Take a look at this, as it has hardly been secretive. Also your inability to find neutral or even pro-Chinese content in the West should not dictate the faith you have as you will have difficulty doing that.
Anyway if you look at the source I sent you, you'll see that the information provided is pretty open but Western media is deliberately changing it. The vast majority of sources on these camps comes from Adrian Zenz who is a born-again anti-Communist idiot.
It's still forced reeducation with a racially/ethnically charged definition of who needs reeducation. You seem to be giving it the benefit of the doubt because there's no information beyond that, but it's not the first such program and they don't have a good track record. If Canada decided to start reeducating First Peoples again, would you give them the benefit of the doubt?
(And to be clear - I don't think the NYT is being honest with this either. Again, they didn't start pushing for sanctions when it happened in Canada. They're here because it's ammunition for manufacturing anti-China sentiment, not because they suddenly started caring about human rights.)
It’s still forced reeducation with a racially/ethnically charged definition of who needs reeducation.
On what do you base this statement?
You seem to be giving it the benefit of the doubt because there’s no information beyond that
I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt based on what I have read and that China is a Communist state, and as a Communist myself, I don't have reason to doubt them. Provided other information to do so, I would, as I'm not an idiot and I know that other Communist states have made missteps in this area.
it’s not the first such program and they don’t have a good track record.
What others do you know of?
If Canada decided to start reeducating First Peoples again, would you give them the benefit of the doubt?
Canada is a colonial settler capitalist state so I wouldn't trust them with a houseplant.
Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist (as if that's the source of all good and doing the right thing isn't hard, and a process), or how much we should place all the blame for all human rights violations at the feet of capitalism and colonialism (which... capitalism exasperates all problems, but it's not the root cause of all evil. Evil predates capitalism).
And I'm happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves. But you don't need to be an absolute butt about it. What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that'll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who's on your side?
On what do you base this statement?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
it’s not the first such program and they don’t have a good track record.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they're doing it, but they're still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there's no denying their political orientation.
And I’m happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves.
Okay?
But you don’t need to be an absolute butt about it.
This feels ironic in light of your prior statement. I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that’ll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who’s on your side?
Are you referring to a discussion I'm having outside of my thread with you?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
It sounds like if you're using that source to draw that conclusion then you have added your own interpretation, and that's why I'm curious where you get your interpretation.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
Which other programs has China done and their track record with it? That's what I was asking.
lol, this is a seriously terrible take. They are capitalist, full stop. How in gods name can you claim they're communist? They have private enterprise, free markets, class, private property. They are capitalist.
Seems like they're as capitalist as they need to be to build deterrence and avoid outside interference. Declaring themselves explicitly communist and behaving that way 100%, with economic success, would have been too much of a threat and too easy to unite against.
Something interesting from a recent (lib) Sinica pod: Capital funding for business and industry from the banks very much follows central policy objectives/directions rather than market forces. Any failures are absorbed by the heretofore (I'm leaving it in) growth in the system. Sometimes ostensible failures on a local or regional level can continue to be funded if they are perceived to have a national benefit, a characteristic you don't often see in free market systems.
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they’re doing it, but they’re still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there’s no denying their political orientation.
Ok, this is just criminally incorrect. They have free markets and billionaires. How can you call that Communist? It's not even Socialist. It betrayed Socialism under that revisionary motherfucker Deng, only under Mao was it truly socialist.
Besides, no country has been Communist. Ever. Only Socialist countries led by a Communist party. Communism is the final stage of development after Socialism following the abolishment of class, money, and the state.
I would contend that China is currently more akin to a social democracy, but one under the control of a Communist Party. They are moving towards the construction of socialism, as indicated by their goals and their progress towards them, but are currently not explicitly socialist
They are moving towards the construction of socialism
I don't think they're doing that either. I give about 1 in 99999999999999 odds that they'll convert to communism in 2050 like it says in their constitution. It'll be changed.
No, their internal documents and plans essentially outline that they are currently taking steps to modernise their country, as well as mitigate the inequality inherent in accumulation, before beginning to transition to socialism, and they are on track for the first two.
For instance, they are taking active steps to raise people out of poverty, including providing reliable water, internet and electricity sources to rural areas, providing free hygiene education, general education, allocating doctors to these families, and moving people (who want it!) into furnished houses free of charge. Their poverty alleviation scheme has moved hundreds of millions of people away from poverty, to the extent that a huge majority of the nation's population is no longer in poverty. Poverty eradication was planned to be completed by the end of 2020 ish, and is on track to do so. Afterwards, their goal is to reduce/eliminate wealth inequality by 2035, so that they are able to move into a higher stage of socialism in 2050.
In terms of modernisation, I would say they are also on track for their Made in China 2025 goal, which involves shifting the Chinese economy away from low level manufacturing to high-fidelity tech manufacturing, which has manifested itself as the world leader in 5G and HSR.
I bring all this up to highlight both that the CPC actively works towards (and is successful in) fulfilling their goal of transitioning toward socialism. Socialism, as much as I want it to be, is not a switch to be turned on. It is a world historical process which brings with it contradictions to be addressed. Might goals be postponed? Yeah, but it's based on metrics, rather than wanting to delude the Chinese people or dogma. I think to disregard the resolution of these contradictions is rather dismissive of the 90 million members of the CPC.
If you think China isn't communist because it's a state then that's a meaningless thing to say because it's definitionally impossible for it to be otherwise. The alternative, and what everyone means, is that China is run by communists. He literally said "their political orientation." So either you can disagree that this is their orientation or disagree that they're effectively fighting for communism in some way. Again, he literally said "their political orientation" lmfao
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.
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.
We are not having this discussion in a vacuum, we are having it in the context of the US gearing up for hostilities, so the scope of a discussion about international relations is necessarily broader than what you or I may have have personally said.
No, we are not. I am talking about what we know China is doing, what they are admitting themselves directly. At no point did I bring in any western media reporting. Re-read my posts, this is a discussion about imprisoning people because a government has diagnosed them of having the wrong ideologies, and that we should not pretend that this is okay. Whether some journalists spread misinformation does not affect the reality of Uyghurs. If you want to criticise the media, do it, but I am not interested in it.
If forcing the NYT into it has any relevance, then as evidence that people here seem to think that because the US is an evil imperialist power, we should defend China and ignore their wrongdoings. I am trying to look at what China does, not if there are more evil countries, as if this would relieve China of their crimes. Have some humanist ideals, and apply them to everyone equally, not based on how much you like or identify with a country, or you are falling in the same ideological traps as American imperialists do.
You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.
You don't open the scope of a discussion by shifting the focus to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
This is still an assumption on your part.
I am "assuming" that the language used does not do separating families and forcing a large ethnic group to go into re-education camps justice? I don't see how you can deny the gravity of what this means to the people affected by it.
Yet they are, and what do you know of what they’re doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?
Why do you keep bringing someone in the discussion who has not been part or even influence of anything I have said?
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 have been arguing based on what we know for sure. Even the government has confirmed it. I would love to have more to go by, but it doesn't really exist.
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 don't have a better solution, but at least what the Chinese government is doing has a chance of working and improving the lives of the people of Xinjiang. What you are suggesting is doing nothing, let extremism keep spreading and with it terrorism and separatism. And for what, an irrational commitment to the protection of individual freedoms that don't really make anyone more free?
It would be preferable if there was a way to educate people without having to force them to do it, which is why I was asking your opinion. But doing nothing is not a solution either.
Which is not what's happening.
Take a look at this, as it has hardly been secretive. Also your inability to find neutral or even pro-Chinese content in the West should not dictate the faith you have as you will have difficulty doing that.
Anyway if you look at the source I sent you, you'll see that the information provided is pretty open but Western media is deliberately changing it. The vast majority of sources on these camps comes from Adrian Zenz who is a born-again anti-Communist idiot.
That's a good source, thanks for sharing it.
It's still forced reeducation with a racially/ethnically charged definition of who needs reeducation. You seem to be giving it the benefit of the doubt because there's no information beyond that, but it's not the first such program and they don't have a good track record. If Canada decided to start reeducating First Peoples again, would you give them the benefit of the doubt?
(And to be clear - I don't think the NYT is being honest with this either. Again, they didn't start pushing for sanctions when it happened in Canada. They're here because it's ammunition for manufacturing anti-China sentiment, not because they suddenly started caring about human rights.)
On what do you base this statement?
I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt based on what I have read and that China is a Communist state, and as a Communist myself, I don't have reason to doubt them. Provided other information to do so, I would, as I'm not an idiot and I know that other Communist states have made missteps in this area.
What others do you know of?
Canada is a colonial settler capitalist state so I wouldn't trust them with a houseplant.
Obviously we disagree about how much we should automatically trust the Chinese government because they label themselves Communist (as if that's the source of all good and doing the right thing isn't hard, and a process), or how much we should place all the blame for all human rights violations at the feet of capitalism and colonialism (which... capitalism exasperates all problems, but it's not the root cause of all evil. Evil predates capitalism).
And I'm happy to just let you be weirdly idealistic about the labels people choose for themselves. But you don't need to be an absolute butt about it. What are you even doing with these two replies below? Are you being intentionally obtuse because you think that'll win you some sort of debate points? Are you trying to waste the time of anyone who might disagree with you? Is that any way to treat someone who's on your side?
Literally the article you posted. Where they talk about forcing people to go to go to schools. Because of a specifically Muslim-targeted brand of terrorist ideology.
The next sentence of my post. Which you also quoted.
China is Communist, full stop. You may not like how they're doing it, but they're still a Communist state. If you have a critique of it, certainly go ahead, but there's no denying their political orientation.
Okay?
This feels ironic in light of your prior statement. I'm also not sure what you're talking about.
Are you referring to a discussion I'm having outside of my thread with you?
It sounds like if you're using that source to draw that conclusion then you have added your own interpretation, and that's why I'm curious where you get your interpretation.
Which other programs has China done and their track record with it? That's what I was asking.
lol, this is a seriously terrible take. They are capitalist, full stop. How in gods name can you claim they're communist? They have private enterprise, free markets, class, private property. They are capitalist.
Seems like they're as capitalist as they need to be to build deterrence and avoid outside interference. Declaring themselves explicitly communist and behaving that way 100%, with economic success, would have been too much of a threat and too easy to unite against.
Something interesting from a recent (lib) Sinica pod: Capital funding for business and industry from the banks very much follows central policy objectives/directions rather than market forces. Any failures are absorbed by the heretofore (I'm leaving it in) growth in the system. Sometimes ostensible failures on a local or regional level can continue to be funded if they are perceived to have a national benefit, a characteristic you don't often see in free market systems.
Ok, this is just criminally incorrect. They have free markets and billionaires. How can you call that Communist? It's not even Socialist. It betrayed Socialism under that revisionary motherfucker Deng, only under Mao was it truly socialist.
Besides, no country has been Communist. Ever. Only Socialist countries led by a Communist party. Communism is the final stage of development after Socialism following the abolishment of class, money, and the state.
I would contend that China is currently more akin to a social democracy, but one under the control of a Communist Party. They are moving towards the construction of socialism, as indicated by their goals and their progress towards them, but are currently not explicitly socialist
I don't think they're doing that either. I give about 1 in 99999999999999 odds that they'll convert to communism in 2050 like it says in their constitution. It'll be changed.
No, their internal documents and plans essentially outline that they are currently taking steps to modernise their country, as well as mitigate the inequality inherent in accumulation, before beginning to transition to socialism, and they are on track for the first two.
For instance, they are taking active steps to raise people out of poverty, including providing reliable water, internet and electricity sources to rural areas, providing free hygiene education, general education, allocating doctors to these families, and moving people (who want it!) into furnished houses free of charge. Their poverty alleviation scheme has moved hundreds of millions of people away from poverty, to the extent that a huge majority of the nation's population is no longer in poverty. Poverty eradication was planned to be completed by the end of 2020 ish, and is on track to do so. Afterwards, their goal is to reduce/eliminate wealth inequality by 2035, so that they are able to move into a higher stage of socialism in 2050.
In terms of modernisation, I would say they are also on track for their Made in China 2025 goal, which involves shifting the Chinese economy away from low level manufacturing to high-fidelity tech manufacturing, which has manifested itself as the world leader in 5G and HSR.
I bring all this up to highlight both that the CPC actively works towards (and is successful in) fulfilling their goal of transitioning toward socialism. Socialism, as much as I want it to be, is not a switch to be turned on. It is a world historical process which brings with it contradictions to be addressed. Might goals be postponed? Yeah, but it's based on metrics, rather than wanting to delude the Chinese people or dogma. I think to disregard the resolution of these contradictions is rather dismissive of the 90 million members of the CPC.
If you think China isn't communist because it's a state then that's a meaningless thing to say because it's definitionally impossible for it to be otherwise. The alternative, and what everyone means, is that China is run by communists. He literally said "their political orientation." So either you can disagree that this is their orientation or disagree that they're effectively fighting for communism in some way. Again, he literally said "their political orientation" lmfao
Except they're not fighting for Communism. They're moving further and further away from it with more market reforms.
I'm not sure where I said they are!
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:
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.
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.
This is an assumption on your part.
I still am, it looks to me that again China's aim is to deprogram Western attempts to radicalize Muslim populations in Western China.
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.
But why? This wasn't part of the discussion.
They are euphemistic because the language used is trying to downplay the gravity of it.
They don't have to be western attempts. Even if they would be, how they are doing and justifying it is still very problematic.
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.
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.
I didn't use it, nor did I argue anything based on the NYT. It is not relevant. If others do it is a whole other topic.
We are not having this discussion in a vacuum, we are having it in the context of the US gearing up for hostilities, so the scope of a discussion about international relations is necessarily broader than what you or I may have have personally said.
No, we are not. I am talking about what we know China is doing, what they are admitting themselves directly. At no point did I bring in any western media reporting. Re-read my posts, this is a discussion about imprisoning people because a government has diagnosed them of having the wrong ideologies, and that we should not pretend that this is okay. Whether some journalists spread misinformation does not affect the reality of Uyghurs. If you want to criticise the media, do it, but I am not interested in it.
If forcing the NYT into it has any relevance, then as evidence that people here seem to think that because the US is an evil imperialist power, we should defend China and ignore their wrongdoings. I am trying to look at what China does, not if there are more evil countries, as if this would relieve China of their crimes. Have some humanist ideals, and apply them to everyone equally, not based on how much you like or identify with a country, or you are falling in the same ideological traps as American imperialists do.
You can open the scope of a discussion, that is totally allowed.
This is still an assumption on your part.
Yet they are, and what do you know of what they're doing and justifying it beyond sources from an anti-communist evangelical?
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?
You don't open the scope of a discussion by shifting the focus to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I am "assuming" that the language used does not do separating families and forcing a large ethnic group to go into re-education camps justice? I don't see how you can deny the gravity of what this means to the people affected by it.
Why do you keep bringing someone in the discussion who has not been part or even influence of anything I have said?
I have been arguing based on what we know for sure. Even the government has confirmed it. I would love to have more to go by, but it doesn't really exist.
I do not think you've been doing this at all. Take a look at this thread and tell me what you're still assuming after all that.
And once again you are trying to change the topic to incorrect reporting about the situation. I give up.
I'm not trying to change the topic. I'm trying to address the inaccuracies of your argument.
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.
Well that's probably the most lib take I have seen on this site so far.
Well, what would you do if you were Xi? I'm sorry for offending you with that take, I'm not the most knowledgeable.
I don't have a better solution, but at least what the Chinese government is doing has a chance of working and improving the lives of the people of Xinjiang. What you are suggesting is doing nothing, let extremism keep spreading and with it terrorism and separatism. And for what, an irrational commitment to the protection of individual freedoms that don't really make anyone more free?
It would be preferable if there was a way to educate people without having to force them to do it, which is why I was asking your opinion. But doing nothing is not a solution either.