Anonymous #1 4w

um mass internment based on ethnicity absolutely does deny people their citizenship rights what are you on about

9

Anonymous #3 4w

I was referring to how Uyghurs are still Chinese citizens, many of which are interred based on suspected affiliation with separatist groups. This is in addition to the many young Uyghurs who are in assimilatory boarding schools. This is a violation of their human rights, but they are still considered Chinese citizens, unlike Palestinians in the West Bank.

5

Anonymous #1 4w

Okay first of all Palestinians in the west bank are not Israeli citizens because they are Palestinian citizens, they have a different government

4

Anonymous #3 4w

It is bad, but it is bad in a different way. China’s internment of Uyghurs is much more similar to America’s policies towards Japanese people during world war 2 (though for China it still does not impact the whole ethnicity), and the assimilatory policy is similar to Native American boarding schools. While I would say that israel’s policies are closer to America during the plains Indian wars, South Africa during apartheid, or Kuwait’s policy towards bidoons.

6

Anonymous #1 4w

Also you’re repeating the government line about what is happening in Xinjiang, not what the evidence shows is happening

4

Anonymous #3 4w

And black Africans in South Africa were not South African citizens because they were citizens of the bantustans. That was how apartheid worked. If the West Bank is a different country, then Israeli law should not be applied there. If it is part of Israel, then their citizenship rights should not be denied.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

The evidence shows mass internment camps and assimilatory policy towards children. That is cultural genocide, not the Chinese government line. The Chinese government claims they are re-education camps. The evidence does not show death camps, however.

5

Anonymous #1 4w

no, there’s a totally different history in the west bank than the history of bantustans, but that’s not really the point.

6

Anonymous #1 4w

https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/persecution-of-uyghurs-in-xinjiang-torture-crimes-against-humanity-and-genocide

4

Anonymous #1 4w

the Chinese government line is that they are trying to neuter a separatist movement

3

Anonymous #3 4w

I think the West Bank would be best compared to the South African occupation of Namibia. Though American treatment towards plains Indians (who were also not U.S. citizens due to being citizens of their respective tribes) is strikingly similar. They were citizens of other nations, but the land of said nations continued to be chopped up and their own sovereignty undermined.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

This source is literally what I am saying. They are unethical mass detention camps but not death camps.

2

Anonymous #1 4w

omg where did i say there were death camps????? i said their citizenship rights are denied

1

Anonymous #3 4w

That is what they are doing. That being their motivation does not make their actions not unethical. The Chinese government’s repression is targeted towards the Uyghurs and Tibetans because both have separatist movements. The Hui Muslims, which live alongside the Uyghurs, are not targeted because they are considered very loyal to the Chinese state. Cultural genocide is usually motivated by creating greater national unity through ethnic uniformity.

3

Anonymous #3 4w

Ok, I must have misunderstood you. Claiming they are death camps is a common misconception. I still do not see how you think what I am saying contradicts what that article says.

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Their human rights are being denied, but they are citizens of China. China just mistreats its own citizens. That is different from official exclusion of national citizenship, which affects Bhutanese Nepalis, Kuwaiti Bidoons, and which was essential to South African apartheid, Israel’s West Bank colonization, and the USA’s American Indian policies.

8

Anonymous #1 4w

I am saying this is wrong. They are not based on suspected affiliation with separatist groups, they’re detained because of their ethnicity. And Uyghur children are also in internment camps

0

Anonymous #1 4w

it’s the “just” that’s the problem. they’re citizens in name but only because their citizenship comes with no rights. it’s a technicality

1

Anonymous #1 4w

plus the west bank comparison shows a misunderstanding because west bank palestinians never were or wanted to be citizens of israel. palestinian citizens of israel exist. west bank palestinians want to be citizens of a palestinian state, not an israeli state

1

Anonymous #3 4w

That’s just what it’s like being Chinese though. Same thing has happened to activists in Hong Kong even though they are ethnically Han. My point is not that their rights arent being denied. It is that the system is different from israel’s policy towards Palestine. Official denial of citizenship rights and implicit denial would still be different policies.

4

Anonymous #3 4w

Black Namibians only had South African citizenship for around a decade. The primary difference is just that Namibians had it briefly before it was taken away Plains Indians were never U.S. citizens, and there were other native Americans who were U.S. citizens.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

The claim is that West Bank Palestinians belong to a Palestinian state, but Israel has made sure that state does not exist. There is not a cohesive state for them to belong to when parts of the West Bank are declared Israeli territory. I believe they should belong to a Palestinian state, but that would mean Israel does not import its law or its people into their territory.

6

Anonymous #3 4w

You mean like the Japanese Americans? Which I explicitly named as an analogous example?

6

Anonymous #1 4w

I also think they should belong to a cohesive Palestinian state. I think the history that has led to the current situation in the West Bank (intractable, increasingly violent and racist Israeli military occupation, extremely corrupt Palestinian government with limited authority) is much more complicated than just “Israel didn’t let it happen”. Calling it an apartheid and comparing it to South Africa ignores a lot of the historical and political complexity and what WB palestinians actually want

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I think that there are a lot of similarities to apartheid, particularly if you look at it through the lens of South Africa’s occupation of Namibia and its was against Namibian separatists in Angola. They are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough that people very in the know have made comparisons. Hendrik Verwoerd (South African PM) called Israel an apartheid state (prior to West Bank occupation). Ehud Barak (former Israeli PM) has called the current system in the West Bank apartheid

3

Anonymous #1 4w

no, they’re still two very different situations. if you want to know why maybe read about each of them. making an analogy and deciding that clearly you understand the second event because you understand the first is flawed reasoning

0

Anonymous #1 4w

yeah the system has a lot of similarities to apartheid and is deeply unjust, but when it comes to how it happened and what could end it, the differences between it and apartheid really do matter

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I feel like you are getting extraordinarily in the weeds here because you interpret me as defending the Chinese government. Like you think South Africa and Israel are too different to say apartheid but it’s too far to make the distinction between arbitrary detainment and official denial of citizenship rights?

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Yeah I think when you said “trying to neuter a separatist movement” “detained on suspicion of affiliation with separatist groups” and “children in assimilatory boarding schools” and then when i pointed out that all of those things were untrue and then you deflected by saying “but they’re still citizens” you were defending the Chinese government or at the very least minimizing the things they do

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I use the term apartheid because I think it is an evocative term that is close enough in terms of the official difference in government status between the two populations (just within the West Bank). The differences do matter, but the denial of citizenship rights is the kicker. I would also use the term apartheid to Kuwait’s treatment of bidoons.

5

Anonymous #3 4w

I do think the WB and SA are extremely different situations and I don’t think apartheid clearly describes what’s happening in the West Bank. However, I don’t think that makes things in the West Bank any less horrible. I don’t deny the extreme levels of violence, oppression, or injustice that Palestinians in the West Bank face, I don’t sanitize or downplay what happens to them, and I don’t repeated word for word what the Israeli government says it is doing there

0

Anonymous #3 4w

It is trying to neuter a separatist movement, by forcibly assimilating the separatist population and mass interning its members. That is clearly the motivation, given the Hui aren’t getting interred. They are detained on suspicion of affiliation with separatist groups, that can be simply due to their ethnicity, or due to actions taken. Though the entire population is not interred like happened with Japanese Americans (in the mainland)

4

Anonymous #3 4w

In both cases what I am saying is details and specifics matter more than legal definitions

0

Anonymous #3 4w

And yeah the children are in assimilatory boarding schools? That’s how they are doing the cultural genocide. They are separating them from their Uyghur families and forcibly assimilating them into Han culture, like what America did to Native American children. The accounts from Uyghur children who escaped to Turkey make it very clear it’s a cultural genocide campaign.

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Mass sterilization is not about neutering a movement

0

Anonymous #1 4w

No, the boarding schools are internment camps that they call boarding schools because it sounds nicer

6

Anonymous #3 4w

I guess I just think that the distinction is important, because I believe when a lot of Americans hear about the Uighur Genocide and massive camps, they believe it to be death camps. But that’s a misunderstanding. Most people think a genocide is mass killings. It is genocide, but it is primarily manifested as a cultural genocide.

4

Anonymous #1 4w

which distinction?

6

Anonymous #3 4w

My “they’re still citizens” distinction was just in regards to the post saying it’s “the exact same” as what’s happening in Palestine. I believe they are both awful and would consider the Gaza war to be a form of genocide, but they are conducted very differently.

4

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Israel creating its nation in Palestine and the resulting “conflict” has always had ties to other countries, and is currently being aided by the American government- China is doing it on its own so easier to get away with more with little proof to the outside world

0

Anonymous #3 4w

I was actually not familiar with mass sterilization as being one of the accusations. I will have to read into that more.

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Yeah it is, mass forced sterilization and forced abortions are the two main accusations cited when people accuse China of genocide. Sorry, if I knew you really didn’t know that I would have been more polite

0

Anonymous #3 4w

https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/reporting-silent-annihilation-reflections-covering-forced-sterilizations-uyghur-women

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I will read into it more, thank you

1

Anonymous #3 4w

but ig part of what i mean to say is it seems like on the left people have a habit of hearing a little bit about a situation, labelling it as a particular crime, and then assuming that all specific the facts of the event fit the label assigned. not a personal criticism, i think its cultural and widespread and quite dangerous

1

Anonymous #3 4w

(i am on the left for context)

1

Anonymous #1 4w

yeah sorry for being nasty

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Bringing up the need for nuance in that way is really insightful. I haven’t thought about that problem in that specific manner. It can have elements of cultural and reproductive genocide.

3

Anonymous landtrust 4w

i actually have been trying to understand why the courts won’t prosecute but it’s very confusing. the ICC refused to prosecute specific Chinese leaders for their specific roles bc China is not a signatory to the Rome Statue so they said there’s nothing they can do. but Israel isn’t a signatory either and they’ve persecuted specific Israeli leaders for their specific roles

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I get it, when you perceive someone as minimizing something awful it’s easy to assume that is intentional or malicious.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

yeah. legal definitions are made to fit events, not the other way around. and usually the definitions are made after the events are over. so i think its important to remember each new event has to be fully proven to fit a specific label because it could always be something that doesn’t fit any label at all

1

Anonymous #1 4w

i really appreciate that, i hope you have a good day :)

1

Anonymous #3 4w

I feel like part of it has to be them being on the security council, and part of it is probably the difficulty in gathering verifiable information in such a tightly controlled country. I don’t know how much weight the ICC typically places on witness testimony.

5

Anonymous #3 4w

That is a really great way to put it

5

Anonymous #3 4w

I hope you have a good day too! I’m headed to a local powwow, I got a bit distracted by this lol.

8

Anonymous #1 4w

ooooh have fun!!!!!

1

Anonymous #3 4w

Thanks! :)

1

Anonymous #3 4w

China is not a signatory to the Rome statue but the precedent is that if a country is engaging in countries that are signatories, then they can intervene anyways. The east Turkistan activists are making this argument but the ICC says there’s not enough evidence to investigate

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Because they would get sent to camps or be murdered otherwise...

3

Anonymous _orangutan 4w

because everything China is guilty of, the United States is guilty of on a much grander scale, and firstly, US politics, and most of us here are descendants of settlers. perhaps we ought to look inward before we hold other nations to a standard we don’t even adhere to

2

Anonymous #1 4w

that makes a lot of sense

5

Anonymous _orangutan 4w

Don’t be ashamed of your “settler”ness. Take pride in your country

0

Anonymous landtrust 4w

Dudes an opinion switching lolcow

0

Anonymous #7 4w

Changing your opinion based on new information is a sign of high intelligence

6

Anonymous #7 4w

dont ruin it i wanna see landtrust and orangutan fight

8

Anonymous landtrust 4w

correct

3

Anonymous #1 4w

I like some of your points, don’t forget though that Beijing universities are required by law to serve halal meals to Uyghur Muslims studying there

6

Anonymous _orangutan 4w

Yes that is part of my point!!

1

Anonymous #6 4w

What’s going on in Uyghur is false?

1

Anonymous OP 4w

What the American government and media claim is happening in China is absolutely false

8

Anonymous #6 4w

Good thing I’m not referencing American media when I’m discussing events taking place there

1