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

“Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#51

Post by DharmaPolice »

Tomte wrote: post #2

No, it isn't. From the article: > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them. Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide. Genocide is about "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Sterilizing them counts. As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group (to give an exam…

>Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide.

In terms of the definition adopted in various official contexts this is obviously correct. But the problem is in terms of discourse "genocide" has a much more specific connotation for most of the public and it's all too easy to (deliberately or not) to conflate the two things - making the issue harder to discuss.

If you'll forgive a controversial analogy - it's like the term sexual assault. Clearly sexual assault in legal terms has to include unwanted sexual touching of any degree. No doubt. But if I say "I am a sexual assault survivor" then this inevitably conjures up images very different to the truth (which is : my bum was pinched a few times in nightclubs two decades ago). In the case of sexual assault modifiers like "serious" or "minor" get used because clearly there is a big range of possibilities here. And although my experience was sexual assault, it's intellectually dishonest for me to put it like that (at least not without heavy explanation).

Similarly with genocide, if (to use your least severe hypothetical example) the only issue was an above average number of children from one ethnic group being taken into care and placed with foster families of another ethnic group then it would feel dishonest to say (in public discussions) that that was a genocide (by itself). (Note : That is NOT what is happening here, I am merely responding to your example)

I don't know enough about the Uyghur situation to say myself but maybe "genocidal practices" might be more appropriate, I don't know. It feels poor taste to call anything "a minor genocide".

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#52

Post by rich_sasha »

baybal2 wrote: post #48

The Economist is owned by the same clan who owns Fiat — Agnelli family. Fiat and its owner family made tons of money on making military machinery for Axis Powers. Fiat is a 50% shareholder of GAC FCA, a Chinese auto makers with factories in Xinjiang out of all places.

If true, that’s bad and hypocritical, but good on Economist for having the balls/freedom to speak up anyway.

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#53

Post by maxerickson »

emptysongglass wrote: post #45
maxerickson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also last summer in the immigration detention center(s?). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/9/15/21437805/w... I guess there can be some room for discussion about whether it is genocide if there is not a clear target group/culture. Doesn't make it less heinous, just a different sort of heinous.

It was one center by one doctor who is being investigated. This was not the machinations of federal or state.

There's strong evidence of the one doctor and concerns that it might be more widespread. Were there people that knew about it and didn't stop it?

And it very much is a failure of government if an individual is systematically abusing people that are in government custody.

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#55

Post by concordDance »

jjgreen wrote: post #3
Tomte wrote: post #2

No, it isn't. From the article: > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them. Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide. Genocide is about "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Sterilizing them counts. As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group (to give an exam…

Not saying that you're wrong -- would you include the US eugenics programs [1] or the Australian forced adoptions [2] in that? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

The former only would if actually erradicating a group was either the intent or the (eventual) end result. Not sure the US eugenics program would count under that def (it might have hit many minorities disproportionately, but wouldn't have wiped them out entirely).

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#57

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

kgwgk wrote: post #50
bhouston wrote: post #15

[deleted]

Harvesting organs from prosecuted groups is, allegedly, a common activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

As horrifying as it is, it seems a relatively recent staple in our world. Most recent public example was Kosovo ( https://balkaninsight.com/2015/09/04/kosovo-organ-traffickin... ). It is hard not get depressed.

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#58

Post by pueblito »

boogies wrote: post #39
__s wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Same for the residential schools in Canada my grandmother attended https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...

IIUC that also happened in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schoo...

10,000+ were forced into Carlisle alone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlisle_Indian_Industrial_S...

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#59

Post by yarcob »

Clewza313 wrote: post #24
zdragnar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As defined in the Geneva convention, genocide also includes forced sterilisation and removal of children from parents. Also, what do you expect the end result of mass incarceration in prison camps to be, other than mass graves?

These aren't extermination camps, people are eventually being released from them. Their notional aim is re-education and making people genuinely love Big Brother/the Communist Party, but I doubt the deciders are naive enough to believe that will actually happen. Instead, it's sufficient that the detainees become broken, intimidated and compliant.

> people are eventually being released from them

According to what I've read, people in these camps disappear and are never heard of again.

They sound a lot like concentration camps. Just because they aren't full blown extermination camps yet, doesn't make them any less despicable. The Nazi camps didn't start as extermination camps either, that was a gradual development.

Re: “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang

#60

Post by Supermancho »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #47
Tomte wrote: post #2

No, it isn't. From the article: > It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them. Not slaughtering them makes no difference to whether it's genocide. Genocide is about "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". Sterilizing them counts. As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group (to give an exam…

[flagged]

> As would snatching the children of that group and placing them in families of your own group

While these acts are unquestionably immoral, I don't think the ICE detention or transplanting children equates to genocide. It's not the same intent or effect. Eliminating "culture" is not the same as eliminating "people".

Post reply on HN