Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 239 posts

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

#141

Post by foobiekr »

johnchristopher wrote: post #99
TriNetra wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for a moment reflect on this fact: for almost all human beings on this planet, the goal of life continues to revolve around gaining wealth, recognition and power. By the time one realizes the worthlessness of these goals, it's time for him to leave. But as long as these remain the primary goals of our lives, we can't truly be compassionate toward the needs/plight of others and at every opportune moment, we'll tr…

> "for almost all human beings on this planet, the goal of life continues to revolve around gaining wealth, recognition and power." The opposite could be true as well: the goal of a minority is to gain wealth, recognition and power and in doing so they hurt everyone else around them.

Maybe it's living in the Valley for 20Y, and DC for 20+ before that, but I think the original statement is correct. If anything, the well-educated people in the valley are even more obsessed with recognition of status than the people i knew in DC (who were in _politics_).

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

#142

Post by wildfire »

throwaway6274 wrote: post #129
saeranv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. How long until we can get to 100%?

Hopefully valuing life and allowing people to choose will become just the default.

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

#143

Post by ianleeclark »

apta wrote: post #96

Another holocaust is being committed right in front of everyone. What will the world do now? Sit back and keep taking advantage of the benefits of cheap Chinese labour? Isn't it time to wake up and cut this barbaric behavior if we're going to claim we moved past what happened in WWII?

> Another holocaust is being committed right in front of everyone. What will the world do now? Sit back and keep taking advantage of the benefits of cheap Chinese labour?

Note: I'm not defending this, and I'm not looking forward to the coming Chinese hegemony. However, what is the proposed alternative? It's obvious from the past few months just how deeply reliant western supply chains are on China.

When the Dutch were at the height of power, they heavily invested into British manufacturing, only to later be taken over as the hegemonic power by the British. The British later did similar with the US, and, in combination with the world wars and exiting as the only possible creditor from WW2, the American hegemony was established. From Volcker onwards, the American economy increasingly turned to financialization and local communities came to be service-oriented economies.

We're just historically at the end of a cyclical process of accumulation and China's up next.

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

ironman1478 wrote: post #47
AHappyCamper wrote: post #23

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?

As I've gotten older, I've come to really feel like humans just haven't been around that long and we really haven't progressed that much outside of technology. WW2 wasn't really that long ago and neither was the the American civil war, both wars based on race and atrocities. I think it's a bit of a fallacy to think that just because some country is technology and economically advanced it will have correct moral value…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by croes »

azinman2 wrote: post #59
okasaki wrote: 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.

The eradication of cultures is at least as old.

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

#147

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

foobar_ wrote: post #90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Zenz ... the china expert > Zenz co-authored the book Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation which links modern trends, including gender equality, homosexuality and bans on corporal punishment, to the power of the Antichrist. The more I look at it, history is one ethnic group against the other. The winners do what they want, the weak suffer…

Look at the edit history for that article. It’s not useful as a reference for this discussion.

I mean, frankly, much of this discussion is probably not authentic either. These topics always attract people who will bend over backwards to defend genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

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

#148

Post by dleslie »

wcerfgba wrote: post #2

> SIMON: People need to be careful using the word genocide. Why do you think it's justified and important to use it now? > ZENZ: I have long argued that the atrocity in the region is a cultural genocide, not a literal genocide. I do continue to believe that, generally speaking, the Chinese government does not intend to physically eradicate the Uighurs and Kazakhs, just to integrate, subjugate, dominate and assimilate…

This is similar to what happened to indigenous peoples here in Canada. For the most part, and while there are clear and heinous exceptions, the intent was to wipe out indigenous culture and society. Because it wasn't gas chambers it's been harder to get the general population to recognize what was/is happening.

Also, forced sterilization is still a thing, particularly outside of urban health authorities.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/forced-sterilization-la...

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

#149

Post by throwaway6274 »

wildfire wrote: post #142
throwaway6274 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. How long until we can get to 100%? Hopefully valuing life and allowing people to choose will become just the default.

I don’t understand how you can say something like that with a clear conscience. But then again I don’t understand how China can treat the Uighurs the way they are and sleep at night either. I suppose people just rationalize other people in collective societal delusion as “sub-human” to the point where it’s easy to ignore.

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

#150

Post by croes »

Retric wrote: post #65
okasaki wrote: 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.

But don't forget the context how Iraq became like it was before the invasion.
Post reply on HN