The truth is it’s all propaganda from both sides and no one actually knows what’s going on. And because I’m saying this anywhere I’m probably going to be downvoted to oblivion as either side will downvote me. However, what we do know is:
China has admitted there are training camps in the Xinjiang Area.
The training camps are mandatory and people have been forced to go there.
The graduates have been spread all over China gaining employment in pretty much every factory in China (This imho is because it makes things impossible to sanction)
The people are compensated for their time in the training camps (This is what makes them forced labor camps in theory)
It is a cultural thing where guests in Xinjiang are invited to sleep in the same bed. This has lead to many stories of Chinese people forcing themselves into the bedrooms of Xinjiang people.
What we are sure isn’t quite right:
They are not genociding the people in the camps. This is why the conversation has turned to “cultural genocide” whatever that means. I believe this is propaganda to reinforce that they could be genocide when there is no evidence.
There is a lot of fake evidence for the genocide. For example the prison camp image or the truck that is censored but has red liquid leaking out of it were all doctored. Just this alone has to make you question the truth of those claiming genocide.
The “leaked list” of prisoners is fake. It contains HK movie stars and actors.
What we could probably conclude:
I’d argue that there is forced labor occurring as they are literally being forced into training camps and getting paid for it.
There is no forced labor in the factories USA is claiming there is. After graduating, the students are welcome to move and work where they want, so this can’t be forced labor.
Final questions:
What happens to those who won’t participate in the forced training camps? We don’t know, and that’s ultimately where the disconnect and miscommunication is coming from. The west is claiming they’re being killed. China isn’t saying anything but then are at a minimum keeping them locked up indefinitely. So, in the end, it’s a bad situation for sure but it’s likely not as bad as the western propaganda makes it look.
Thank you for the breakdown. I’m very genuinely curious about this cultural bed sharing thing but the only thing I’m finding is that it’s common amongst family, not with guests. (I’m not questioning you, I’m just actually curious about this)
Another question - do you mean to say that you don’t think cultural genocide is a thing (whether in this situation or not)? Cause it’s definitely a facet of regular genocide, even genocide-lite.
Unfortunately I can’t find articles talking about bed sharing without it being from western media. It’s obviously not something that’s news worthy to begin with. I only know this because of my friends from the Xinjiang region.
The problem with the concept of cultural genocide is that there’s a culture to genocide. Culture is defined by the situations and effects of the moment. Culture changes, ebbs and flows. The Menorah is as much a part of Jewish culture as the Torah. But the Menorah was created out of what we today would call cultural genocide. You can’t genocide culture that idea is ridiculous, instead the culture will adapt and change with whatever is happening at the moment.
The question then isn’t is there cultural genocide, but what if anything we should protect in a culture. USA used to have a culture of racism, we obviously went out of our way to “culturally genocide” that. Should we have not done that? Should the fact that it was part of our culture mean we should protect oppressing black people? In reality, by our own definitions, some cultures do need to be genocided.
Yeah but cultural genocide (ethnocide) doesn’t refer to just kill off parts of a culture. It’s a systemic approach, usually backed by law, to destroy the entire ethnicity and cultural norms.
Take for example what the Canadian government calls the cultural genocide of indigenous people in Canada. Their intention was not to kill the parts of indigenous culture that they didn’t like, but it was forced assimilation through legal action and through removing children from their culture. It was remove/ban/destroy all indigenous culture - very “kill the Indian and save the man”. That is cultural genocide.
In your example, the “destruction” of racism in American culture was not led by a government and not led against any ethnic group directly. Nobody was taking Confederate kids away from their family to teach them the “right” way.
Yes cultures change and adapt, but ethnocide is the very intentional move to do everything possible to destroy that culture. Will it adapt? Sure, yes, indigenous cultures have been extremely resilient and survived in Canada. but to say that it wasn’t cultural genocide is to ignore the fact that children were literally ripped from their families in order to stop them from practicing their culture, or that cultural meetings and even just any type of meeting within their own groups was outlawed.
Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.
That’s a quote from our first prime minister. That is what I mean when I say cultural genocide.
Cultural genocide is intentional. And much of the time, as I mentioned before, it is a facet of violent genocide because it leads to deaths and multigenerational trauma. Even if the government wasn’t going in and killing people en masse and intentionally - which is how genocide is technically defined - there’s no way that this is not a type of genocide.
I mean if that’s your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren’t separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They’re taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That’s what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They’re going family to family to make sure they don’t break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.
Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that’s what they’re complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It’s why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.
*Edit: In fact there’s video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it’s entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I’m pointing out is, they’re absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.
That was an example, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be taking the children away. “Re-education” with the intent to remove someone’s ethnical/cultural background is cultural genocide. The idea of “kill the Indian and save the man”, in this case would be like “kill the Uighur and save the person”. But I don’t know enough about the specifics in China and I’m not arguing that what they’re doing is specifically cultural genocide, I’m just saying that cultural genocide is real and does occur.
And I very strongly disagree that the civil war was cultural genocide. Just because the majority of the people who were on the losing side were white doesn’t mean they were targeted indiscriminately JUST for being white (that’s the key difference here). They were not targeted because of the way they looked or the language they spoke or where they were born. Racism and oppression are not cultural or human rights.
Equating white American culture to the racism that specifically Confederate and Neo-N*zis were and continue to advocate for is very much “I’m German so the swastika is my heritage” vibes.
Uh yea, it’s very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don’t like.
We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn’t cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it’s literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it’s applied to a group you don’t like you just dismiss it? That’s hilariously ignorant.
Also, what’s happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they’re just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it’s just whatever group is next.
Edit. BTW that’s why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.
Pretty normal (and necessary) to have a national language lol. 96% of Tibetans can speak their local language since it’s part of the curriculum, and Tibetan, Uyghur and other local cultures are highly promoted in Chinese media as mandated by the CPC.
promote social harmony
True and good.
cultural erasure […] homogeneity
Do you watch Chunwan? It’s the most watched media in China and its national television, where every year there are displays of traditional Uyghur culture in Xinjiang — dresses, dances, music, etc. Dilraba Dilmurat, the most popular celebrity in China, is of Uyghur descent and performs in those traditional garbs.
Claiming China is “suppressing Uyghur/Tibet culture” or other bs like that is hilarious nonsense to anyone who knows even a little about the country lmfao. If you don’t know about the country you’re speaking about, you should ask questions and look into it instead of parroting imperial core narratives.
Didn’t think this would be a hot take
You’re not on Reddit full of western liberals. Lemmy is a bit more lefty in comparison.
It’s literally the most watched television program on the planet lmao.
What about the limits on children under 18 from participating in religious activities?
Preventing child abuse and indoctrination is very cool and good actually. Wish I wasn’t exposed to it as a kid.
The demolition of religious sites?
What? Xinjiang has some of the largest mosques in the world lol. And a pretty high ratio of mosques to Muslims (about as high as my own Muslim country’s actually).
The requirement for religious leaders to register with the state?
Good. If the capitalist Russian Federation also continued to suppress the church and its leaders like the USSR did and China does, so much of the population would not have become so religious and reactionary.
What’s with this obsession with relating Uyghur culture to religion? Sure, so long as it’s only adults exposed to religions and it’s consensual, fine, but Xinjiang’s culture is much more than that, as are those of any region where religions are unfortunately still prevalent.
Religions are generally in decline in every place that’s progressing economically, and Xinjiang is no exception. That’s a good thing.
It’s a hot take because while you are right, it’s something that all countries do. It’s just not necessarily the government that does it. Just look at the culture wars in the US. China’s biggest difference is it’s controlled by the government. But it also has nothing to do with Xinjiang. They do it to everyone, Hans Chinese inclusive. Technically that’s what the great leap forward was. First forcing the Hans Chinese people to assimilate to the government’s idea of a unified country. It worked, so they’re pushing it everywhere.
Also, it’s important to note that the only violent enforcement of this was on the Hans Chinese. This was Tian an men. After that they’ve gotten really good at subversion. There was only one suspicious killing in the HK riots for example. For as large a protest as it was, it was largely nonviolent. Compare that with BLM in the States.
Hot take! I think it’s bad when anyone does it, not just China. Crazy, I know lol. I understand that these are the things that come with running a country but that doesn’t mean they are ethical, or even the only options.
Thank you for validating the fact that I am pointing out real things that are actually happening and not just saying “nuh uh” like others have been doing.
Well a problem with your argument is that assimilation is not only not unethical, but absolutely necessary for a functioning society. Imagine if you will for a second if our culture accepted racism and bigotry. It would be necessary to force assimilation on people to stop racism and bigotry. Oh wait, that’s happening right now. We’re literally forcing a culture of acceptance on a culture of racism and bigotry. Is that unethical? Should we stop? Perhaps we should have colored drinking fountains.
The problem you’re having with China is:
The government is the one that’s doing it, instead of naturally letting companies like Disney shove it down people’s throats.
The assimilation is over reaching.
The biggest problem is #2. We don’t know what the fuck that means. Should I be allowed to say the N word if there’s no other racism or bigotry? If there’s no racism and bigotry, is the N word even racist? Yet we enforce word usage today, just words that only have meaning because we give them meaning. yet it’s quite over reaching to censor words no? Where’s the line drawn?
The truth is it’s all propaganda from both sides and no one actually knows what’s going on. And because I’m saying this anywhere I’m probably going to be downvoted to oblivion as either side will downvote me. However, what we do know is:
What we are sure isn’t quite right:
What we could probably conclude:
Final questions:
Thank you for the breakdown. I’m very genuinely curious about this cultural bed sharing thing but the only thing I’m finding is that it’s common amongst family, not with guests. (I’m not questioning you, I’m just actually curious about this)
Another question - do you mean to say that you don’t think cultural genocide is a thing (whether in this situation or not)? Cause it’s definitely a facet of regular genocide, even genocide-lite.
Unfortunately I can’t find articles talking about bed sharing without it being from western media. It’s obviously not something that’s news worthy to begin with. I only know this because of my friends from the Xinjiang region.
The problem with the concept of cultural genocide is that there’s a culture to genocide. Culture is defined by the situations and effects of the moment. Culture changes, ebbs and flows. The Menorah is as much a part of Jewish culture as the Torah. But the Menorah was created out of what we today would call cultural genocide. You can’t genocide culture that idea is ridiculous, instead the culture will adapt and change with whatever is happening at the moment.
The question then isn’t is there cultural genocide, but what if anything we should protect in a culture. USA used to have a culture of racism, we obviously went out of our way to “culturally genocide” that. Should we have not done that? Should the fact that it was part of our culture mean we should protect oppressing black people? In reality, by our own definitions, some cultures do need to be genocided.
Yeah but cultural genocide (ethnocide) doesn’t refer to just kill off parts of a culture. It’s a systemic approach, usually backed by law, to destroy the entire ethnicity and cultural norms.
Take for example what the Canadian government calls the cultural genocide of indigenous people in Canada. Their intention was not to kill the parts of indigenous culture that they didn’t like, but it was forced assimilation through legal action and through removing children from their culture. It was remove/ban/destroy all indigenous culture - very “kill the Indian and save the man”. That is cultural genocide.
In your example, the “destruction” of racism in American culture was not led by a government and not led against any ethnic group directly. Nobody was taking Confederate kids away from their family to teach them the “right” way.
Yes cultures change and adapt, but ethnocide is the very intentional move to do everything possible to destroy that culture. Will it adapt? Sure, yes, indigenous cultures have been extremely resilient and survived in Canada. but to say that it wasn’t cultural genocide is to ignore the fact that children were literally ripped from their families in order to stop them from practicing their culture, or that cultural meetings and even just any type of meeting within their own groups was outlawed.
That’s a quote from our first prime minister. That is what I mean when I say cultural genocide.
Cultural genocide is intentional. And much of the time, as I mentioned before, it is a facet of violent genocide because it leads to deaths and multigenerational trauma. Even if the government wasn’t going in and killing people en masse and intentionally - which is how genocide is technically defined - there’s no way that this is not a type of genocide.
I mean if that’s your definition, then China is not doing cultural genocide. They aren’t separating children from parents and re-educating the children to assimilate. They’re taking the parents, re-educating them and telling them to tell their children to be like them moving forward. That’s what the whole sleeping in the beds thing is about. They’re going family to family to make sure they don’t break up families and make the whole family accept a new way of living.
Also, the destruction of racism was targeting white people. Heck that’s what they’re complaining about. They even had traditions and parties based on racism, least we forget who the KKK is So unless black people were also the target of anti-racism, then it was very much just the white people. Also, it was very much a movement from the government. It’s why it lead to a civil war where the south said they could not abide by the northern government.
*Edit: In fact there’s video after video of families in XInjiang asking the people who fled to come home. NOW, that said, it’s entirely possible and likely they were forced to do this. But what I’m pointing out is, they’re absolutely making sure that the families stay together and change as a unit, not forcing separation like what Canada did.
That was an example, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be taking the children away. “Re-education” with the intent to remove someone’s ethnical/cultural background is cultural genocide. The idea of “kill the Indian and save the man”, in this case would be like “kill the Uighur and save the person”. But I don’t know enough about the specifics in China and I’m not arguing that what they’re doing is specifically cultural genocide, I’m just saying that cultural genocide is real and does occur.
And I very strongly disagree that the civil war was cultural genocide. Just because the majority of the people who were on the losing side were white doesn’t mean they were targeted indiscriminately JUST for being white (that’s the key difference here). They were not targeted because of the way they looked or the language they spoke or where they were born. Racism and oppression are not cultural or human rights.
Equating white American culture to the racism that specifically Confederate and Neo-N*zis were and continue to advocate for is very much “I’m German so the swastika is my heritage” vibes.
Uh yea, it’s very much the swatstika is my heritage. And it really shows how your just dismissing cultures you don’t like.
We both agree Nazi swastikas should be banned, your just trying to argue that it wasn’t cultural when it absolutely is. Just as it’s literally part of Chinese and Indian culture. But suddenly when it’s applied to a group you don’t like you just dismiss it? That’s hilariously ignorant.
Also, what’s happening in China has nothing to do with Uigurs. Famously they did it to Hans Chinese first, which lead famously to Tiananmen. Then they did it to the Tibetans, and we made movies like 9 years in Tibet. Now they’re just expanding it. There is no cultural target, it’s just whatever group is next.
Edit. BTW that’s why it was called the cultural revolution, they were trying to wipe out Hans Chinese culture.
Removed by mod
Pretty normal (and necessary) to have a national language lol. 96% of Tibetans can speak their local language since it’s part of the curriculum, and Tibetan, Uyghur and other local cultures are highly promoted in Chinese media as mandated by the CPC.
True and good.
Do you watch Chunwan? It’s the most watched media in China and its national television, where every year there are displays of traditional Uyghur culture in Xinjiang — dresses, dances, music, etc. Dilraba Dilmurat, the most popular celebrity in China, is of Uyghur descent and performs in those traditional garbs.
Here’s one of her performances
Claiming China is “suppressing Uyghur/Tibet culture” or other bs like that is hilarious nonsense to anyone who knows even a little about the country lmfao. If you don’t know about the country you’re speaking about, you should ask questions and look into it instead of parroting imperial core narratives.
You’re not on Reddit full of western liberals. Lemmy is a bit more lefty in comparison.
TIL China’s Chunwan/Gala is the most watched television program in the world. Damn.
Removed by mod
It’s literally the most watched television program on the planet lmao.
Preventing child abuse and indoctrination is very cool and good actually. Wish I wasn’t exposed to it as a kid.
What? Xinjiang has some of the largest mosques in the world lol. And a pretty high ratio of mosques to Muslims (about as high as my own Muslim country’s actually).
Good. If the capitalist Russian Federation also continued to suppress the church and its leaders like the USSR did and China does, so much of the population would not have become so religious and reactionary.
What’s with this obsession with relating Uyghur culture to religion? Sure, so long as it’s only adults exposed to religions and it’s consensual, fine, but Xinjiang’s culture is much more than that, as are those of any region where religions are unfortunately still prevalent.
Religions are generally in decline in every place that’s progressing economically, and Xinjiang is no exception. That’s a good thing.
Acknowledging the downvotes doesn’t make this comment any less cringe or misinformed lol
It’s a hot take because while you are right, it’s something that all countries do. It’s just not necessarily the government that does it. Just look at the culture wars in the US. China’s biggest difference is it’s controlled by the government. But it also has nothing to do with Xinjiang. They do it to everyone, Hans Chinese inclusive. Technically that’s what the great leap forward was. First forcing the Hans Chinese people to assimilate to the government’s idea of a unified country. It worked, so they’re pushing it everywhere.
Also, it’s important to note that the only violent enforcement of this was on the Hans Chinese. This was Tian an men. After that they’ve gotten really good at subversion. There was only one suspicious killing in the HK riots for example. For as large a protest as it was, it was largely nonviolent. Compare that with BLM in the States.
Hot take! I think it’s bad when anyone does it, not just China. Crazy, I know lol. I understand that these are the things that come with running a country but that doesn’t mean they are ethical, or even the only options.
Thank you for validating the fact that I am pointing out real things that are actually happening and not just saying “nuh uh” like others have been doing.
Well a problem with your argument is that assimilation is not only not unethical, but absolutely necessary for a functioning society. Imagine if you will for a second if our culture accepted racism and bigotry. It would be necessary to force assimilation on people to stop racism and bigotry. Oh wait, that’s happening right now. We’re literally forcing a culture of acceptance on a culture of racism and bigotry. Is that unethical? Should we stop? Perhaps we should have colored drinking fountains.
The problem you’re having with China is:
The government is the one that’s doing it, instead of naturally letting companies like Disney shove it down people’s throats.
The assimilation is over reaching.
The biggest problem is #2. We don’t know what the fuck that means. Should I be allowed to say the N word if there’s no other racism or bigotry? If there’s no racism and bigotry, is the N word even racist? Yet we enforce word usage today, just words that only have meaning because we give them meaning. yet it’s quite over reaching to censor words no? Where’s the line drawn?