Usually in relation to Uighur camps, the argument is "since you're in America you can't change whether they're concentration camps or education facilities, so you should just concentrate on the concentration camps within your own borders instead."

Like, motherfucker, I can have an opinion on the actions in another country and still work on changing things I can change.

I guess my question is, is this concentrate on what you can change part of some theory or strategy I haven't read or is it just bad and lazy?

In particular for China it's essentially conceding to the people who thinks there are millions of Uighurs being murdered, rather than attempt to engage and show that there is no evidence of that, and just what abouting.

  • shitstorm [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Why stop at xinjiang? Why not talk about Kashmir? Why not Myanmar? The narrative has nothing to do with the welfare of the Uyghurs & everything to do with Western propaganda strategy.

    This is how I need to start phrasing this to lib friends. Every single week pretty much there's political protests or systematic repression or regional instability in some country. The State Dept could spend all day listing the world's atrocities, but they don't obviously. Why isn't the admin talking about Chilean protests? Or Indian protests? Biden right now is backing the undemocratic leader of Haiti when the whole country is in protest over him being an American puppet, that's not even news.

    Every single time the US State Dept, DoD, or any sort of leadership is mentioning another country's problems, it is always targetted at America's enemies. And most of these international news reporters take these government officials at their word and print their statements verbatim without any criticism. So you should always, always be critical of whatever narrative the US government is saying about another country, especially if it's China.