Seems like something between B-D. Some people leave, some people don't, some people are murdered.

I'd think a mix of A and C (massive amounts of both good and ill intent/practices, largely a question of who runs the particular camp). This is based on both living in China in 2009 and seeing the nature of the state apparatus at the time, and having a Uighur roommate in 2012 who spoke a bit about the political situation at that time.

Does anyone know why the above post gets downvoted, even though it's only inquiring people for opinions, and not even presenting its own opinion?

What have I done wrong, and what should I have done differently?

Because it's presenting a very blatant false dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

It could have not been on purpose, but it doesn't come off as a good faith desire to find out what people believe. I'm not sure how you can really, effectively figure out what specifically people think on this forum, especially because it very well could be the case that most people reading and commenting on this article haven't been following the situation incredibly carefully beyond just having a sense that something really bad is happening in China concerning persecution of an ethnic and religious minority and the occasional headline with a few more specifics.

Re false dilemma: You mean I got downvoted for not providing an option "E: other, please describe"? And just by lacking such an option, it comes over as bad faith?

That seems rather excessive and cynical. Why is it so hard for people to just post a comment describing their opinion, rather than hitting downvote?

Obviously there are at least as many reasons to downvote you as the number of downvotes you got, but I don't think adding E would've saved you from any of them, since you'd still be the one preselecting A-D.

Maybe you thought it would be as simple as people replying "B" or "C", but nobody just picked one of the answers and you got a super long reply that must have taken a long time to type out. The effort for a quick vote vs. writing a comment is heavily skewed towards voting.

You got some high-effort replies to your question anyway, so maybe just ignore the low-effort votes.

That's my guess. Also, I think there are some jumps in the severity of things in your examples that probably come off as bad faith.

Your list is not quite as bad as

A. Just helping the Uighurs, but maybe not in the best way.

B. Just killing all the Uighurs.

But I think a lot of people have issue with your list not considering the fact that there may be something between full killing/genocide and only some of them being killed (perhaps the more religious? the imams? those whose blood tests show they'll make a good organ donor?) and the idea of "demographic genocide"; or with your list not mentioning the fact that the brutality may not be policy but that it may be tacitly condoned; or your list not mentioning that it doesn't take obvious destruction of artefacts, buildings, or killing of imams to erase a religion or tradition and that it can happen in more subtle ways.

Many westerners grow up learning about the potential horrors of western imperialism and colonialism, and they are worried about the sinicization of Islam (and everything else).

I realize this comment may come off as rude, but I think that it is a real explanation of the downvotes. It's also important to realize that it's a lot easier for people to vote than to converse, especially when most people know about issues like this from headlines, skimming articles, etc.

I don’t think your comment is rude. It makes sense, even if I don’t agree with people who think the way you describe it. I made a best effort to describe the various possibilities that I think exist.

I just think that it’s silly when so many people condemn China for being unfree, yet at the same time throw away their free society values of encouraging discussions and respecting each others’ opinions, when it comes to discussing China topics.

I'd like to ask, do you pretty much believe your option A? If so, what do you think of the Buzzfeed News investigation and reporting? Also, do you thing the re-education of Uighurs and others is the right thing for the Communist Party to be doing?

I understand you may not want to comment publicly here, so if you want, feel free to email me (my profile has my email).

All of the reporting just indicates buildings exist. I'm not sure what to believe, lots of things are in range given the evidence, but I don't take "look, a building" to mean much of anything.

Some of the buildings are very clearly used as detention centers. They've been confirmed by journalists, for instance. Not all are proven to be camps and just look like they could be. (I don't know why China would need so many guarded prison looking areas with thick concrete walls, but I'm sure someone could come up with a reason.)

I was talking about the other two articles by Buzzfeed. They interviewed quite a few people who were arrested and then released from these centers.

Also, there is no question (meaning China has admitted it) that China has a re-education and de-radicalization program for which they are detaining Uighurs (and others) against their will. It is part of their larger plans to sinicize Islam from what I understand. What are your thoughts on this?

I agree with your facts there, although "sinicize Islam" sounds awfully grand?

In context with Western countries' reactions to militant islam, it's very different, different cultural norms, but it's hard to call it comparatively monstrous.

What if it works? What we're doing in afghanistan clearly isn't working, despite the humanitarian cost..

The phrase Sinicization of Islam is Xi Jinping's, or at least the CCP's. It does sound grand and oppressive, especially when you consider that it is about more than just a considerate plan to minimize the threat of violent sects of Islam and includes stopping Islamic finance, mosque-run schools, religious Arabic-language schools, and more much worse as we've heard reports of (bits of which are reported in the articles). Sure, these traditions may be vectors for some particular type of violent Islamic ideas to spread, but they are also important parts of many's peaceful faith.

Of course, the CCP has never really tried that hard to pretend they don't see religion as a threat. I mean, it really is a threat to the CCP's ultimate power. And if one doesn't have cultural norms respecting a person's right to peacefully practice religion and traditions, then I guess one wouldn't consider forced re-education camps monstrous. But if one did, then I don't think it would matter if it "works". I won't try and justify American wars or reason about their effectiveness in preventing violence.

Religion is a part of daily life for many, many Chinese. It's different, not Abrahamic, more of a syncretic blend of taoist, buddhist and localized icons. Monks and nuns take their roles seriously. Xi's government, in contrast to the communist governments 60 years ago, leverages it in a standard social conservative way rather than being against it on communist grounds. It's all over their propaganda.

Anti-communist talking points from the 1980s never accurately described China, and certainly not in 2020.

Here's my question: you clearly know very little about the place, yet are super invested in it. How do you square that? Why not either spend time learning about this place, or stop caring?

I understand that religion is a part of daily life for many, many Chinese. I do admit that I don't know that much about China except the little I have learned from reading and talking with people. I've been mostly asking about the things that these Buzzfeed articles articulate. I'd like to know more, hence my questions, reading about it, etc. I'm not that much more invested than the average interested person, and I've been somewhat interested in China for quite some time, but haven't had (or made, really) the opportunity to visit.

I have a Christian Chinese friend with whom I've talked about the role of the Chinese government in curtailing the free-expression and practice of religion. The 80's are certainly not the 2020's, but as is obvious to even someone who "clearly knows very little about the place" the CCP still works against religions that it sees as threats to their power. I get that this can be framed as a difference in "cultural norms" and this is something that I'd like to understand more fully.

Short of living in China, do you have any good advice, books or whatnot to read, or whatever that would be good to do/read in order to learn more?

RE: religion, the impression I've gotten is that it's specifically organization that the government sees as a threat. So, without the context of Urumqi riots or bombings, they'd probably default to seeing catholics or certainly falun gong as a bigger threat than disorganized Uyghur muslims. Protestant christians less so, if they knew enough to discriminate.

I don't have any great reading materials for 2020 daily life, there's laowhy86 and serpentza on youtube who I haven't watched much but they've been recommended.

Books: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MHHREI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

Mao, the unknown story, fantastic original research but you've gotta discount for a LOT of bias as the author is clearly still butthurt over the civil war. Not to say that Mao was a nice guy, but if you're refusing to use pinyin in the 21st century, calling Beijing 'Peking', you've got some baggage.

https://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-China-J-Roberts/dp/06...

Longer run of history, makes you realize all of the cultural context that they have which differs from ours and makes conversation impossible at times.

Thanks!

Thank you!

Oh they ironi..

> Xi's government, in contrast to the communist governments 60 years ago, leverages it in a standard social conservative way rather than being against it on communist grounds

This is literally written on a thread about people jailed and tortured because of their religion.

> Why not either spend time learning about this place, or stop caring?

The Chinese government has made it impossible to communicate with the people in that region. How about they let reporters move freely and interview people?

Also, "stop caring*?

It's not ironic, it's standard. Cultural conservatives in the US also dump on islam.

A lot of very emotional people scan these threads, try to quickly put people on a 'side', and downvote accordingly.

Great post, don't sweat it.

Too simplistic. Based on the generally available reports, and based on prior probabilities given the way this stuff has tended to work all over the world, I tentatively believe something close to this:

There is forced re-education, forced de-radicalization, and forced political (and cultural) assimilation. One major motivation is probably to fight a (largely illusory) danger of widespread separatist violence. In fact, the policy will probably eventually provoke or exacerbate such violence from at least a significant minority. That in turn will confirm in the leader's minds that the entire populace is dangerous, leading to a heavier crackdown. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Some voluntary vocational education is available, not necessarily in "camps", but probably in somewhat less restricted residential settings as well as on an "outpatient" basis. This "education" has a significant political component, which is largely unnoticed by the people who create the curriculum. Failure to absorb the political component is failure to absorb the lessons, and is treated as such.

Some unknown, but probably not very large, number of people accept this on a truly voluntary basis. Another unknown, but probably larger, number accept it "voluntarily", because they expect full-on involuntary internment if they do not. Both of these "voluntary" groups probably do get privileges like the possibility to occasionally get a pass to leave the camp (or other facility). Neither group is probably as large as the outright involuntary group, but it's hard to tell.

Unless you can put on a good show of actually qualifying to "graduate", guitting the "voluntary" group probably has a better than even chance of getting you put into the "involuntary" group. On the other hand, if you're genuinely an enthusiastic member of the "voluntary" group, and you manage to prove it, that's a great thing and you'll get all kinds of rewards.

No genocide is intended; assimilation is intended. The goal is not so much to erase any existing cultural identity as to make it subordinate to "Chinese" identity. That includes accepting a healthy helping of Han, but the people defining the goals don't see that, and think of it as accepting "universal values and pro-social habits". The intended assimilation would have the long-term effect of erasure and might meet the UN definition of "genocide"... but that's not really the purpose.

There is no intentional genocide in the sense of planned mass extermination. Nobody is killed outright unless they resist with violence. They are, of course provoked to so resist, but that's not really intentional. Of course anything that looks like participation in or aid to rebellion counts as violent resistance.

If things escalate enough there may be more dehumanization, and a perceived need for a "final solution", but that's not what the bosses want to do, and they are probably not thinking in those terms at this point.

The intent with regard to religion is to tame it, and those in charge feel they're enlightened and lenient for not outright suppressing it. The "taming" includes bringing the practice under state supervision and control, and removing any doctrinal elements that the regime finds threatening or that might in any way tend to undermine the regime's own doctrines. Some of the altered elements are probably important to the religion as it exists and as it is presently seen by its practitioners. It's very hard to create a recognizable "socialist Islam".

The re-educators, for their part, cannot understand why anybody would be unwilling to accept the "obviously reasonable" changes they're asking for, and see any resistance as vicious intransigence.

The brutality, in or out of the camps, is neither policy nor incidental. It's just what happens when you round people up and tell your troops that they're recalcitrant and anti-social and need to be "re-educated". But Those In Charge are predisposed not to see the brutality as what it is. It's simply tough love for the recalcitrant, with the occasional rare aberration. If a guard manages to make the bosses see something as brutal, that guard is probably punished with extreme severity.

Artefacts, buildings or whatever aren't an issue unless they become rallying points or are seen as likely to be rallying points. However, "not an issue" also includes "not very important to preserve". Which may make them into rallying points.

The goal is to have everybody in the camps re-educated (or brainwashed, as we crazy outsiders would have it), and released. It's a regrettable reality that certain elements resist this reasonable re-education, and therefore must be detained for very long periods, maybe even for life. It wouldn't be appropriate to release anybody who hadn't actually been reformed. After all, it's for their own good, and don't doubt that the people at the top of this believe that it's for their own good. Of course, if somebody resists "criminally" and becomes an enemy of the state, they may be imprisoned, or, justifiably, executed judicially, or killed as imminent threats to the safety of the state, the state's agents, or the social order.

How many people they actually manage to release is hard to tell. Exactly how hard they try, or what they accept as adequate evidence of having been re-educated, is also hard to tell. It probably varies.

It's also a regrettable reality that there are many unregenerate elements in the populace. Whether it gets to a million, I don't know.

So sort of C with elements of A, but it's more complicated than that.

You would think they'd have learned about some of this from the Cultural Revolution, but apparently not.

Thank you, this sort of thoughtful opinion is what I’m looking for.

> This "education" has a significant political component, which is largely unnoticed by the people who create the curriculum.

I am certain the people creating the curriculum are aware of the political nature. Even "normal" educational institutions in China have an internal Party committee which will review material for ideological "correctness."

For projects like this the Party cadres are surely involved.

(This is a minor correction of an otherwise excellent post.)

> No genocide is intended; assimilation is intended. The goal is not so much to erase any existing cultural identity as to make it subordinate to "Chinese" identity. That includes accepting a healthy helping of Han, but the people defining the goals don't see that, and think of it as accepting "universal values and pro-social habits". The intended assimilation would have the long-term effect of erasure and might meet the UN definition of "genocide"... but that's not really the purpose.

This makes me think of the Native American boarding schools in the US and Canada. They were fairly awful from a human rights perspective and did play a role in genocide, but like what you describe the idea was forced assimilation rather than explicit genocide.

This is the best post on this topic that has ever been written on Hacker News.

Only nitpick (after a bunch of brilliant conjecture that basically 'scans' as far as human behavior, chinese society, and Xi's inclinations): The cultural revolution was completely out of control once unleashed -- this seems much more 'regular' as far as how it's being administered.

There was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Seventh_Cadre_School during the Cultural Revolution.

Yes, and you've stripped all of the ideology and mania out of it by referencing it in this context. OP who wrote that excellent post would have known better.

Are Uyghurs being sent out into the farmlands to toil on stupid projects as part of a hyper-idealistic, "we're all workers" message? No, none of that, in any way. They're indoors, and the message has nothing to do with hammers or sickles.

I am saying that the current generation of leaders may not find the idea of camps abhorrent. Xi was himself a sent-down youth. He probably did not like it at the time but he hasn't displayed any strong resentment of it either.

National leaders, everywhere, find very little abhorrent. They're in the business of abhorrence in the name of maintaining national power.