Coming into a comment thread that is calling out the manufacturing consent against Iran, and bleating “but Xinjiang!” is whataboutism if I’ve ever seen it.
And yes, you are parroting Zenz. He is the source of this myth - via countless western sources regurgitating the same claims he’s been making since 2018.
In March 2017, the Jamestown Foundation (Washington DC) published a three thousand-word report on “Xinjiang’s Rapidly Evolving Security State” written by Adrian Zenz and James Leibold.1 A few months later, the same writers published another report, this one slightly longer at nearly five thousand words, with the more aggressive title, “Chen Quanguo: The Strongman Behind Beijing’s Securitization Strategy in Tibet and Xinjiang.”2 At that time, there was not much interest in these stories. Zenz came from the Victims of Communism Foundation, a nonprofit organization set up by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and funded by various right-wing sources, including the Heritage Foundation.
You decided to offer the opinions of countries like Saudi Arabia
And, ya know, a plethora of others that you decided to ignore for some reason… Associating a large swath of Muslim and Arab nations with human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia really lets your racism show.
I was remarking on the credibility of your source; you were remarking on the credibility of someone never cited here. You decided to use the source in the first place and then defend it when called out; I immediately disavowed the one you tried to push on me.
Brophy goes over your exact type of asinine rhetoric that seeks to ascribe this only to right-wing think tanks.
Liberal human rights organizations have often been too quick to make common cause with China hawks. The Left should have no truck with any of this.
But equally, the Left should not allow criticism of genocide claims to smuggle in an attitude of indifference to the human suffering that those claims point to—precisely what Prashad and Chak are trying to do. In their hands, talk of genocide is reduced to the work of a handful of individuals affiliated with right-wing think tanks, a move that allows them to focus on cultivating a sense that the entire Xinjiang issue is a construct of funding sources and self-interest. This will pass for “materialism” in some circles, but it is the sort of analysis that Gramsci had in mind when he complained of the reduction of Marxism to “economic superstition.” In such thinking, “‘Critical’ activity is reduced to the exposure of swindles, to creating scandals, and to prying into the pockets of public figures.”
Sadly, far too much of today’s China debate has this feel to it. Prashad and his co-thinkers are often enough on the receiving end themselves of critiques focusing on funding sources. It is a pity that instead of elevating the discussion above this level, they choose to descend to it.
The extent of arbitrary and discriminatory detention of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim groups, pursuant to law and policy, in context of restrictions and deprivation more generally of fundamental rights enjoyed individually and collectively, may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.
By the time you’re splitting hairs over “well is it cultural genocide or just systemic crimes against humanity of a specific ethnic group designed to repress their culture [see section 4A: ‘Religious, cultural and linguistic identity and expression’])?”, then I have no respect for your denial.
There are 306 footnotes in that report, often with multiple sources each (this one included), and you managed to claim “this report is based on sources from Zenz” because there’s literally one footnote citing his work there. You literally just 'Ctrl+F’d “Zenz” and and then threw out the entire rest of the report because it was willing to so much as even describe the fact that he tried to estimate the figures absent official ones.
Said citations (in footnote 140; page 17) are used in discussing how: “55. In the absence of officially available data, other researchers have drawn on a combination of sources and data points to assess and estimate the extent of the affected population.” It’s literally just one of (I think) 42 other numbered points trying to discuss “Imprisonment and other forms of deprivation of liberty”. You skipped all of that because you wanted a “gotcha”.
the UN has always explicitly stopped short of calling the situation a genocide.
I’ll say what I said before about this: if you’re going to “um ackshually” a cultural genocide just because the UN calls it likely “crimes against humanity” and intricately discusses the extreme cultural destruction of Uyghurs but doesn’t formally call it a “genocide”, I have zero respect for your denialism.
“Again”? All you showed was a completely out-of-context tweet which expressly denounces Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime – literally comparing their actions to the CCP’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
I don’t know if you just got that screenshot from some random Lemmygrad post or something and never bothered to plumb for the context, but in case you did: how do you square the fact that Adrian Zenz is comparing something he’s clearly made his life’s work to dismantle – China’s systemic persection of the Uyghurs – with the genocidal actions of the Nazi regime as his being a Nazi? I know when I call Donald Trump a neo-Nazi, that’s my way of expressing that I’m a card-carrying Nazi somehow.
All you’ve shown is that the OHCHR report in one footnote out of hundreds cited Zenz who works for a right-wing think tank.
Coming into a comment thread that is calling out the manufacturing consent against Iran, and bleating “but Xinjiang!” is whataboutism if I’ve ever seen it.
And yes, you are parroting Zenz. He is the source of this myth - via countless western sources regurgitating the same claims he’s been making since 2018.
And, ya know, a plethora of others that you decided to ignore for some reason… Associating a large swath of Muslim and Arab nations with human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia really lets your racism show.
I was remarking on the credibility of your source; you were remarking on the credibility of someone never cited here. You decided to use the source in the first place and then defend it when called out; I immediately disavowed the one you tried to push on me.
Brophy goes over your exact type of asinine rhetoric that seeks to ascribe this only to right-wing think tanks.
Removed by mod
The report of the United Nations OHCHR?
By the time you’re splitting hairs over “well is it cultural genocide or just systemic crimes against humanity of a specific ethnic group designed to repress their culture [see section 4A: ‘Religious, cultural and linguistic identity and expression’])?”, then I have no respect for your denial.
Removed by mod
There are 306 footnotes in that report, often with multiple sources each (this one included), and you managed to claim “this report is based on sources from Zenz” because there’s literally one footnote citing his work there. You literally just 'Ctrl+F’d “Zenz” and and then threw out the entire rest of the report because it was willing to so much as even describe the fact that he tried to estimate the figures absent official ones.
Said citations (in footnote 140; page 17) are used in discussing how: “55. In the absence of officially available data, other researchers have drawn on a combination of sources and data points to assess and estimate the extent of the affected population.” It’s literally just one of (I think) 42 other numbered points trying to discuss “Imprisonment and other forms of deprivation of liberty”. You skipped all of that because you wanted a “gotcha”.
I’ll say what I said before about this: if you’re going to “um ackshually” a cultural genocide just because the UN calls it likely “crimes against humanity” and intricately discusses the extreme cultural destruction of Uyghurs but doesn’t formally call it a “genocide”, I have zero respect for your denialism.
Removed by mod
“Again”? All you showed was a completely out-of-context tweet which expressly denounces Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime – literally comparing their actions to the CCP’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
I don’t know if you just got that screenshot from some random Lemmygrad post or something and never bothered to plumb for the context, but in case you did: how do you square the fact that Adrian Zenz is comparing something he’s clearly made his life’s work to dismantle – China’s systemic persection of the Uyghurs – with the genocidal actions of the Nazi regime as his being a Nazi? I know when I call Donald Trump a neo-Nazi, that’s my way of expressing that I’m a card-carrying Nazi somehow.
All you’ve shown is that the OHCHR report in one footnote out of hundreds cited Zenz who works for a right-wing think tank.
Removed by mod