Live data from Hacker News

China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

npr.org

121–130 of 239 posts

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#121

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention From the Wiki article, the UN definition of Genocide is met if... ...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life c…

> The word itself means gene-killing.

No, it means (in the etymological sense rather than the denotative sense, since the UN definition is the primary denotative use in the modern world) race-killing. The “geno” is from the Greek “genos” meaning “race”, not from the English “gene” (the English “gene" ultimately is descended from “genos” also, through the German “pangen" a hypothesized ultimate unit of heredity, which etymologically is “all-race”.)

> Whether china is actually trying to wipe out or is being oppressive isn't clear when the UN definition is used.

The convention for the prevention and punishment of genocide includes certain forms of group oppression as well as direct killing because historically those kinds of group oppression usually precedes and paves the way for direct killing, and are also themselves an indirect means of killing (by reducing ability to survive and thrive.).

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#122
post #65
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

Not to defend the invasion, but the difference between say Japan post WWII and Iraq is almost entirely internal. Blaming the invasion for those deaths is not unreasonable, but it’s glossing over a lot of context.

The "Lancet Surveys" were very controversial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas.... Numerous critics doubt the results.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/voc-news/2020/4/5/blame-t... It’s a hilarious read: > If Beijing had given the real number of infected people and deaths, other countries would have recognized the danger, and taken necessary steps. No matter what transpired, eventually there was a warning, and most countries still took no steps until they had high numbers themselves. Hell, Italy could have been the warning and it w…

A Nature paper [0] suggests that 66 or even 95 percent of the cases could be avoided, had China acted on the coronavirus 1 to 3 weeks earlier [1].

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2293-x

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/research-finds...

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#124
post #41

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

> It's different though. We're the good guys.

No. The difference is that the US did not set up concentration camps in Iraq. That's an important detail, I think.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#125
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

I’m not saying the Iraq war should have happened, but war as a concept has been around since civilization started. What’s described here isn’t the same thing... there was no formal declaration or ability for them to fight back, and it’s happening largely in secret with denial to erase an entire culture from the earth.

Oh yes all those units of Iraqi children were sure ready to battle. What kind of disingenuous take is this. The cold reality is: I will justify anything my group does no matter the cost and I will condemn what the other group does. I will consider myself just and good.There, I described 90% of humanity, and that will be our downfall. All the rest is posturing and window-dressing.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/voc-news/2020/4/5/blame-t... It’s a hilarious read: > If Beijing had given the real number of infected people and deaths, other countries would have recognized the danger, and taken necessary steps. No matter what transpired, eventually there was a warning, and most countries still took no steps until they had high numbers themselves. Hell, Italy could have been the warning and it w…

A Nature paper [0] suggests that 66 or even 95 percent of the cases could be avoided, had China acted on the coronavirus 1 to 3 weeks earlier [1]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2293-x [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/research-finds...

But that paper, at least in the abstract, talks about preventable deaths in China. The anti-communists talk about China being to blame for the deaths in other countries because those countries had no warning.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#127
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

> It's different though. We're the good guys. No. The difference is that the US did not set up concentration camps in Iraq. That's an important detail, I think.

Yes good sir, they only did it in Guantanamo, and the other black sites. More Iraqis were killed by Americans than Uyghurs by China. Both are MONSTERS and fuck the people who justify it.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#128
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we? A survery in The Lancet estimated that the Iraq invasion caused an excess of 650k deaths by October 2006. A simple extrapolation would surely put the excess deaths in the middle east into millions. It's different though. We're the good guys.

> It's different though. We're the good guys. No. The difference is that the US did not set up concentration camps in Iraq. That's an important detail, I think.

Correct. We just killed them instead. That's infinitely better.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#129

I understand that China is extremely powerful both militarily and economically, but it just makes me so sad that such atrocities against humanity are occurring at the hands of a superpower, deep into the 21st century. Forgive my naiveté, but aren't we supposed to be past this type of thing as a species already? Wasn't that the whole point of the 20th century - to show us all the things we shouldn't be doing?

I had a professor (a historian who studied Auschwitz) who used to argue the opposite. Germany was a modern, industrialized nation, with an educated population - and yet the majority of the population either actively committed genocide, or were complicit in some fashion. My professor thus argued that the conditions for the Holocaust are not unique, and there could easily be another one.

~50% of the population continues to support abortion, so I’d say we have a very long way to go.

Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says

#130
Why was "report says" just removed? It's in the headline of TFA and it was in the HN headline a minute ago. I'd consider it a salient piece of information given that the report isn't authored by the UN but by some christian fundamentalist.

EDIT: it's back now.

Post reply on HN