Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

101–102 of 102 posts

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

#101
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you go by UN (aka diplomatically actionable) definitions, by formally extending family planning uniformly to minorities which previously disproportionately targeted Han, China did not start genociding Uyghurs but effectively stopped genociding Han. Unless the argument is family planning is genociding everyone, in which case the primary victims are still urban Han. The verbiage trying to define Cultural Genoci…

Read the whole Genocide Convention of 1948: > genocide means 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 calculated to bring about its physical destruction in…

(b)(d)(e) applied to and still does to Han as well, there's no distinction in terms of family planning. Hence no intent to destroy. The distinction is the greater XJ security architecture, in which case it's comparable to prison industrial complex that disproportionately target minorities, which again, has been likened to cultural genocide. If the CCP wanted to destroy Uyghurs, they'd destroy them, not setup elaborate sinication program.

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

#102
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefits?

Increased unity, no need to consider minority demands. e.g. consider the Keystone XL pipeline. Would it be easier and quicker to build without the Native population being there to protest? Or consider the recent race riots in the USA, would such a thing even be possible in places without such diversity?

Sounds like they aren't enjoying benefits from past eugenics after all.
Post reply on HN