together is a historical signifier of the Mandate of Heaven.

          • ap1 [any,undecided]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            The CPC could give up and surrender Xinjiang to ISIS.

            Do you really think that's what would happen if Xinjiang was given autonomy?

              • ap1 [any,undecided]
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                4 years ago

                You dont think "many non-Muslims and non-extreme Muslims" could resist this on a grassroots level - especially if given humanitarian support from China?

                • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  So the plan is to slice up your country knowing that a civil war is likely in the breakaway state? This is getting better and better.

                  • ap1 [any,undecided]
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    "your country" is why I have an issue here. The CPC doesn't own China. The people of China own China and if they have issues with the government their needs should be met.

                    • VYKNIGHT [none/use name]
                      arrow-down
                      1
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      ur country” is why I have an issue here. The CPC doesn’t own China. The people of China own China and if they have issues with the government their needs should be me

                      "the party that rules the state of China is not responsible for the condition of the state of China" -ap1