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.
China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
151–160 of 239 posts
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#152Why 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.
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> we really haven't progressed that much outside of technology This would imply that the measure of progression / advancement is civility, and that we are going to progress and become more civil given more time. That seems to be a fallacy also, it may be that evolution does not optimise for civility at all, after all being civil is not going to help you to crush your enemies or attract a mate in this environment.
Mating choices will reflect and perpetuate this--in a violent, corrupt society, the physically strong, cunning, and ruthless will be the most sought after. In a more altruistic society, people who produce the most value for others (and therefore receive the most favors in kind) will have the highest status.
So evolution in this sense isn't really outside of our control. If we help each other and discourage violence, evolution will reinforce that, making society more peaceful and altruistic over time. On the other hand, if we make it so corruption and cruelty are the best ways to get ahead, people's behavior is likely get worse and worse.
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#154I 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?
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution might promote civility in a similar way to peacock feathers through sexual selection. Civility implies that you have enough wealth and power to spare on luxuries even in a world of brutal competition. This allows you to attract more mates/immigrants which ultimately offsets the additional cost.
Evolution is very slow: you.class == caveman.class
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
But are Han Chinese sent to concentration camps? > The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang. > But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the aborti…
> But are Han Chinese sent to concentration camps? All of them? Certainly not, China would look pretty empty. Some of them? Yeah, unless you have a special definition of concentration camp. The organ harvesting also does not seem to have an ethnic component. You tend to be targeted if you're loudly critical of the government or engage in unwanted religion, your ethnicity does not spare you.
If Surgeon Enver Tohti’s testimony is to be believed, then Uyghurs are indeed targeted for organ harvesting.
https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/A15_Sub...
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#158I 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.
Sadly it seems to be backed up by Elliott’s famous experiment. [2] Where you tell one group of kids that they are superior to another group with different eye colour.
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#159We have yet to even comprehend the vast trove of materials recovered from the region indicative of those past cultures, which includes a trove of languages, scripts and religious affiliations.
An amazing international digitization project hosted by the British Library at has full document search capabilities. http://idp.bl.uk/ ... scholars are desperately needed to sort and interpret the material, which crosses the Chinese, Indian, Central Asian and Tibetan worlds in addition to endemic kingdoms. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/73/5d/59735daf093ccb7787c7...
A fact little known amongst modern Chinese is that one of China's most celebrated poets, Li Bai, actually hailed from Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan). He relocated to Sichuan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Bai Other popularly remnant modern Chinese cultural links to this region from China include the coming of Buddhism and the fictionalized account Journey to the West, the romanticized export of silk technology, former military significance of 'blood (sweating) horses' and no doubt various contributions to medical, astronomic and scientific knowledge.
The Uighurs, like hundreds of ethnic and cultural minorities globally, and dozens within China, are facing a difficult integration with the modern world surrounded by far more significant economic and cultural spheres. It's also objective to say that a minor Uighur-affiliated violent separatist group has been operating with a distinct anti-government position since at least the early 1990s, and prior to that the region was a victim of the Great Game: http://pratyeka.org/books/kazak-exodus/
China historically allowed members of registered minority groups to be free of the one child policy, which otherwise affected all Chinese. The linked article asserts it is still being applied in Xinjiang and specifically against the Uighurs which is different to the rest of the country at present, but not historically. It would be good to see what the primary sources are on this.
There are potentially reasonable grounds for an international relations argument that nominally recent anti-Uighur measures might be, at least in part, traced to immediately contemporary post-911 "anti-terror" rhetoric by the US providing global laisser-faire on rights suspensions and heavy-handed tactics.
Conclusion: There is more to the story than a timely and simplistic villification, none of which excuses the actions being taken, but all of which add context.
Re: China suppression of Uighurs meets U.N. definition of genocide, report says
#160I 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?