I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly. The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region, which would seem far worse than some person drawing a cartoon.
But maybe any reactions just don't make mainstream news.
I also find that interesting in contrast to the constant outrage about the situation of Palestinians in Israel which certainly has many highly problematic aspects but to me still seems to be a far cry from the situation of Muslims in China or the treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia. It seems to be quite hypocritical by the governments of Muslim countries.
It is not a far cry, it is in fact almost exactly the same situation, although to my knowledge the crimes of Israel are much more well documented by many sources. Also note that it has taken almost a decade to get to this level of awareness and still to this day Israel critics are called anti-semites and worse. Hopefully more widespread awareness and outrage about the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang comes soon.
EDIT: Wow, actually more than a decade now since the original BDS statement.
Ok, so:
Israel has currently ~4500 Palestinians detained = < 0.1% [1]
China has about 1.8m Uygurs in internment camps = 14% [2]
I would call that a far cry.
Also, many other statistics of welfare, e.g. child mortality or GPD/capita in the West Bank and Gaza are about the same or better than in the neighboring countries (Jordan, Egypt). On the other hand, there seems to be quite substantial evidence for mass sterilizations and abortions forced on Uygurs in China. I have never heard of anything like that committed by Israel.
Again, I do believe that there are overreaches and overreactions on the Israeli side to actions by the Palestinians and there are innocent lives lost on both sides. I really hope, that they at some point manage to either live together peacefully or agree on a two state solution.
But there is a very substantial difference between that and the plight of the Uygurs.
There have been several (terrorist) attacks against Chinese civilians in Xinjiang over the years. The perpetrators have been lone wolfs, and people part of organized groups. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_conflict
Personally I think that attack on civilians cannot justify the actions of Chinese state or of the Israeli state (massive repression against civilians and continued colonization). And while I condemn both China and Israel for such actions, the two situation are very different.
Yeah, a lot of the issues have to do with the systemic denial of resources and oppression in the region. For the most part like in most of Mainland China, the goal of the CCP has been to convert the local ethnic groups and populations to a singular Han identity. Accompanying this being that they both actively send people from the Mainland over to take over jobs of the local inhabitants it's pretty clear why a lot of this is occurring. A lack of respect for the locals and the systemic destruction of their identity leaving them with nothing. A strategy used by the CCP in China since their great cultural revolution of the early 60s.
Though the CCP claim to not be doing so, it's been a trademark of their party for generations and overall, nothing new. We're just seeing a glimpse of it now, because of the dawn of the internet age.
If you want to see more there are several Chinese state sponsored English media outlets that cover it in great detail, though they like to pretend to have no affiliation. Continued development in the region is expected along with the belt and road initiatives. And a long list of other issues as well.
If you want an unbiased source of information about the ongoing event in China check out.
https://www.neican.org
Some Uighur did turn Jihadist. Oppression and denial of resources in an area is perfect for radicalization, including Jihadist radicalization if this area/population is mostly Muslim. But so far, the vast majority of Uighur and Kazakh in China are not Jihadist, not even Islamist.
>In recent years, ETIM has set up bases outside China to train terrorists and has dispatched its members to China to plot and execute terrorist acts including bombing buses, cinemas, department stores, markets and hotels. ETIM has also undertaken assassinations and arson attacks and has carried out terrorist attacks against Chinese targets abroad. Among the violent acts committed by ETIM members were the blowing up of the warehouse of the Urumqi Train Station on 23 May 1998, the armed looting of 247,000 RMB Yuan in Urumqi on 4 February 1999, an explosion in Hetian City, Xinjiang, on 25 March 1999 and violent resistance against arrest in Xinhe County, Xinjiang, on 18 June 1999. These incidents resulted in the deaths of 140 people and injuries to 371.
Indeed, only the actions of the oppressor are "almost exactly the same".
The Uygars have so far been a lot more peaceful in their oppression.
I also find that Israel is very good in presenting itself in the western MSM, while China seems to have the western MSM against it lately. That makes me also a bit more hesitant to accept the MSM's China critiques.
Israel for all its faults vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not committing ethnic cleansing or anything close to it. People who claim genocide by the Israelis are either anti-semetic or basing their opinions on anti-semitic disinformation.
> Where are the death camps? The gas chambers? This comment has no place on HN for sheer idiocy and sensationalism.
Gaza itself is an open air internment camp, under Israeli occupation; they use illegal munitions on civilian targets, and claim that its extremist reside within those homes. Their is a literal wall surrounding all of Gaza in order to keep them in place, and you have the audacity to make such a claim?
Any aid that tries to come results in the same situation: volunteers get killed illegally by the Israeli military as expansion into the West bank continues.
Just because YOU refuse to acknowledge the Crimes doesn't mean they don't take place.
> I find it funny when Israel is accuse of "controlling the borders of Gaza". I mean, by the same logic, the US controls the borders of Canada.
They literately prevent aid from coming into Gaza, and you think it's the same thing?
Moreover, Palestinian fisherman aren't allowed to go beyond 1 mile out to shore as the Israeli State forbids them from going any further and are monitored and surveilled, under some obtuse justification. Shelling of civilian areas is a common occurrence.
What you should find funny is your capacity for false equivalences, and perhaps how sick of a sense of humour you have that you can find any of this even remotely amusing.
None of this funny, it's a blight on humanity that such a thing occurs in the 21st Century (be it in China, Russia or Israel) and that we can still deem people 'less than' based on some a cult like nationalist, and genocidal ideology which is what Nazism was ultimately based on.
I use that work specifically to reflect the hypocrisy of the Zionist agenda because they have used it for so long to shut down any discourse on the matter and has allowed this to occur in the first place, but I could easily refer to any other number of genocides, too. I choose not to.
The point is: I choose my words carefully, so should you.
It is funny because the words are chosen carefully to gloss over the actual situation.
Hamas is at war with Israel. I don't find it unusual in the least that a country at war tightly controls its land crossings. Do you?
The more important question might be - why is the border crossing with Egypt also closed down or tightly controlled? Isn't Egypt an Arab ally? Why would they do that?
Calling Zionism equivalent to Nazism seems to be an overgeneralization. It would be better served to point out the similarities of both movements as overtly nationalistic, militant, and carried strongly by an undercurrent of racism. Furthermore, the current definition of Nazi is shifting away from that of the political party of the 30's and 40's and blending with a multitude of other racist and nationistic sentiments.
The persecution of an ethnic group towards the annihilation of their identity and way of life is inherently genocidal, but genocide predates Nazism and Zionism by millennia.
I think that what you said is an important point to make, and thanks for making it.
Note, that you lost some people when you said "anyone with a even a shred of reason would conclude that Zionism is the very reincarnation of Nazism". That's too dramatic: say bold things in subtle ways. If you're comparing Israel's and WW2 Germany's oppressive and violent tendencies, say that without generalizing, otherwise you might sound lazy or dogmatic.
> No, they are called Nazis, when anyone with a even a shred of reason would conclude that Zionism is the very reincarnation of Nazism and is used to suit their own agenda and narrative.
What? Israel doesn't run concentration camps, forced labor camps, or rounds up and executes Palestinians for being Palestinians.
That comparison is not just factually wrong, it's one of the most morally despicable takes I have ever had the displeasure of reading here on HN.
> That comparison is not just factually wrong, it's one of the most morally despicable takes I have ever had the displeasure of reading here on HN.
According to who, you?
Have you actually looked at what and how Palestinian's are forced to live during occupation and then made worse after COVID?
Here is an example of fored labour via poverty [0]:
Construction and infrastructure projects in Israel, and in Israeli settlements within the West Bank, are hugely dependent upon Palestinian labor. Under a lockdown in a pandemic this means that Palestinian workers are exposed to serious health risks while helping Israel cement its control over Palestinian land and people.
You want to see death squads in Palestine? But how about just watching illegal phosphorous munitions (a war crime) being used on Civilians [1]. You can also look into all of the atrocities of disproportionate violence against civilians by the Isreali military (which is to say the Israeli Citizens themselves since it's mandatory) from re-settlement on your own.
Your selective biases and forced narrative work with those with woke political bends, that much is clear, but they fall under even the slightest amount of scrutiny for anyone who is willing to look.
And before you resort to the absurd notions of antisemitism, I've been helping in Ukraine since the Maidan Revolution which has a large Jewish population, specifically in Lviv which is where I've spent the most time.
This has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with calling people who are driven by genocidal and ethnic cleansing ideology what they are: Israelis as a whole have become the very thing they supposedly detested and have behaved that way since the re-settlement after WWII.
The international community looks at Israel and sees Arab citizens, Arab judges including on the supreme court, the 14 current elected Arab members of the Knesset.
They look at the ancient, vibrant jewish communities that have historically been well integrated across the predominantly Arab nations of the Middle East for thousands of years and...
Sorry, who are the Nazis?
I'm in no way trying to justify everything done by the Jewish state, the persistent harassment of Palestinians and encroachments in the West bank are deplorable. However equating that to naziism, while glossing over the utter apocalyptic devastation visited on Jewish communities all over the region is frankly revolting. Neither side in that conflict has come out of it looking good. Yes extremist zionists are some of the worst of the worst, but equivalent extremism on this issue is utterly normalised in the Muslim world and is in fact the national policy of many Muslim states.
Meanwhile China gets an unconditional free pass because money.
The problem here is the gap between Israeli Arabs (citizens, full rights, political participation) and Palestinean Arabs (live in the same country, limited rights and political participation, citizens of partially recognizes quasistate).
I've made it quite clear, and you even stated you think Zionism is abhorrent, why would you ask such a myopic question? Much worse, think that 'whataboutism' is an adequate deflection of what has been blatant genocide and crimes against Humanity.
I'm not going to indulge your Zionist propaganda about flourishing cities.
It's not whataboutism trying to misdirect to an unrelated issue, it's a broadening of the examination of the same conflict and behaviour by the same involved parties.
I would actually agree with you that some incidents perpetrated by the Israeli military and government probably do rise to the level of war crimes. That's quite true. However I don't think it's misdirection to point out that in the same conflict the frequently stated objective, and in some cases official policy of many parties on the other side of the conflict is the planned execution of war crimes and genocide.
In China you are a member of an ethnic minority if one of your grandparents was of that ethnicity, who themselves might only have had one grandparent of that ethnicity. There are also incentives for people to register as members of minority groups such as scholarships*, yet also stark differences in the treatment of members of minorities who are or are not integrated into Chinese culture and the communist party in particular.
It's a deliberate program of ethnic and cultural dilution and assimilation. As a result the CCP, police, etc in these regions are packed with "members of ethnic minorities" who are culturally entirely Han/Commnist and may have had an ethnic ancestor, or at least have a certificate that says so. This process is much more advanced in regions like Inner Mongolia, but they're grinding away at the native culture in Xinjiang and Tibet.
* Funnily enough the criteria for scholarships open to minority groups emphasise academic performance in secular subjects, in the Chinese language and often with a political dimension heavily favouring students with strong Han cultural backgrounds.*
> In China you are a member of an ethnic minority if one of your grandparents was of that ethnicity, who themselves might only have had one grandparent of that ethnicity.
I mean, America has the one drop rule too, and you’re highly suggested to pick your most minority group any time you apply to a job, school, or basically anything. So you have people who are 1/128th Cherokee trying to game diversity benefits while people who actively culturally identify with their tribe are on reservations and basically forgotten by the world.
The situation for indigenous people in the USA is awful, sure, but it's not even remotely equivalent. The tribes determine who is or isn't a tribal member. In China the state determines such things and are actively packing the minorities with Han.
In fact it's mainly simply a matter of identification, it's extremely rare for anyone's ethnicity to be investigated or challenged officially. Where it does matter is in public life, particularly politics and when people purport to represent a group or ethnicity. In the US this undergoes considerable public scrutiny and if a minority group thinks someone is trying to usurp their identity or represent them inappropriately they tend to be very vocal about it and exert considerable pressure to ensure that representation is genuine.
Not so much in China.
Clearly representation and biases based on ethnicity in the US and west in general is a significant issue. There are many injustices. Nevertheless I think it's a bit distasteful to create false equivalences which trivialises or normalise the systematic oppression and cultural erasure that's currently succeeding at wiping out Uighur identity.
Is this surprising? Polities care about things happening in their backyard, and societies' goals tend to be much more pragmatic than what it says on the tin. The Palestinian situation is happening in their backyard, with people whose history is intertwined with theirs, and a refugee situation that affects them directly. There's not a country in the world that doesn't ultimately prioritize geopolitical concerns and a heaping dose of "people who look like me" prioritization.
For example, it's not "surprising hypocrisy" that Israel has a problem with racism towards some Jewish ethnic groups (Mizrahi, Ethiopian), despite Israel's supposedly deeply-held identity as a homeland where all Jews are welcome.
Note that this isn't a criticism of Israel! Just an acknowledgement that everywhere, people are people, and most people happen to be monsters. The fact that Arab countries care more about Arabs than a Muslim group halfway across the world seems almost tautological to me.
I think that's adequately explained by the fact that, unlike China, Israel is considered an ally in the west. That means we are in some way more responsible for the actions of Israel than the actions of China, as continued support implies agreement with those actions, to some extent.
Yes - the US and many other western nations have propped up Israel, in many ways enabling the continued aggression towards Palestine, though much of the west has an economic incentive to continue turning a blind eye towards the ongoing persecution of the Uyghur population. We are not blameless in their struggle.
Here's your problem; trying to talk about "the situation of Muslims in China" is incoherent. Islam has been an accepted (though small) part of Chinese culture for many centuries, and it still is. The Uyghurs are highly atypical Muslims in China who don't speak Chinese and don't participate in Chinese culture, instead preferring their own rival culture. That (and rebelliousness) is why they're oppressed.
Uyghurs have problems in China. Muslims don't, except to the extent that negative views of the Uyghurs start bleeding over into negative views of Muslims generally (which is indeed happening).
I've been confused for years about why the Western press seems so determined to demonstrate that it has no idea what it's talking about by representing oppression of Uyghurs as "oppressing people because of their religion". The case just can't be made. It would be trivial to call it "oppressing people because of their race"; that case is easy to make. But I guess the Western audience wouldn't see race-based oppression as being all that villainous?
What does "participate in Chinese culture" mean, and why shouldn't the culture of China's Xinjiang province count as "Chinese culture", assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
I do get what you mean about language, insofar as most people of the Hui ethnic group do tend to speak the dominant Sinitic language of the region in which they live and not an entirely different language family like most Uyghur people. But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference - people from Inner Mongolia don't speak a Sinitic language either, does that make them equally as un-Chinese as people from Xinjiang? And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
In any case, even Hui face some degree of discrimination in China, documented most recently in national anti-halal actions that expanded well beyond Xinjiang[0]. Like most minority ethnicities in the country, their culture is often joked about or dismissed in ways that "mainstream" Han culture is not. While this may not be blatant bigotry, the discrimination is something that would not be considered appropriate in countries whose people are more welcoming of ethnic diversity.
> But that's more of a geographic inevitability than some kind of fundamental cultural difference
No, speaking a different language is the most fundamental cultural difference there is.
> And if that matters so much, why does the Chinese government insist on holding on to these provinces whose culture is apparently unacceptably divergent from what they deem to be Chinese?
I asked this question of a Chinese high school student once. His response was that the Chinese didn't want to be conquered by the people of those regions. (Which notably happened in the 13th and 17th centuries.)
Wikipedia says that when the Qing dynasty fell, the idea was brought up that Xinjiang and similar regions should be divested from China as not being Chinese; they see the retention of non-Chinese territory as more a matter of no one being willing to take the responsibility/blame for the country getting smaller.
> assuming we accept the official description of China as a 多民族國家 multi-ethnic country?
Responding separately to this bit of inanity, if we're going to take Chinese official descriptions at face value, the Uyghurs aren't being oppressed in any way. They're in charge of their own 自治区.
US media has a long history of conflating race, religion, and socioeconomic class, in part due to the tangled nature of the 'States own biases and prejudice.
I think this is nearly entirely wrong. It's entirely about power and god.
Xi Jinping has cracked down on Christianity shutting down many churches. China has other ethnicities besides the Han, which don't speak Mandarin. If the Uyghurs had no faith they would be safe.
There is little room for religion unless the religion is centralized and submissive to the state. In some sense religion undermines the state.
In the 21st century, especially under the CCP, they're just competing forces more than direct adversaries, they both strive to do the same thing. And for most of History, the Church was the State.
It's parallels are quite visible, and now most wars are fought not for the deliberate imposition of deities, but rather for the new pantheon of self-declared god's: political leaders.
>And for most of History, the Church was the State.
Would you agree that the "Party" in CCP is something entirely different from what this term means in the west, and that it's closer in its meaning to a secularised version of a centralised church?
People wash away the misdeeds of the CCP during COVID because it suits their agenda, all the while their were was dissent fomenting during lockdowns. Han Chinese have been starved in Shanghai, those make shift hospitals were a joke and they under reported the deaths etc...
No, I'm very open about my disdain about the CCP, it's a cancer on the World and it should be seen for what it is.
Thank you; we might disagree on moral judgement of CCP (I'm not sure if I even have any consistent opinion), but the reason I've asked is that knowing about that semantical difference - bordering on mistranslation - makes it much easier to make sense of the situation, and I found it non-obvious.
> And for most of History, the Church was the State.
This is wildly false. The Church of England is about as close as things get. What historical periods are you thinking of in which the Church and the State were identified?
The Spanish crown during it's imperial rule, Isabella was called the Catholic FFS. Greece and Rome were all driven by their deities will as well. The Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire...
In short most of the impactful societies, specifically in the West have had hardcore religious zealotry.
> The Spanish crown during it's imperial rule, Isabella was called the Catholic FFS.
It would be difficult for Isabella to be called the Catholic without being religiously subordinate to the Pope.
> Greece and Rome were all driven by their deities will as well.
This is a bizarre claim. Pagan Greece and Rome didn't have organized religion at all, not in any sense we would understand. And both were riddled with mystery cults. The Church was unified with the classical Greek State only in the same sense that it was unified with the olive oil industry, or that the modern American Church is unified with the modern American State.
You win a war to get a stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works and turn a warzone into a reasonably peaceful region.
That seems to be a very high bar if we compare it with USA/NATO/EU/Chinese endeavours in any of Muslim regions.
The grandparent made it sound like the devastation were ongoing, which it's not. Stopping the violence is a good thing. If you don't acknowledge it, you can't even tell failure from success and all of your (Xinjiang and otherwise) efforts would be misguided.
Russia started war in Chechnya (first indirectly by arming opposition, then by literally starting war). Spinning it to say that they tried to win the war to turn Chechnya to peaceful region is very disingenuous.
It is a region of Russia and it is practically landlocked from all sides by other Russia, and also it seems to have started the war by attacking Dagestan (also in Russia).
So even comparing it to Xinjiang, which China could plausible give away, Russia could not get rid of Chechnya even of it wanted.
What other outcome would you expect? But, that has ended 15 years ago, by now.
It is not region of Russia. Russia did not had to get rid of it, Chechnya was its own state. Russia had no business invading it first time in the first place. And it has no business to excuse own crimes in second round by the Chechnya being country previously invaded by Russia.
Russia should stop destroying everything around it.
It is absolutely a region of Russia, much like Idaho which is a region of the US.
Try to secede Idaho and see what happens.
Meanwhile, Abkhazia is absolutely a country, with a history of statehood and real state border, which you fail to recognize. Would you make Georgia stop ruining everything around it? When it recognizes Abkhazia, we can talk.
"treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia" is pure BS FUD accusations. Chechens are mostly treating themselves in the last 15 years. And it turns out relatively benign, compared to stuff like ISIS, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, Lybia, Israel, Yemen.
And that's the context of early XXI century, there's really no other one. You're not the World Police to judge others, likely you are a much worse perpetrator yourself.
You said Russia fought for a "stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works". Jataman606 says it's disingenuous to suggest that - and you just let it go.
And he's right. Grozny was demolished, no civil society left, horrendous human rights violations, no justice for survivors, just appeals to the corrupt, absolute power of Kadyrov. To say that sort-of-works is disingenuous and lets Russia off the hook for its part in backing him.
You don't have to be the world police to condemn atrocities. Just like you don't have to defend Russia in order to criticise other powers.
Russia has got a stable Chechen political regime that sort-of works. Jataman606 did not really refute it, instead pivoting into biased history diving.
"No civil society left, horrendous human rights violations" is what there were before the Second Chechen war - there was an alpha version of ISIS there, with slave markets and kidnappings for ransom. Was it worth it fighting ISIS? Absolutely. Was it worth it fighting Ichkeria? Absolutely-ish.
I don't really like Kadyrov, but we are talking about a Muslim region and not yours and mine personal preferences. You seem to assume that any Muslim region would want, and implement, a liberal democratic power structure. Well, tough luck finding that between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or in Russia for that matter.
I just don't feel that it's an atrocity. The fate of Afghanistan is an atrocity. Chechnya, not so much, it's just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities.
And Russia levelled it. They could have chosen to develop it, establish courts and other institutions, try war criminals. But their intentions were laid bare when they backed a dictator with many of the same human rights problems. That's why Jataman606 called your argument disingenuous, he's right and you haven't refuted that.
"Chechnya is just people living up to their own political preferences and capabilities."
First, Russia is in charge, but somehow it's on Chechens and Muslims for failing to turn their country around and implement liberal reforms. How does that work? Why are you so keen to fight off criticism of Russia and its obvious, self-evident record of political wasteland wherever it treads? And don't whatabout America/China/X this time.
Second, your arguments drip with the bigotry of low expectations - seeing Chechens and Muslims as people essentially capable of only primitive political organisation. You just ignore every tortured journalist, every silenced student or professor so you can reduce the lack of political development to something essential to the people themselves. Every large group contains people wanting peace, freedom, justice etc.
And I don't make any assumptions about what 'all Muslims' or 'all Chechens' want, my argument doesn't need to. I can ask 100 of them and accept as many answers, but your argument can't do that. And you confuse what they want with what they have while glossing over the many things that can go wrong when trying to turn the first into the second. But sure, let's blame their genes/culture/whatever, just not Mother Russia.
Just in case you're confused about all the down votes.
I think that's a "no true scotsman" fallacy. You blame Russia for not doing things that also have not been done anywhere in the world in the same time frame. And then you blame Russia for doing things that have also been done elsewhere on a grand scale.
Where are all of those Muslim countries which were turned around by courts and institutions ex machina? Even Dubai struggles with essentially the same problems as modern Chechnya.
I'm not wondering about the down votes from the people who can't take blame for ISIS and Afghanistan along other things. It's a bad but unsurprising thing that you are not smarter than that.
Liberal reforms have been implemented by central governments al over the world. England -> Hong Kong, EU -> Poland, US -> Mississippi. That's just more whataboutism. Where other countries fail to do that, I'll fault them just as strongly too.
Not that it's relevant, since the Russian government isn't Muslim but Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran have all had governments that at some point implemented liberal reforms using state institutions. And they obviously imposed that on their provinces, just as Russia could - since Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya, not its 'Muslim' vassalage. How long those reforms held up is irrelevant to the effort put in, which Russia doesn't even attempt because its government hates liberalism.
You've never spoken to anyone more critical or Daesh or of the instability the sudden US pullout will create in Afghanistan. And you've ignored my central argument. Dubai/Chechnya? It's pretty clear why you're deflecting.
Just be upfront that your stance is pro-Putin and your bigotry anti-Muslim and save everyone the time.
Lebanon - a country torn apart by religious conflicts which could not even solve the physical security problem, as well as recognize the existence of its most important neighbour. Had plenty of run time mostly wasted. Worse than Chechnya.
Tunisia. Had a mild democratization which did not backfire to this point. Looks OK. Probably better outcome than Chechnya.
Egypt. Had a pointless coup which removed existing corrupt autocratic government and installed a new corrupt autocratic government, with a spark of terrorism in between. Large country which is punching under its weight. Worse outcome than Chechnya.
Iraq. I'm not really sure what to say. Let's pretend you didn't suggest it.
Iran. Had a lot of time to normalize relations with the West and failed to do so. In some respects a worse theocracy than Chechnya. Unlike Chechnya, which enjoys freedom of movement within Russia, you have nowhere to hide from the deeply islamist regime of Iran short of emigration. The largest outcast state (at least before Feb 24, 2022). Worse than Chechnya.
So let's see, it looks that from your list, Chechnya gets silver medal. I think that's quite good. You think that's not enough. Do you agree on the analysis?
"Russia is ultimately in charge of Chechnya" sounds like you expect imperialism to not have any alternatives. So you are saying that Russia can override whatever pre-existing culture there is and "install" liberal democracy? Did it work for you in Iraq?
I'm not even sure what's your central argument.
Speaking of which, let's return to the original form: "treatment of the predominantly Muslim Chechnians by Russia".
I think that being the virtual #2 of our successful Muslim states list an OK-ish "treatment". But it works a different way for you:
> pro-Putin
We don't like Putin -> We don't like Russia -> Let's say something mean about it.
This is something I would expect from YouTube comments section, but on HN it's pure disappointment.
You're pretty selective about the time periods you base your arguments on, ignoring anything before the 80s but you're certain there can't be another Chechen war 15 years after the last one - because it will always be bastion of stability now and tinderboxes aren't a thing. All of those countries listed have had liberal periods (Iraq - check your history) but you fail to explain how the complex causes for subsequent breakdowns can be simply distilled down to 'because Islam'.
As if Mubarak or Gaddafi or Saddam were religious figures. Millions of Muslims stood ready to build on liberal reforms and died for it. You don't get to just ignore them because you can't deal with nuance.
I could use the same logic to ask you to name one province under Russian rule that hasn't turned into a corrupt political dumpster fire. If Chechnya/Dagestan/Cherkess/Tatarstan etc. were the only such wastelands your case against Islam might be less empty - but it's the same for every oblast in the entire country.
Russia is illiberal - because Putin hates liberalism - and that is why it will impose illiberal systems on its territories. That is enough of a reason to criticise it (because murdering critics and journalists for example is bad). Don't pretend it's hamstrung by the brutality of its uncivilised Muslims, that's just you projecting your bigotry.
We don't like Putin -> We don't like his impact on Russia -> And you're damned right we're going to say something about it.
If having liberal periods does not lead to better outcome for a country, this is a very bad news for liberalism.
The prevailing narrative is such: A country is a poor and corrupt, then it becomes a liberal democracy and becomes a permanently stable, prosperous country. But that's not what happens to Muslim countries. After a "liberal period" they tend to resume being theocratic, autocratic or defunct, and barely solvent, states. Why have those periods at all then? What did those millions of Muslims die for?
I don't think you are qualified to be in this discussion if you consider whole Russia a "dumpster fire", even more if you think Russia "turned into" a dumpster fire (compared to what period?). This shows a significant level of "liberal" bigotry and chauvinism. I visit Tatarstan's (one of the most economically developed regions) capital Kazan' every year and I don't consider it a "dumpster fire". Neither are its residents unless they happen to be acolytes in your "liberal democratic" cult.
Because it introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption. We're not at the end of history, and don't know how such efforts will play out next year, or next decade. I notice you ignored my point about how Chechnya could also have another war in the coming decade too, as if Russia leaves anything resembling stability wherever it goes.
No one says liberal democracies necessarily become permanently stable. You know nothing about political development if you believe this. In many ways it's considered the opposite in its early stages, fragile, needing constant work and refinements to build on incremental improvements. In these stages any ham-fisted strongman or warlord has a good chance to destroy the gains that have been made before informal institutions gain real authority. And when there is momentum behind old tribal, religious and feudal systems, this is a long, slow, vulnerable process.
And during that time you'll observe gains and losses over literally decades. Which is why you'll see liberal reforms make small gains, then fail for a while before they can resume. But they build slowly and that's what people die for. This has been the case for every developed country in existence. You're happy to give Europe 300 years of ugly fighting to get to this stage but if Muslim countries can't succeed within 50 you'll call the end of the game now to reinforce your biased conclusions. But sure, keep using your myopia and lack of education to keep hating on the Muslims.
The issue with Putin is he doesn't even try, because, like every autocratic asshole, he can make more power for himself and his friends this way than through real development. And he can count on weak-minded bigots with poor political and historical context to unquestioningly back his cynical aims.
But forgetting about terminology, and without whatabouting your way out of it, explain how you can excuse a leader who who effectively makes himself president for life, poisons his opponents, secretly enriches himself, murders critical journalists, backs corrupt friends and jails protesters after show trials. Isn't the fact that he doesn't do just ONE fewer of these things enough to criticise him?
Your argument by anecdote assumes political oppression and development should both be equally visible, ignoring clear statistical evidence on police use of torture, corruption and violence against journalists and activists. Lucky the Tatars immediately around you like what Russia has done to their land - because they have no choice or voice if they don't. Just see what happens to people who say otherwise, like Asan Akhtemov, Nariman Ametov and see what anti-insurgent animals did to Reshat Ametov. Maybe for your next holiday you can travel further south and ask some Tatars in Crimea how they are feeling about the totally not-corrupt, shining beacon of political enlightenment that is Russia right now. Since they're so free to give honest answers, just imagine how qualified to discuss you'll be then.
Your baseless, paper-thin arguments blow over each time and all you can do is repeat them, ignore the criticism and latch onto tangential issues. It's getting kinda boring.
> introduces an alternative to people who remember nothing but injustice, violence and corruption
So you're saying that liberal democracy is a cult, that makes its followers feel good. Okay.
The rest of your message pivots into discussion of Putin's personality, of whom I am not a fan and which is also irrelevant to answer whether Tatarstan is a "dumpster fire" or not.
So it's a cult where every member has a right to publicly express their opinion of its dear leader, and also the right to select a new leader every few years if they choose... But sure, of all the known political systems, it's Liberal Democracy that stand out as cult-like!? Not the one under the 20 year autocrat?
You're coming off as grasping for any straw you can now.
Putin is the subject of only 2 out of 7 paragraphs above, you confuse personality traits with political methods, when such methods are directly relevant to the state of political freedom in Tatarstan, your anecdotally chosen example which doesn't invalidate anything since it's just one province in a repressed country... Just weak.
There's quite a few sacred cows in Liberal Democracy. May I not remind you some of those because you can get banned just by mentioning them with not enough piety.
The state of political freedom in Tatarstan is pretty bad. It's "just" bad in Russia and somewhat worse in Tatarstan. Nobody is denying that.
But at the same time it is absolutely not a "dumpster fire". It is a thriving, economically developed region with somewhat high quality of life.
You seem see Russia as an concentration camp where people drag out their grey lives waiting for some miracle to happen and save them. That's not how they see it. People are just living their lives, seizing their day and trying to be happy, have some capital, etc, etc. They often have enough means for it even if the political regime leaves a lot to be desired. They would likely not want to bet all that stuff to get a breath of "Muslim democracy" such as the one Arab spring brought. They would like the real democracy if they're confident their medium-term quality of life will not suffer.
In my experience the constant outrage over Palestine is driven more by hatred of Israel than concern about Palestinians. Antisemitism is universal in the Muslim world,[1] not so with anti-Sino sentiment. Note that the wealthy Arab states surrounding Palestine aren’t leaping to admit refugees from Palestine.
[1] I think my home country of Bangladesh is thousands of miles away from any significant population of Jews. Yet the casual antisemitism is off the charts.
EDIT: Got some anonymous hate mail from a BDS saying “the tide is turning” and threatening me for my support of the “apartheid state Israel.” Sorry for exposing the things folks say “just between us.”
Well the wealthy Arab states aren't the ones surrounding Palestine - the poor countries that do surround Palestine have taken in an enormous number of refugees - there are 2 million Palestinians in Jordan, nearly as many as there are in Palestine, the vast majority of which descend from those that fled Palestine between '47 and '67. Of the states actually bordering Israel and Palestine, Egypt is really the only one that hasn't pulled its weight.
The sabre rattling by the gulf states is 100% motivated by distracting their people with rage rather than by actual concern for Palestinians - but don't let that distract you from the fact that the states on Palestine's doorstep have genuinely dealt with their share of the human tragedy caused by the conflict. Close to a quarter of Jordan's citizens are now Palestinians, and the intake of refugees in Lebanon even triggered a 15 year civil war when the delicate Christian-Muslim political balance in the country was disrupted.
Before 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do.
" They administrated those territories in a far worse manner than the Israelis currently do."
Currently Gaza is under partial blockade by Israelis, with extreme consequences on the population and the economy. And colonization continues on west bank, with many many check points... While heavy critics can certainly be made against administration of those territories by Egypt and Jordan, arguments would be welcome to support your view.
Your comment could be read like: Muslim people "support" Palestinians because they are antisemitic... I mostly disagree.
1) While antisemitism was prevalent all over (including in Muslim countries) the world before Israel existed, we've seen a shift in the Arabic world, and more generally in the Muslim population, after the creation of Israel, and the series of conflicts ensuing. e.g. Before the creation of Israel Jewish and Muslim lived in relative peace together in Morocco. So a case could be made that antisemitism is ALSO driven by how Israel was created and behaved (and let be clear, I condemn antisemitism).
2) Jerusalem is an holly city of Islam (and of Christian), so of course, any big thing happening there against Muslim bear much more weight ! This point is not necessity linked to antisemitism.
3) Israel became also the symbol of "Western imperialism" and of the humiliation of third word, and particularly of Muslims. That is a "Western country" that is seen as having stole the land of people and evicted 700.000 people. That is a country that continues colonization, evictions and repression... while being very actively supported for decades by US. This symbolic weight also explain why such attention.
4) And that is an old story, with many episodes. Just like a good TV show (with all the element above), when you've been exposed to many episodes, you are more keen to see the new episodes...
-
DoughnutHole answered you about the refugees. Some countries also support(ed) financially Palestine and Palestinians (in Palestine or refugees).
The only wealthy state neighbouring the Palestinian territories is Israel (which is in some ways more of a suzerain than a neighbour).
Anti-semitism went through the roof when Zionists started taking large tracts of land for a new state that wasn't recognised by its neighbours. Pan-Arabists and muslim groups, knew their land could be next if the precedent went unchallenged and stirred up bigotry in response. The hatred was initially more of the idea of Israel than of Jews.
And they were prepared to throw Palestinians under a bus too, banishing them to a multi-generational life of homelessness and refugee status rather than allow full citizenship, so as to keep pressure on Israel and prevent normalisation of the situation. Of course they don't care about Palestinians either.
Now, in the Gulf states it's about business. Outside the Gulf States it's about domestic politics. But beneath the bigotry, the principled opposition to land annexation by foreign powers still remains.
I think the reason is pretty clear - Western nations can be pressured and people can voice their opinion and protest their own government's actions.
Only a little over 30 years ago China rolled out its military and crushed its own citizens beneath tank treads, then denied the whole thing happened.
Public condemnation against China will do nothing, so Islamic countries don't even try. Plus I would throw in a bit of geopolitcal posturing in that 1) going against China might look a little too much aligning with the US and 2) not pissing off China keeps some sort of partnership with China and it's deep pockets open in the future.
Only a little over 30 years ago USA rolled out its police to blow up its own citizens, razing entire city block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing. They didn't need to deny or cover up anything, obviously nobody got punished for this, because the victims were black.
So, yeah, while the Western people can certainly voice their opinion, it's often because their opinion doesn't matter.
Did you read your own link? The "Aftermath" section where several courts condemned those actions and awarded substantial awards to the victims. The City apologized. Independent commissions condemned the decision.
Can you please list all of the acts of restitution that the Chinese government has done since 1989?
Oh, and ignoring all that, you're posting an awful lot of whataboutisms. I count about 9 of them so far.
While you are right, I think GP still has a point. Those responsible for the MOVE massacre walked from it.
The broader point I think GP tries to make is: the west should not be so quick to point fingers, especially not while it's own fingers are covered in blood.
The US likes to same "human rights violations" about other nations, but then commits many themselves every year, and claims to be above the The Hague court.
I also believe the US has not right to use those terms while it is still misbahaving on such a large scale.
So you're suggesting that the US, since it's guilty of human rights violations, should just be silent when it sees others countries commit human rights violations?
I think that's absurd.
There isn't a country on this planet who hasn't committed some human rights violation in its past.
By your logic, nobody should ever call out human rights violations...ever.
A far better approach is to judge a country by its actions in totality. Yes the US commits human rights violations, but it also has courts where victims can seek restitution, a free press to talk about such violations, free elections where voters can choose leaders who work against human rights violations.
To compare the US and China and say "well they're both guilty of the same sins" is, frankly, bizarre.
Right, that's classic whataboutism, and it uses an inch of U.S. abuses to sweep away a mile of abuses by China. Those things just don't exist in a logical relationship of justifying, absolving, or forbidding analysis of one another. Their relation, if there is one at all, would be an and relationship, not an or, and certainly not an xor.
Even a person fully invested in talking about U.S. human rights abuses and categorically disagrees with the idea that China has ever done anything wrong, you would hope that such a person wouldn't try to use the one topic to derail the other.
I'm not sure I understand, but I like to think I was actually making a full-fledged point about the fallacy of covering for abuses by ignoring them and pointing to other abuses. Do you disagree? How can I state that point to your satisfaction without you labeling it as American exceptionalism?
Except nobody was suggesting to ignore them and point to other abuses - we are talking about the idea of how this kind of problems cannot occur in Western societies, because society can do things. They do, society can't do anything, and I provided an example.
If that were the case, you've still misdiagnosed my point, which was still not a point about American Exceptionalism. That is, even if I was wrong to suggest this was an instance of ignore X, because what about Y, pointing out that such a thing is fallacious would not be an instance of imploring people to indulge in American Exceptionalism.
But, I don't believe I was wrong, I believe you're just confidently incorrect. You entered a thread about one subject, changed the subject to something else, and unless you were offering it as a complete non-sequitur (which you should be clear about), you were suggesting an appropriate response to criticism of China was to ask people follow you on an academic detour to a vague and largely nonresponsive point that left behind most of the previous subject, presumably because you believed that such an exercise represented forward motion in the conversation. So I do think you really are doing the "ignore that, what about this" exercise, and that is what people mean by whataboutism.
Nah. Note how the invocation of move bombing is not even attempt to compare the level of both countries crimes historically. It is literally just attempt to "since America has/did crimes, no one is allowed to criticize China/Israel/Russia".
Moreover, while USA did in fact committed crimes either on own soil or internationally, claiming that it is exactly the same as China or Russia is just wrong. America has its own authoritarians trying to destroy its own democracy. It is has its own sociopaths in leadership too. And still, it is not currently commuting genocide, unlike China or Russia. And whatever wrong America did does not mean it is ok for China or Russia to be imperial or genocidal until America fills itself with angels only.
>It is literally just attempt to "since America has/did crimes, no one is allowed to criticize China/Israel/Russia".
Not at all. Please read my comment in its context: it's a response to parent's claim that this can only happen in China, because in the West the public has the right to speak out and fix it - while in reality it happens too, and simply gets ignored, sometimes without even bothering to cover it up.
Also - ever seen the racial stats for US prisons, or for police shooting victims? Doesn't it look like a genocide to you? If it doesn't - perhaps it's because you've been told your entire life that it's actually normal, same way Chinese are taught their government crimes are ok. And even if it does - do you believe you can realistically do anything about it?
On the other hand in US it's at least properly documented. China does have a terrible problem with transparency, and I'm afraid it might be a cultural thing, because it's not just China.
The whole your thing is to distract from discussing China and making it sound like China is actually ok with what it does. No it is not and nothing that happens in USA makes China actions less grave or less genocidal.
> it's a response to parent's claim that this can only happen in China, because in the West the public has the right to speak out and fix it
Not true. The parent said that in the Western countries can be pressured and the public has right and possibility to speak about issue. The implication is that therefore public pressure can be used to change the things. It was not that nothing bad in west ever happens.
> Also - ever seen the racial stats for US prisons, or for police shooting victims? Doesn't it look like a genocide to you?
Yes and actually no it does not look like genocide at all. It does look like racial bias and imprisonment rates are absurdly high. Nevertheless, it is not nearly genocide.
If you look at the context, it's obvious that this thread is about disproving the claim that in the West the pressure from the society on the government works better than in China, and not about "making it sound like China is actually ok".
So, in USA there are literally entire law chapters designed to eliminate specific racial group (and hippies, that's what delegalisation of drugs was about). Yet you don't consider this a genocide. Ever wondered why?
>and not about "making it sound like China is actually ok".
So can we set the other argument aside just for a moment and get clarity on whether you think people in this thread are right to express concern re Xinjiang? That would disabuse everyone reading your comments of the concern that you're just purposely derailing them, and should be easy to clarify. We can have both discussions, without using one to shut down the other, and surely you want that. Right?
Of course they are right to express concern - but if they do that while simultaneously maintaining that their country is doing fundamentally better because it's USA, which from my experience describes the most vocal group and which can be seen in this very subthread ("that's classic whataboutism, and it uses an inch of U.S. abuses to sweep away a mile of abuses by China"), then there is something fundamentally wrong with their beliefs - or their motivations.
> So, in USA there are literally entire law chapters designed to eliminate specific racial group (and hippies, that's what delegalisation of drugs was about). Yet you don't consider this a genocide. Ever wondered why?
Yeah, because if there was bad-faith definition of genocide or bad faith argument, this is the one.
But, given that article is about genocide performed by China, lets focus on that, shall we? Surely Chinese victims deserve some attention, surely we don't need to make USA center of everything. I dont know whether this is "I am American and cant handle when they talk about somebody else" issue or "I am Chinese and cant handle my country is seen as bad here" issue, but it is absurd regardless.
Ah, right, they apologised. That changes everything :->
What matters is that nobody - not a single one of perpetrators of a bombing organised by police, which killed five random kids, and this is ignoring reports of police shooting at survivors fleeing the fire - got punished. "The city" paid some (public) money, that's all. It's not whataboutism, it's showing that the claim that "public condemnation against China will do nothing" because of Tienanmen is terribly misleading: those same things happen everywhere, you're just assuming they are somehow fundamentally different there. Sometimes they are, but mostly not.
As for the Chinese government: Chinese prime minister responsible for Tienanmen spent the rest of his life in house arrest. Can you imagine this happening in the land of the free?
> Are you seriously arguing that response is better than the US?
Are you seriously not realising that you're making a huge assumption here? But please, tell me how putting the prime minister in house arrest for the rest of his life is a worse response than ignoring the whole thing altogether and not even pretending to prosecute.
(Also: thousands? Estimates, eg Amnesty International, say few hundred up to a thousand; funny how those numbers somehow keep growing when it's about China and not US, isn't it?)
My impression is that most Muslims don’t real care about Muslims from other ethnic groups. Pakistan and Bangladesh, for example, are happy to suck up to China for the business opportunities. Similarly, the gulf states took few Syrian refugees during the recent crises: https://www.lejournalinternational.fr/Syrian-refugees-why-wo.... More generally, Arabs regard non-Arab Muslims as barely human—e.g. holding Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in near slavery conditions: https://sports.yahoo.com/qatar-world-cup-unpaid-workers-slav...
My impression is that most people do not really care about other groups... unless it indirectly talks about something they are sensible, or they can clearly identify with the victims.
For example people (and media) in France don't care about violence between groups in Africa. We quite never heard about the Congo Wars, about Ethiopia, about the Lord's Resistance Army... But heard a lot about Jihadist movements in Africa or Muslim Nigerians killing Christians, because it resonate with our "experience", and resonate with the world view of some people (Islam vs Christianity).(note that France have a good history of supporting dodgy groups and activities in Africa).
I don't think this is true. Right now there are millions of Ukrainian refugees in Europe being welcomed with open arms, after millions upon million of muslim refugees have already entered the continent.
as you say, proximity. I went to school with people from Ukraine, I went to uni with people from Ukraine, I work with people in Ukraine right now. It's happening in weekend-holiday range from me. Makes it a lot less abstract.
>My impression is that most Muslims don’t real care about Muslims from other ethnic groups.
It's the same reason most "Muslims" don't "care" about Al Qaeda and ISIS. Many Muslim populations, just like the Chinese, are negatively affected by Uighur terrorist and extremist groups.
"Southeast Asia is witnessing evolving security risks from Chinese Uyghurs' involvement in military activities in the region."
Agree to this. Living in a muslim majority country. Personally direct experience 2 suicide bombing. Around one block from my office. This radical Muslim hold the whole country as a hostage.
Yesterday they just have a public rally supporting terrorist.
>more muslims have died fighting AQ and ISIS than any other religious group
I think we are making the same point.
Some of the largest muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan) don't have sympathy for many Chinese Uyghur groups because once they leave China, they train with ISIS/Al Qaeda then plan and commit terrorist acts around Asia.
Many believe the Chinese are doing them a favor with their detention and deradicalization programs.
How can we be making the same point? Yours rests on the statement "It's the same reason most "Muslims" don't "care" about Al Qaeda and ISIS." which is objectively untrue.
Low sympathy due to a few Uyghur terrorists has nothing to do with it. There is no international political solidarity among Muslims based on faith, Palestine has proven that. That's just business and realpolitik.
As for their treatment, who cares what beliefs/excuses the Chinese people have/give? Oppressors always have some BS reason for what they'll support.
>There is no international political solidarity among Muslims based on faith, Palestine has proven that.
That statement may be true among some of the political class but it sure isn't true among the general population.
Muslims generally also dislike terrorist groups like Al Qeada, ISIS, Al Shabaab, etc. If the Chinese started locking up those groups, most muslims wouldn't "care" either.
I think you’re reading in a subtext that isn’t there. Most people care mainly about what’s happening to their own nationality or ethnic group. Islam doesn’t create a unifying bond that overrides that in the same way Christianity doesn’t. It’s like how Americans don’t care especially about whats happening in France based on shared Christian identity.
Yes, we're asked, repeatedly and specifically, to avoid generalizing about large groups of people --- nationalities, religions, &c. I get that you may have a vantage on this that we don't have, but you still have to be careful about how you communicate it. Some things are tricky to communicate in a forum like this; some things may be so tricky that they aren't worth communicating. I don't know. I just did a double take at the first sentence of your last comment, thought to myself "how would I react if anyone but Rayiner had written this", and told you so. That's all.
> I get that you may have a vantage on this that we don't have, but you still have to be careful about how you communicate it
As a South Asian with a virtually identical vantage point, I can assure you that rayiner has been repeatedly painting a false picture of south Asians in general and south asian muslims in particular.
Making an observation about a group of people is not "xenophobia". Quite the opposite in fact.
If you read the comment more closely, it's not "muslims don't care about muslims", it's, "arabs don't care about southeast asians", which... well, there's a ton of evidence for this unfortunately.
"China also employs diplomatic pressure and financial incentives to secure foreign assistance in its efforts to persecute Uighurs abroad. Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan—one of China’s principal allies and the recipient of billions of dollars in loans as part of the Belt and Road Initiative—has said he accepts China’s explanation of the events in Xinjiang, despite frequently speaking out against Islamophobia elsewhere. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, which is China’s largest oil supplier, defended the CCP’s “right” to carry out “anti-terrorism and de-extremization work” during a 2019 trip to Beijing, where he signed a multibillion-dollar trade deal. The kingdom was one of the thirty-seven nations that signed on to a letter to the UN Human Rights Council praising China’s “remarkable achievements in the field of human rights.” Saudi Arabia, along with other countries such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, have extradited Uighurs at China’s request, and the Associated Press reported last year on the alleged existence of a secret Chinese-run black site in Dubai, where abducted Uighurs had been detained. After an injection of Chinese funds into Turkey’s crisis-hit economy and shipments of vaccines during the height of the pandemic, even Erdoğan appears to have muted his once-strident criticism. Over the past two years, Turkish police have detained over one hundred Uighurs, including a number of activists, and deported several others."
This may be related to the relatively lax response of western governments as compared to the 'full out riot control' approach China takes [1]. As for the international level, China is following a carrot and stick approach there [2] - and they have a long memory [3]
It's more complicated than that. The majority of China's Muslims are Hui, who are ethnically Han Chinese and thus not considered an existential threat to the state. The Uyghurs, on the other hand, are genetically and linguistically different, live in territory that was not originally Chinese (Xinjiang literally means "New Territory") and would genuinely prefer to have their own state.
Of course, the CCP is very averse to any power structures they don't completely control and thus regularly cracks down on all sorts of organized religion (Christian churches, Falun Gong, etc).
> Hui Muslims employed by the state, unlike Uyghurs, are allowed to fast during Ramadan. The number of Hui going on Hajj is expanding and Hui women are allowed to wear veils, but Uyghur women are discouraged from wearing them. Muslim ethnic groups in different regions are treated differently by the Chinese government with regard to religious freedom. Religious freedom exists for Hui Muslims, who can practice their religion, build mosques and have their children attend them; more controls are placed on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Hui religious schools are allowed, and an autonomous network of mosques and schools run by a Hui Sufi leader was formed with the approval of the Chinese government.
So yeah, this is not directed at Muslims so much as it's directed at people of Uyghur ethnicity very specifically. It almost looks like CCP would like to keep the territory, but without the inconvenient indigenous people.
And they use a mix of apartheid (which just by itself is already an internationally recognized crime against humanity) and a bunch of activities at least adjacent to genocide to get there.
The Xinjiang matter is bound up with: (a) the understanding that China is a rising superpower that the West wishes to contain; (b) it has nothing to do with the religion itself (given that China and Islam have a long history of coexistence); (c) that the strain of Islam of concern to Chinese authorities is the same strain used by West to conjure up the Taliban (which then gave us ISIS); and (d) knowledge of the fact that even as way back as the 4th 'Rightly Guided' khalif (Ali ibn abu Taleb) Muslim authorities themselves tended to view extremist and radical views of Islam with concern. There is a strange belief in the West that Muslims have been historically permissive to extremists religious positions whereas the actual facts are entirely contrary.
Two other hot button 'types' that you refer to are:
1 - Explicit derogatory attacks on Islam.
2 - Resisting a colonization effort that has had brutally adverse and tragic consequences for both Muslim and Christian populations of the contested colonial grounds.
Part of the problem is that it's difficult to trust any of these documents. It seems that in this latest dump there are some that are blatantly forged.
Even if the others are genuine, this calls into question the veracity of the others
A lot of what's going on in that tweet you cited is hard to decipher without stepping back and taking stock of the context.
For instance, I don't know what to make of the significance of a cursor being visible in a document that is dumped (it might be a big deal, or it might not be at all) and I don't know how motivated the party is here to use that to prove a particular argument, or what it should or shouldn't prove.
In this case, you apparently have to be already bought in with the idea that BBC and Le Monde have a history of using fabricated info from the U.N., and that a reporter is untrustworthy for reasons explained at length in an entirely different twitter thread that you'd have to read to understand. After being that bought in, the fact that BBC, Le Monde, and/or this reporter are involved is treated as evidence in and of itself that the new info is unreliable. You have to agree with all that to even start in the middle and begin going through this analysis.
To state it plainly, whenever I see something like this that starts so deep in the middle of unexplained context, I treat it like an "indicator" (in the sense of an economic indicator) against the argument, because it feels like I'm being asked to skip critical steps.
"I don't believe it because I'm missing context" is a weak argument to make. The tweets read like the author isn't a native English speaker. The traditional vs. simplified characters accusation should be relatively easy to confirm if you want to put in at least a little effort. Looking up characters as someone who isn't familiar with them at all might be cumbersome but is absolutely possible.
But then again you wonder why such blatant mistakes would be made in the first place, if this was done by someone at least halfway professional.
I genuinely don't understand where the mistake is, even in in your paraphrased version which is intended to caricature. Yes, I really do think that missing context is a good reason to refrain from believing something, and you should too. I find it bizarre that that is disputed.
I actually went into a fair amount of detail about what specifically was contextually inadequate here, all of which you didn't engage with.
It's hard to understand what the tweet is suggesting unless you read the entire thread, one related twitter thread, and chase down an implied history of allegedly questionable BBC reportage the UN is complicit in, and join the author in making assumptions about what it all means. I stated all of this already.
And in additional to all the previous stuff I said, it's not obvious that a difference between traditional and simplified characters prove what you're asked to believe it proves, that it must have come from Taiwan. I'm assuming there's another thread somewhere that goes into detail about how Taiwan uses different characters in other documents, which is the basis for believing different characters here prove that its a forgery?
It's not about the effort involved in comparing the characters, it's about the underlying logic for the argument, which is assumed to have been proven elsewhere but not referenced.
Again "I don't believe it because I'm missing context" is a perfectly legitimate way to engage with something that's missing context. You appear to have abandoned that point to instead emphasize that there is indeed sufficient context (so I guess having enough context does matter to you, after all.)
I don't know if you're confusing me for somebody else, but I didn't link to any tweets. And as I've now said twice, which has been ignored twice, the thread alludes to numerous unmade arguments about the reliability of the BBC, the UN, Le Monde, and a reporter as background to motivate the inference that their reporting is unreliable.
And it makes an assumption about what is proved or not proved by traditional vs simplified characters (different = Taiwan), and that underlying assumption isn't backed up with an argument, and there's no reason to agree with that assumption without further context. A reader is supposed to already agree that that's how it works or else go scrolling through twitter timelines and searches to find where that argument is made.
Perhaps when you ignore all of this in your reply, and remind me that it's "directly started talking about [sic]" traditional vs. simplified characters, I can repeat this all again and hope the fourth time is the charm?
> I don't know if you're confusing me for somebody else, but I didn't link to any tweets.
sigh.. Correction: the link to the tweet form the guy you replied to that you seemed to refer to.
> And as I've now said twice, which has been ignored twice, the thread alludes to numerous unmade arguments about the reliability of the BBC, the UN, Le Monde, and a reporter as background to motivate the inference that their reporting is unreliable.
I clicked the link again. I don't see any of that. It starts with claims about 1) a cursor (which I ignored) and 2) the issue with the characters, which is further elaborated on in a couple follow-up tweets. Then your comment mentions all these news outlets and I don't understand how that connects to the claims about the characters, or makes them taken out of context. It looks like a pretty stand-alone claim/issue that should be something to quickly do research on if you care about the topic, nothing taken wildly out of context.
> I can repeat this all again and hope the fourth time is the charm?
1) software renders not Unicode characters but font glyphs
2) which font glyphs are chosen depends on many factors like installed fonts, OS, language/region settings, and so on
3) people author (and read) characters by how they look on their systems, what codepoints are used is not on anyone's mind
A differently configured system can uncover incorrect codepoint choices or rendering differences across machines, exactly what happened with the author of that tweet (supposedly living in Europe and not having the same old Windows machine as ones used in CCP apparat).
In fact, this happens all the time and is a routine headache for anyone building CJK sites viewed from different countries in the region (for example, I see some traditional Japanese characters, instead of their simplified Chinese versions, on http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/wgrlh/. Is there a hidden meaning? Is the site fake?). When it comes to MS Word and IME in old Windows versions, things are even wilder. I doubt the tweeter didn't know this, most likely it's a stall tactic.
That happens if you have no language hints, or the wrong one, e.g. posting in Simplified Chinese on a Taiwanese website. If this was written in something like MSWord by CCP officials, it should have the proper language hint, so render properly on any OS newer than XP.
Setting aside all other assumptions you make about the soundness of their setup overall, consistency of their input methods, newness of their inventory, etc., do you actually believe they would have the fonts with traditional glyphs in them installed and used at all? What for? Remember, this applies to the system as a whole. A character would be shown as simplified by the system even during input.
Again, I tried it and I got different results in different software (even on a Mac), with Pages in particular showing only simplified characters and straight layout (in contrast to Quick Look, which is what the tweeter must have used). Do you seriously think CCP officials have a fleet of Macs to check document appearance in case they are leaked and/or scan documents for "enemy" Unicode points? If not, how they would even know what code points are there, if all they ever see is simplified?
One needs to look at vocabulary, word choices and such. That is something that could actually point to fakery. Nothing like that was claimed yet, of course.
Because of the han unification, you can tell the font renderer which language context you're in and want things to be rendered. MSWord shows you the language in the status bar at the bottom, which is not only used for spell checking.
In html, you can add the lang attribute to a tag to tell the browser what language the contained glyphs belong to.
> do you actually believe they would have the fonts with traditional glyphs in them installed and used at all? What for?
Because ever since Vista, these come pre-installed regardless of your locale.
> Do you seriously think CCP officials have a fleet of Macs to check document appearance in case they are leaked and/or scan documents for "enemy" Unicode points?
I don't believe anything in particular, just adding technical context. The documents could also have been leaked through Taiwan or Hong Kong and then mangled there resulting in this.
> In html, you can add the lang attribute to a tag to tell the browser what language the contained glyphs belong to.
Well, you can visit probably any official Chinese government department website right now and see traditional Japanese characters instead of their simplified equivalents, if your machine happens to be configured that way. (Or at least the first one I stumbled across was like that, I pasted link somewhere in another comment. And I most certainly have Chinese fonts installed; in fact I see only simplified characters when I open the tweeted document in Pages.)
So they clearly do not make that effort even with documents actually crafted with foreign readers in mind. Presumably things can't be expected to be better if we are discussing secret documents intended for internal CCP consumption.
Right, and a premise of the tweet cited here is that different character sets mean you should just freely assume it's fabricated by Taiwan. It doesn't make that argument (at least not anywhere in the cited thread), it just presents an examination of characters with that as an underlying assumption.
"Western lie debunkers" will absolutely jump at any chance to say this is a fake, but that particular take is pathetic and indicative of problems with CJK literacy.
Unicode points and font glyphs are not the same thing, leading to situations where one Unicode character can be rendered as a different one (but similar) depending on OS and setup* -- and people enter and read characters by how they look, not by their Unicode points.
So the document can easily end up with 置's Unicode entity in the source without anyone finding out, even the person who entered it, if it always renders as a simplified version (without the left-bottom vertical line). And it will always render as a simplified version, because everyone involved is obviously using a simplified setup.
(If you have a Big Sur set up the same way as mine, you can observe for yourself by opening the same doc, such as the "Response Plan and Procedure for Escape and Disturbance Prevention During Class Times", in Quick Look and Pages and looking at the end of text following the first Arabic numeral "1" on the first page. Quick Look will show you a traditional/Japanese character at the end, while Pages will have a much better layout and consistently show simplified characters.)
The sad thing is that this initial stalling tactic is effective. Some will be swayed by his simple tweets and not have patience for the subsequent "debunking of the debunk" let alone their own research. This takes away the initial impact of the release.
* Software chooses a different glyph, the font provides a different glyph than required by Unicode standard, and so on. Example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54212157/. There was an in-depth article on CJK posted on HN some time ago, can't remember what it was called.
TL;DR yes, documents authored by CCP officials can easily have traditional Unicode points in them, because it is completely routine for software to be set up in a way that always renders those in simplified way.
That's interesting, I didn't realize that IMEs would silently offer you choices in different sets/styles than the one preferred by the locale, and that OS fonts could actually hide the difference.
If you're saying that an innocent error is what happened, you'd expect to see these weird traditional-in-simplified-context characters to appear across all sections of the documents, and not clustered together in a single paragraph (since that would be evidence that a single paragraph has been written by a different author than the rest of the document)
I believe if they can make it into a document in any number of ways (copy paste, input method, etc.) and no one would be able to tell, their existence alone is not an indicator.
That different authors could have written/rewritten/edited different parts of a document at different points in time is natural, what are reasons to think otherwise?
Religion is only an excuse for hate and violence. Most of the population has already found their favorite enemy in the west, primarily USA, Germany, Israel. State actors and other powerful people have nothing to gain by antagonizing China, who doesn't give a damn. Wait until there is a border dispute between China and Pakistan and suddenly the Muslim world will care about Xinjiang.
> The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region
Not really.
Islam has been present in China for over a thousand years, and the Uyghurs do not represent the majority of muslims in the country, which are actually the Hui (ethnic Chinese who converted) and outside of Xinjiang.
For the Chinese government this is a question of national unity against separatist movements, which is a more ethnic than religious problem, and political control. I'm thinking that they actually prefer Islam, which is unstructured, to the Catholic Church (hence action they regularly take against it) although, obviously from a communist stand-point no religion at all is the best option, and so Islam is not really singled out.
Many muslim countries also have strategic interests in having good relations with China, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, and thus abstain from raising any issues, not least since China has also the advantage of not being involved in the Middle East and of keeping a neutral stance there. Now, there are anti-Chinese terrorist attacks in Pakistan but everyone tries hard to keep a lid of them for these reasons.
If anything, and cynically, the West would very much like muslim extremists to turn their attention more towards China because obviously that would be destabilising for China, and so the anti-islam narrative is pushed at every turn.
Okay this is some amusing and problematic cognitive dissonance.
The West gets attacked because of its military occupations in Mesopotamia. That is the criteria for Jihad. Any random teenage edgelord that happens to be Muslim can always take the pedantic “its my duty” approach at any time. The vast majority do not, any slight provocation from then on encourages that sentiment. China’s approach avoids this because they have no military occupation of traditionally muslim lands. That approach has worked better for China’s national security while operating in islamic areas, they invest and have been masterful at it. The Western/US approach never factored in its own national security, or any attempt at understanding Islam, and its been a disaster for its people and a boon to its defense contractors. The key point is that its never been about “rising up on behalf of all muslims being oppressed” its always been about “excising a cancer from traditionally islamic lands”. And that makes inaction towards Xinjiang and the plight of the Uighurs make way more sense, than the fundamentally rocky assumption that action from some unspecified Muslim people is expected to occur.
Secondly, some Uighars have already done the terror attacks within China, over “small things”. Long before the massive dragnet and crackdown. This is where China’s identity politics come into play, that some other commenters have pointed out. China’s domestic stance and behavior isn't really about Muslims, its about “territorial unity” with an undercurrent of ethnic discrimination. But ultimately the Uighers are on their own, and East Turkistan isn't going to be a thing.
I think there's a lot of suspicion in most Muslim countries towards the motives of the US government when it accuses China of genocide.
Over the last 20 years, the US has waged war in predominantly Muslim countries. A conservative estimate is that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians over the last 20 years, in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and many other countries. Add to that US support for Israel, and US support for Saudi Arabia's horrific war in Yemen, and the US has essentially no credibility when it claims to be oh so concerned with the rights of Muslims in China.
In this light, the US' accusations against China over Xinjiang look like cynical political posturing. The obviously hyperbolic nature of the accusations (including deploying the word "genocide," despite the complete lack of evidence that any mass killing is occurring) just make the US' posture on this issue look even more cynical and crass.
> I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation
What international muslim community? And if one existed, why would the international muslim community care about US/European funded anti-china propaganda which has nothing to do with islam and everything to do with ethnic separatism.
We hate muslims. Killed millions of muslims. We hate chinese people. Killed millions of chinese people. But somehow we care about chinese muslims? How does that work? Why is it we are trying to pit chinese and muslims against each other?
> The actions of China seem at least in part aimed at extinguishing Islam as a religion in the region
Did china become zionist all of a sudden? Also, I thought it was a genocide? What happened to the millions of uyghurs that was "exterminated"? What happened to the death camps? What happened to the millions of organs? They are trying to extinguish separatism.
> But maybe any reactions just don't make mainstream news.
Because it's literally manufactured propaganda that nobody believes. There are vlogs of muslims traveling to china all over social media.
First it was a genocide. Millions dead. Death camps all over china. That proved to be nonsense. Then it was cultural genocide. That proved to be nonsense. Now it's religious genocide. Which is even more laughable. The ughyurs aren't even the largest muslim ethnic group in china.
If you ever doubted that the media/news/etc were truly propaganda, just look into the uyghur "genocide". The media with the government agencies invented a genocide.
I am from a Muslim country. There are a few reasons that I can think of:
China is not targeting Islam but the separatist movement. There are few Muslim ethnic groups in China. The other is Hui. The hui enjoys normal religious life without any prosecutions.
The problem of Radical Islam. The rise of Radical Islam the last few years. Some of this group preaches violence and seperatism. Many Moslim feel unconfortable with the Radical Islam and prefer the govt to deal with them. The Hui Muslim does not get long well with Uighur Muslim. The Hui are motsly Sufi and anti Salafi.
Most Muslim distrust western politic and news.
> I'm always surprised how little interest there seems to be from the international muslim community in the Xinjiang situation, given that at least parts of it really blow up over even minor anti-Islam actions by single individuals quite regularly.
You're not imagining this — Muslim countries support China. See this map of a UN vote to condemn China's treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang[1]. You'll notice that every Muslim country that didn't abstain defended China. In fact the only countries that condemned China are countries that are militarily allied with the United States.
If you look at any of the "NGOs" that push the narrative that China is oppressing Muslims in Xinjiang, every single one of them is funded either by the National Endowment for Democracy[2][3][4] (an arm of the US State Department notorious for pushing regime change in countries the US doesn't like) or the Australian Strategic Policy Initiative, which in turn is sponsored by several US arms manufacturers[5], such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc. — all of whom would profit massively from a war with China, for which this narrative is manufacturing consent.
Even the site that spawned this discussion seems to be associated with Adrian Zenz. A lot of the claims in Xinjiang can be traced back to his "work". He's a fundamentalist Christian bigot, is a fellow at the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" and claims to have been sent on a mission by God himself to destroy the Communist Party of China. His "work" has been thoroughly debunked many times over.[6]
Frankly, the narrative is bullshit. The Muslim world that has suffered massively at the hands of US imperialism can see right through it and votes accordingly. China has never invaded or bombed any Muslim country. The US has no credibility in the Muslim world.
That’s why, as a westerner, I consider the Uyghur issue not to be ‘our’ problem. It’s terrible what’s happening there, but there are more than 2 billion muslims in the world who can do something about it.
What’s happening to the Uyghurs is definitely a humanitarian catastrophe. The Chinese are eradicating muslims from their territory and if the Muslim world are not willing to do anything about it, than there is little the West can do. You can’t fight other peoples battles they are not willing to fight themselves. We have seen this observation over and over again in human history.
You may not consider it "our problem" but systematic violation of basic rights is a pain for anyone who has empathy with the oppressed and violated. If you don't feel it, my fellow westerner, that is your problem, not ours.
As someone firm in belief in Humanism and Liberalism, i consider it a crime against humanity. It is not an east/west issue and not a religious issue to be of concern only for people of the same religion. China does this because they want the border to be more than a line on the map, to be a border of their socialist nation, a border of thought, culture, language, of national identity. Their central government hates that people in Xinjiang have family in Kazhakstan, Pakistan and Kashmir, that they speak with those people, share traditions and religion and history with them, instead of identifying first and foremost with the nationality of the capital city. For them that is a weakness of their nation, a discrepancy from their ideal, a problem for their central bureaucracy in need of a solution, and the authoritarian-nationalist solution is to destroy the very concept of an Uyghur using violence to the point where it becomes a genocide. This is not a problem of uyghur ethnicity, religion or culture, it is a problem of chinese national-socialism.
And that China subscribes to such an ideology is very much our problem as westerners as well, not only because humanitarianism calls for solidarity with the oppressed, not only because liberalism must oppose such ideologies on principle, but because the world is unifying and the Chinese Government will throw in a billion rigged votes while holding a gun to the head of all those unwilling to agree. Ignoring the chinese governments abuse of the people living inside their borders is like ignoring some rich neighbor beating their kids and shouting they will kill anyone looking funny at them, while they run for major, saying it will all be fine as long as you keep looking away.
They can BUY products from Xinjiang, instead of boycott it, raising the living standard of the region and people will be better off, have more choices. They can open border to people from Xinjiang if they want to go for a short term solution. The evil of everything is poverty, nothing else. No religion, no politics. Thinking how America was the paradise for immigrants in the past, no one hates immigrants when economy is good.
Conversely, I've seen many people in the U.S. argue that terrorist attacks from extremists justified a harsh national security response when the attacks happen to countries like the United States or Israel. Then these same people completely ignore the numerous terrorist attacks from extremists that China has faced[1], and say a strong national security response is completely unjustified.
Many neutral observers agree that Gaza has been turned into a defacto open air concentration camp, a small plot of land that Israel and Egypt keep people and supplies from freely moving about, and assert military control over. Naturally, people sympathetic to the government will try to paint it in a better light, but the same is true with Xinjiang.
Things are never 100% the same, so people can always argue "When _I_ do it it's different." For instance, people in Xinjiang are Chinese citizens, and when they leave the camps they can go anywhere in China, and have the same legal rights. People in Gaza, conversely, are supposed to be members for life, with restricted rights, and this is to be a generational condition (many children are stuck in Gaza as well).
IIRC china invited many nations to xinjiang, not just muslims but some western-aligned countries too. The muslim countries and said it was fine and no major mistreatment was going on, while I believe some western countries refused to go, claiming some sort of taint.
So if you believe something, then you get invited to see what's going on, and you refuse, what does that say about you? It's the makings of a thought bubble.
Edit: Wow downvotes! Looks like I might have spoken to some of your hearts
First, how can you get closer to the truth without ever going to the damn place?
Second, I agree there's a capability of falsification from either side, be it china or a news outlet. But neither does it translate to guilt on either side.
In the absence of such you'll have to consider from the first principles, and you'll find the US/west/people involve have a lot more incentive to keep china down. As such the better entities to trust are the third parties, ala the muslim states.
I'm quite wary of "taking sides"; what's public is alarming, I mostly take it at face value, but don't add weight. I'm not saying the truth is somewhere between the extremes, I suspect the accusations are right, but I don't confuse my suspicion with proof.
If something has no value as evidence, then you should disregard it. If China is a murderous totalitarian state, it will show beautiful, pristine "reeducation camps" to outsiders. If it is not a murderous totalitarian state, it will also show beautiful, pristine "reeducation camps".
You can totally learn about something without physically going there. Satellite imagery, intelligence-gathering... in fact for sure you can learn a lot more from document caches or finding insiders willing to talk than seeing some kind of "micro" insight into these camps. If I find a small handful of victims, well who knows, maybe they were unlucky. If I find a document specifying how to torment those incarcerated en masse, that's a smoking gun.
> You can totally learn about something without physically going there.
And you can make mistakes with that learning too. And this isn't the first time - I recall the CIA claiming some farm buildings being missile silos. This is why you get closer to see if there are any mistakes. Otherwise you're just taking a single narrative and running with it, and repeating it. Multiple perspectives HELP.
Regarding evidence - do consider that it has a potential to be tainted too, similar to the claims about China and camp tours. News outlets don't verify these studies thoroughly and already present it as truth for outrage points.
You're arguing against points I'm not making. All I'm saying is, arranged visits by Chinese government to Xinjiang are meaningless and can't prove, or even hint, what China is really doing there. The "evidence" provided by China will look the same, regardless of their fault or virtue.
So going/not going on such trips, and any authority rejecting or accepting this as evidence are meaningless.
> All I'm saying is, arranged visits by Chinese government to Xinjiang are meaningless and can't prove, or even hint, what China is really doing there. The "evidence" provided by China will look the same, regardless of their fault or virtue.
Just following the lines of thought. Essentially they've already accepted that the china trip is tainted and meaningless, even before taking the chance to opening their perspective on whether they could be wrong.
If life is suffering why not give up then?
This goes counter to the values of being 'open'. For someone of the free world this isn't very free.
