Canada's Parliament just voted to declare it a genocide. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/uighur-genocide-motion-vote-1.5922711 And I've been seeing a lot of conflicting takes on it on twitter and here. From what I can gather from researching the main issue is lack of indication of full on genocide there, but there also seems to be a fair amount of evidence that these camps do exist. I fail to see how that is "good" as people on this site appear to be indicating?
Just want to add something here for all the debates of "well it's not actually a genocide, it's only camps, blah blah blah." When the UN wrote up the credentials for what constitutes a genocide, plenty of countries involved specifically fought to take out certain definitions so that they wouldn't be liable to the actions they were doing at the time. A perfect example is one of the criteria for a genocide is taking children to camps. And this was written this way so that some of the countries involved wouldn't be held accountable for taking adults to camps.
Just keep that liberal bias in mind when playing armchair genocide-decider
Wary of “liberal bias” while being an armchair CIA shill
lol holy shit it's okay to point out atrocities without being pro-CIA you know. christ you know this stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum, right?
It’s okay to have views on China inseparable from Mike Pompeo’s and to do the work of the imperialists for them by helping them manufacture consent against any state that actually challenges their hegemony.
gee I've been owned
edit: actually I just want to make something clear. so, my options here are to either deny that these camps exist or be classified as a CIA op, right? there's no in-between? just checking here
Wow you got their ass great job
Here's my effort post which talks about precisely the point you brought up about the definition of genocide being changed for political reasons.
https://hexbear.net/post/87145
oh god the comment section on that is killing me. o7 for the good work, friend
Why is the comment section killing you?
I agree with your premise that genocide is defined according to political concerns and is altered significantly from the original academic definition. I disagree with your conclusion that this means China is actually doing genocide and is just getting off on a technicality.
I think that introducing the context provided by the original academic definition of genocide, and reviewing the history of how that definition has been changed for political reasons actually gives more weight to the argument that China is not carrying out a genocide, and that it is the accusations of genocide that are being wielded for political purposes.
Oh when I looked at it earlier there were a couple Bad Takes comments at the top but I see that the majority of it has evened out. And to be fair, I don't necessarily think that China is committing genocide. I just wanted to point out that using UN definitions shouldn't ever really be taken into account when discussing these things.