I have an Uyghur acquaintance, and I keep wondering whether I should reach out to him, or whether contacts with foreigners are likely to make his life more difficult.
> I have an Uyghur acquaintance, and I keep wondering whether I should reach out to him, or whether contacts with foreigners are likely to make his life more difficult.
Does he live in Xinjiang? I've read numerous reports the phones there are closely monitored, and receiving a call from overseas as a Uyghur can invite police questioning and perhaps detention, e.g.:
> The criteria for detention are unclear. Officials are rounding up members of the public to meet official quotas, Dr. Zenz noted, targeting specific groups, including people with foreign connections or who have traveled abroad, people who have received a phone call from overseas and people who are engaged in religious activities.
Honest question: Has there ever been an example of mass internment, non-activists "disappearing" and other things like we're seeing in Xinjiang that wasn't followed by genocide?
Edit: Genocide is probably the wrong word but the point is that events like we're seeing in China tend to be followed by other event that leave a lot of people who'd done nothing wrong dead.
That’s a fairly nominal way of defining ethnicity.
However, it was not limited to just Americans. Oddly, in Hawaii, where 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, only 1,200 to 1,800 were also interned.
Not limited to, no, but the majority interned were US citizens. Yes, the internment was mostly limited to west coast mainlanders; Hawaii's economy would have fallen over if its Japanese-American population was interned.
About 2/3 citizens, 1/3 non-citizens. I'm not sure how much of the latter group were permanent residents or intending to become citizens. Certainly, the majority were Americans.
Only a small number of Japanese became US POWs before the end of hostilities.
However the US did put a large percentage of their own citizens of Japanese origin into concentration camps, which I think is the case you're talking about. Almost all of them survived and left the camps at the end of the war though most lost their homes and businesses. I wouldn't call that "genocide" per se, simply a basic violation of human rights.
To improve the discussion even more let's be really pedantic and say "US citizens" since technically all people in South America and North America are Americans. I also don't know where I mentioned POWs.
It's already a slow moving genocide. The number of transplants vastly outstrips the number of voluntary donors. The difference is people that have been locked up the majority for political reasons.
It's not an "event", it's an inherent part of the Leninist or Maoist political system. China is using it in a targeted way, to integrate a specific cultural minority in a specific region, but like most communist countries, they've done plenty of the same thing to basically everyone else already.
Does anyone know if the "Gang of Four" who wrote the seminal book "Design Patterns" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns) intended to share the same name with the ignominious Gang of Four from Chinese history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four, as noted in this article)? Was this a hidden reference? Or, was this obliviousness on their part? Or, were they branded that way without their consent?
I realize leaving one's homeland is not ideal or desirable but is leaving an option for the Uighur, either through Pakistan (who, while I realize they are an ally of China, also happen to be Muslim) or Kazakhstan or any other adjoining country?
Surely if the oppression is getting this bad that people are being killed then the wiser course of action is to find somewhere out of the reach of the Chinese state?
It's not as easy as it sounds
a) to get out of reach you have to get your whole family out of reach, or accept that they may be punished on your behalf https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/china-u...
b) to get into anywhere else legally you need travel documents from the Chinese government, or to apply for asylum which isn't a given - or you can choose to live illegally in one of the neighboring countries, which often means that any children you have will not be citizens of that country and China may not grant them citizenship either. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/world/asia/china-uighurs-...
We all ought to stop saying "Xinjian, China" or "Uyghur region of China." The proper name is (occupied) East Turkestan[1], which is not rightfully part of China.
For all the talk about North Korea (which is by all means a despicable county), China not only treats its citizens (people who live in actual China) as badly as NK, but it illegally occupies East Turkestan and threatens to invade Taiwan if anyone questions their 2+2=5 stance that they control it. We ought to offer refuge to the Uyghur people, or better yet use our military forces to help them retake control of their county.
In the 1990s I might have been sympathetic to insisting on the name "East Turkestan" and being idealistic about an end to the Chinese presence there. However, as I have seen personally from traveling in the region, China simply moved too many Han people into it already. That’s that, it’s over. The situation would nearly be like insisting that Kaliningrad is rightfully German after the Soviet Union managed to change its population demographics overwhelmingly and obscure so much of its pre-Soviet history.
Perhaps not yet. If the colonization is mostly post-1990s (like the GP suggests), then it seems reasonable to insist that the colonists themselves leave. They're not innocent. It's only when you get to later generations, children and grandchildren that didn't choose to be born where they were, that it gets complicated to the point that there are no good solutions.
According to other commenters on this site, "The West". How they've come to the conclusion that a technology forum should be the place to discuss the most beneficial Western geopolitical strategy is beyond me.
>or better yet use our military forces to help them retake control of their country
Getting into a land war with China (who is probably the second most powerful military in the world) in a land-locked province with no realistic means of transporting and supplying troops would be very unrealistic to say the least. Even invading Hong Kong would be unrealistic, but that is 100x more practical than this suggestion.
I see the usual mass-flagging/mass-downvoting of the thread and all the comments of any thread talking negatively about China/Xinjiang is occurring. Wondering whether HN will step in or whether the admins here even consider doing so within their remit?
We're absolutely willing to oppose organized and targeted manipulation of votes/flags (and we write a ton of software and meta-moderation features to do so), but that's not what's happening. What's happening is legitimate division and difference of opinion. If it weren't so then it wouldn't be a controversy—and sure it is.
Edit: I don't actually see the pattern of downvoting that you're describing in this particular thread.
Because the topic, as unfortunate as it is, has little in common with the usual types of content that appear on HN? Easy on the paranoia there, buddy.
On the other hand, the extremely regular and clockwork-like appearance of China-related stories on HN that are all-politics and non-tech is eerie and bizarre.
That's fair but it's also fair to point out how "non-China-related stories on HN that are all-politics and non-tech" are also becoming prevalent. I also don't think that's a good thing, but since there is some kind of consensus here about letting those threads slide it doesn't bother me that much.
Western companies make too much money by shipping jobs out to cheap Chinese labor for Western politicians to care that the Chinese government often executes dissidents and sells their organs.
That's a stone-cold take right there. That might have been the case in maybe the early 90's at the very latest, but things have changed since then.
Not the part about executing dissidents and selling their organs. I don't know a lot about the organs, but they're an authoritarian government and they always have been. That ship sailed when Nixon decided to stop pretending that the Nationalists were the legitimate government of China. (Except Chiang Kai-Shek was still alive at that point, and he was also an authoritarian dictator who executed dissidents, so...).
And yeah, in general, I'm on board with the "let's not trade with dictatorships that kill dissidents" idea. Except the US tried that, too, with the embargo on Cuba. The US even agreed to unconditionally take in any Cuban refugees who reached the dry land of Florida. Did it make a difference? No. Would it have made a difference if Canada and Western Europe joined the embargo? Also probably not.
But the part about "shipping jobs out to cheap Chinese labor" is extremely dated. Chinese manufacturing isn't a cost-cutting alternative anymore; it's, in some cases, the global state of the art. There is no country on earth that can match China's capacity for manufacturing or construction. Putting an embargo on Shenzhen at this point would be as crippling to Western economies as putting an embargo on Silicon Valley. Possibly more. It's not just that it would be more expensive--the infrastructure doesn't exist, and even if we built it out again, we wouldn't do as good of a job at it.
To make matters worse, China has the most population, the most industrial capacity and the ability to construct infrastructure more cheaply and efficiently than any other nation on earth. If you embargo them, you immediately do two things: you remove any incentive they have to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with literally anyone else and you free up much of that industrial capacity for military uses. The population factor is even worse than you'd guessed based on raw population count because they have such a high ratio of men to women, particularly among military-age age cohorts.
The Xinjiang situation doesn't have a lot of pragmatic options aside from going down a path akin to Crimea or Bosnia.
From what I can tell:
- Xinjiang is 90% uninhabited grassland and desert; so we're talking about a big region with a lot of emptiness.
- China's value is the New Silk Road railroad from Asia -> Europe travels through Urumqi in Xinjiang, and the region is part of China's Western Development Strategy to enhance its economy.
- Geopolitically: surrounded by Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. Basically even if "annexed" by any surrounding nations, Xinjiang would still be governed by a pseudo-"termless president" unitary state.
- Demographically: There's going to be an inflection point between the "native" population and the Han Chinese population. Having a bunch of new people into the neighborhood and receive favoritism isn't bound to win over locals. That could also push the "native" population to emigrate to neighboring countries with language and cultural similarities.
- If Xinjiang declared independence, which would likely start elevated conflict with China, then I could see Russia (+ the '-stans') supporting Xinjiang (covertly or overtly) if that means gaining a new "puppet state" in East Turkestan, and having greater control over the Eurasian Land Bridge railroads.
- Growing Islamic radicalization or "imported terrorism" in Xinjiang from fellow Sunni Islam countries (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia) would be a death sentence for any hope of negotiation, as China would only double-down on their grasp and it would turn the region into another Syria.
- There is no compelling reason for the U.S. or Western Europe to send any military forces to Xinjiang because there is nothing to gain aside from karma. It's high-risk political suicide to enter into such a war post-Middle East when there is low demand for coal and enough domestic resources for oil/natural gas.
- Since the most major cities in Xinjiang are also the highest percentage areas of Han Chinese (like Urumqi), losing them in an independence initiative for East Turkestan would mean most Uyghurs would lose access to those economic sources and probably have to re-rely on agriculture. If China decided to blockade Turkestan (like U.S. to Cuba), then Russia (and ex-USSR) would be the new economic lifeline for the region.
49 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadDoes he live in Xinjiang? I've read numerous reports the phones there are closely monitored, and receiving a call from overseas as a Uyghur can invite police questioning and perhaps detention, e.g.:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/world/asia/china-xinjiang...:
> The criteria for detention are unclear. Officials are rounding up members of the public to meet official quotas, Dr. Zenz noted, targeting specific groups, including people with foreign connections or who have traveled abroad, people who have received a phone call from overseas and people who are engaged in religious activities.
Edit: Genocide is probably the wrong word but the point is that events like we're seeing in China tend to be followed by other event that leave a lot of people who'd done nothing wrong dead.
However, it was not limited to just Americans. Oddly, in Hawaii, where 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, only 1,200 to 1,800 were also interned.
However the US did put a large percentage of their own citizens of Japanese origin into concentration camps, which I think is the case you're talking about. Almost all of them survived and left the camps at the end of the war though most lost their homes and businesses. I wouldn't call that "genocide" per se, simply a basic violation of human rights.
I think that's what I wrote.
I wrote about Americans put in concentration camps during the war.
They are disassembling people for parts.
https://press.endtransplantabuse.org/
Please see articles from the wall street journal, new york times, cnn, guardian, et al.
We are in the midst of a slow motion holocaust in which we are buying container ships full of goods from the nazis.
The worse one of which happened in Iasi, Romania in 1941. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ia%C8%99i_pogrom
And here's one to have happened in recent memory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_pogrom
Surely if the oppression is getting this bad that people are being killed then the wiser course of action is to find somewhere out of the reach of the Chinese state?
For all the talk about North Korea (which is by all means a despicable county), China not only treats its citizens (people who live in actual China) as badly as NK, but it illegally occupies East Turkestan and threatens to invade Taiwan if anyone questions their 2+2=5 stance that they control it. We ought to offer refuge to the Uyghur people, or better yet use our military forces to help them retake control of their county.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan
of what exactly? Being alive?
How enlightened of you, to stop one genocide by committing another.
Getting into a land war with China (who is probably the second most powerful military in the world) in a land-locked province with no realistic means of transporting and supplying troops would be very unrealistic to say the least. Even invading Hong Kong would be unrealistic, but that is 100x more practical than this suggestion.
Edit: I don't actually see the pattern of downvoting that you're describing in this particular thread.
On the other hand, the extremely regular and clockwork-like appearance of China-related stories on HN that are all-politics and non-tech is eerie and bizarre.
Not the part about executing dissidents and selling their organs. I don't know a lot about the organs, but they're an authoritarian government and they always have been. That ship sailed when Nixon decided to stop pretending that the Nationalists were the legitimate government of China. (Except Chiang Kai-Shek was still alive at that point, and he was also an authoritarian dictator who executed dissidents, so...).
And yeah, in general, I'm on board with the "let's not trade with dictatorships that kill dissidents" idea. Except the US tried that, too, with the embargo on Cuba. The US even agreed to unconditionally take in any Cuban refugees who reached the dry land of Florida. Did it make a difference? No. Would it have made a difference if Canada and Western Europe joined the embargo? Also probably not.
But the part about "shipping jobs out to cheap Chinese labor" is extremely dated. Chinese manufacturing isn't a cost-cutting alternative anymore; it's, in some cases, the global state of the art. There is no country on earth that can match China's capacity for manufacturing or construction. Putting an embargo on Shenzhen at this point would be as crippling to Western economies as putting an embargo on Silicon Valley. Possibly more. It's not just that it would be more expensive--the infrastructure doesn't exist, and even if we built it out again, we wouldn't do as good of a job at it.
To make matters worse, China has the most population, the most industrial capacity and the ability to construct infrastructure more cheaply and efficiently than any other nation on earth. If you embargo them, you immediately do two things: you remove any incentive they have to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with literally anyone else and you free up much of that industrial capacity for military uses. The population factor is even worse than you'd guessed based on raw population count because they have such a high ratio of men to women, particularly among military-age age cohorts.
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmWB7zV9o8if2FTptyt2B7PpuMhnSXiFEiPEdXp...
From what I can tell:
- Xinjiang is 90% uninhabited grassland and desert; so we're talking about a big region with a lot of emptiness.
- China's value is the New Silk Road railroad from Asia -> Europe travels through Urumqi in Xinjiang, and the region is part of China's Western Development Strategy to enhance its economy.
- Geopolitically: surrounded by Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. Basically even if "annexed" by any surrounding nations, Xinjiang would still be governed by a pseudo-"termless president" unitary state.
- Demographically: There's going to be an inflection point between the "native" population and the Han Chinese population. Having a bunch of new people into the neighborhood and receive favoritism isn't bound to win over locals. That could also push the "native" population to emigrate to neighboring countries with language and cultural similarities.
- If Xinjiang declared independence, which would likely start elevated conflict with China, then I could see Russia (+ the '-stans') supporting Xinjiang (covertly or overtly) if that means gaining a new "puppet state" in East Turkestan, and having greater control over the Eurasian Land Bridge railroads.
- Growing Islamic radicalization or "imported terrorism" in Xinjiang from fellow Sunni Islam countries (e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia) would be a death sentence for any hope of negotiation, as China would only double-down on their grasp and it would turn the region into another Syria.
- There is no compelling reason for the U.S. or Western Europe to send any military forces to Xinjiang because there is nothing to gain aside from karma. It's high-risk political suicide to enter into such a war post-Middle East when there is low demand for coal and enough domestic resources for oil/natural gas.
- Since the most major cities in Xinjiang are also the highest percentage areas of Han Chinese (like Urumqi), losing them in an independence initiative for East Turkestan would mean most Uyghurs would lose access to those economic sources and probably have to re-rely on agriculture. If China decided to blockade Turkestan (like U.S. to Cuba), then Russia (and ex-USSR) would be the new economic lifeline for the region.