I got linked some, it’s always Adrian Zenz

And if you’re in Europe or the US, ask them why they’re so keen on the genocide their government conveniently doesn’t have anything to do with, rather than what Israel is doing.

deleted by creator

GOOD article!!

on the whole I agree with your post but I have to ask you to reconsider the point about genocide requiring deaths due to it being in the name

When Raphael Lemkin first coined the term “genocide,” it was a word for what he was against. But the direct, programmatic, and industrial murder of an ethnic group—as has come to be exemplified by the Holocaust’s trains, gas chambers, and crematoriums—was not the only, or even the primary meaning of the term; it was not the only thing he was against. Today, for better or for worse, most people understand a genocide to be mass killing, organized and state-sponsored, with the Holocaust the original for all the other holocausts which must Never Again. Genocide is mass-killing, full stop. But Lemkin had begun thinking about legal protections for sub-national groups well before the second world war—starting with the Armenian genocide—and the crime to which he would eventually give a name was something more broad and expansive: any systematic and organized destruction of a collectivity’s ability to exist as a collective.

In 1944, for example, he wrote that “genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation”: “It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”

A people’s plurality could be destroyed in many different ways, and Lemkin’s great unfinished work was to be a general history of world genocide, with dozens of different and variant examples. For Lemkin, then, settler colonialism was clearly genocide: his general world history would have included chapters on “the indigenous people of North and South America, the Aboriginal Tasmanians, and the Herero of German Southwest Africa.” Organized mass-killing was only one way to end a people, and far from the only one: individuals could survive a genocide, for example, but if the basis for their collective life had been destroyed, then a genocide had still occurred. When settler colonialism makes it impossible for survivors to live indigenous life-ways—as when the Australian government removed Aboriginal children from their parents, for example, or when US policy towards natives was to “Kill the Indian, save the man”—then assimilation becomes a vector of annihilation. The survival of bloodlines is precisely not the point; with the possibility of living in a native sovereignty destroyed—the impossibility of living the collectivity that had made them as such—genocide was only the word for what had happened.

Settlers always know what they are doing, of course; it was why they worked so hard to slaughter the buffalo: they wanted to kill indigeneity, not just individual indigenous people. A people who marked time and history by the buffalo could not survive in their collectivity without it. And so, as “Plenty Coups” of the Crow nation put it,

“When the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not lift them up again. After this nothing happened.”

His point was that without the buffalo—the object on and through which his people existed and made collective meaning—their history could not continue. Individuals could survive, as he had, but the people had (arguably) come to an end.

from https://thenewinquiry.com/blog/buffalo-skulls/

A Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror

China is not the only country to have faced faced a challenge of this nature. The United States, in the wake of “9/11”, saw the threat of terrorism and violent extremism due to religious fundamentalism as a matter of national security. They invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, with the goal of ousting the Taliban government that was harbouring Al-Qaeda. The US also launched the Iraq War in March 2003, which was justified by the Bush administration as a response to Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. However, these claims turned out to be unfounded.

A former commander of NATO’s forces in Europe, [retired General Wesley] Clark claims he met a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001 who told him the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq first before taking action against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…

Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, “even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever”…

He also condemns George Bush’s notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. “There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,” says Clark…

Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls “the real sources of terrorists – US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia”.

Clark blames Egypt’s “repressive policies”, Pakistan’s “corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia’s “radical ideology and direct funding” for creating a pool of angry young men who became “terrorists”.

US ‘plans to attack seven Muslim states’ | Al Jazeera (2003)

According to a report by Brown University’s Costs of War project, at least 897,000 people, including civilians, militants, and security forces, have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Other estimates place the total number of deaths at over one million. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. The war has also resulted in the displacement of tens of millions of people, with estimates ranging from 37 million to over 59 million.

The War on Terror also popularized such novel concepts as the “Military-Aged Male” which allowed the US military to exclude civilians killed by drone strikes from collateral damage statistics. (See: ‘Military Age Males’ in US Drone Strikes)

In summary:

• The U.S. responded by invading or bombing half a dozen countries regardless of their actual connection to the attackers, directly killing nearly a million and displacing tens of millions from their homes.
• China responded with a program of deradicalization and vocational training.

Which one of those responses sounds genocidal?

Side note: It is practically impossible to actually charge the U.S. with war crimes, because of the Hague Invasion Act.

#Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative?

Let’s review some of the people and organizations involved in strongly promoting this narrative.

One of the main proponents of these narratives is Adrian Zenz, a German far-right fundamentalist Christian and Senior Fellow and Director in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, who believes he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China has driven much of the narrative. His anti-Communist and anti-China stances influence his work and makes him selective in his use of data. He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence. He also ignores the broader historical and political context of the situation in Xinjiang, such as the history of separatist movements and terrorism in the region.

The World Uyghur Congress, headquartered in Germany, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, using funding to support organizations that promote American interests rather than the interests of the local communities they claim to represent.

Radio Free Asia (RFA) is part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism in Asia, one that seeks to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the region. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, RFA is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, one that seeks to shape the narrative in Asia in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies.

The first country to call the treatment of Uyghurs a genocide was the United States of America. In 2021, the Secretary of State declared that China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang constitutes “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” Both the Trump and Biden administrations upheld this line.

Why is this narrative being promoted?

As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. In this case, there is a compelling material reason for the US the promote a narrative of a genocide occurring in Xinjiang.

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. The project has been described as a new Silk Road, connecting China with its neighboring countries and expanding trade and economic ties with the rest of the world.

The BRI includes plans for major infrastructure projects in Xinjiang. These projects aim to improve connectivity and facilitate trade between China and countries in Central Asia and beyond. The Xinjiang region is critical part of the Belt.

For the United States, the BRI is a threat to its economic and political dominance. For one, the BRI could undermine US efforts to promote “free trade” agreements, which have often been used to lock in economic reforms and policies that benefit American corporations. The BRI also threatens to undermine US influence in key regions of the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, by providing countries with an alternative source of financing and investment that is not tied to US-led institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Moreover, the BRI could help to shift the global balance of power away from the United States and towards China. By expanding its economic influence and deepening its ties with other countries, China could emerge as a more formidable competitor to the United States in the global arena.

Promoting the Uyghur genocide narrative harms China and benefits the US in several ways. It portrays China as a human rights violator which could damage China’s reputation in the international community and which could lead to economic sanctions against China; this would harm China’s economy and give American an economic advantage in competing with China. It could also lead to more protests and violence in Xinjiang, which could further destabilize the region and threaten the longterm success of the BRI.

Additional Resources

Video Essays:

• What’s daily life like for Uyghurs? A talk with Uyghur influencer Sabira Samat and Daniel Dumbrill. | Li Jingjing (2021)
• Cutting Through the BS on Xinjiang: Uyghur Genocide or Vocational Training? | BadEmpanada (2021)
• Discussing The Xinjiang/Uyghur “Genocide” With Bay Area 415 | Daniel Dumbrill (2020)

Books, Articles, or Essays:

• Egyptian media delegates provide a detailed insight of the situation in Xinjiang | (2019)
• The Xinjiang Atrocity Propaganda Blitz | Nia Frome (2021)
• Xinjiang: A Report and Resource Compilation | Qiao Collective (2021)
• Xinjiang: Understanding Complexity, Building Peace | International Diplomatic Institute (2021)
• Fight against Terrorism and Extremism in Xinjiang: Truth and Facts | Information Office of the People’s Government of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (2022)

Social Media Resources, Threads, and Masterposts:

• Twitter thread about the WUC | shaedon sharpe’s rifles via Twitter (2021) [Archive]
• List of fact checks | 8Bitsblu via r/communism (2020) [Archive]
• r/Sino wiki entry | FeatsOverComments via r/sino (2020)

my opinion interacting with libs: if someone is saying some bs about the supposed genocide in china and OP just says “what about gaza?” then it will just give libs a chance to use their favorite DEBOOOONK of the last few years- “whataboutism”.

many of them would also just straight up deny it (not seeing the irony since the inhabit a manufactured reality where that irony doesnt exist) or say israel has a right to defend themselves “bc kkkkkhhhhamas”

Yeah unless there’s some indication that they’re interested in having a productive conversation I’ll only go as far as stating what I understand about the situation and not bother with citations.

My usual sources are the UN report and that other international Muslim org statement. I’d be down to learn more about the history of the region though.

Online friends who still think of China as bad and are European