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

Post by Clewza313 » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

yarcob wrote: post #59

Clewza313 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by BelenusMordred » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

draklor40 wrote: post #82

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a reference to US political policy: the USSR was an enemy, and therefore everything associated with anything under a red flag[0] is evil. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics)

Isn't the term `Red Scare` ? Strange that I get called out for mixing up names :) Anyway, Guardian, Economist, etc, doesn't really make a difference. They all write the same subservient way about China anyway \__(:-/)__/

Post by __s » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

podric wrote: post #38

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…

How do you quantify the "in part" portion of that definition: "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"? What's the minimum number or percent of a group that must be targeted in order for an act to be considered genocide according to that definition?

Post by gridder » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

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…

Post by hkmaxpro » Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

dfilppi wrote: post #61

skissane wrote: post #36

> Calling it genocide depends on a definition rooted in a UN convention which suggests that one need not actually kill anyone to commit it This article is ignoring the history of the word "genocide". It was coined by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, during the Second World War, to describe what the Nazis were doing to his own people (and to others too). However, Lemkin himself never defined it so narrowly as…

Then the word should be retired. The suffix -cide means to kill. Any other meaning makes the word itself a lie.