Turkish ?

[Siege]

Are we still talking about the Uyghars?

[Josquius]

  Look again.  I used (and cited!) a web page prepared by Dr Stuart Stein of the University of the West of England.  If you click on the underlined and bolded bit of text, it takes you to the web page being cited.  This is called a "hyperlink" and using them can help you avoid confusing "the Internet" and "Wikipedia."

Check the wikipedia genocide article yourself. They provide the same original source (though admittedly in another location).

What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?

Nothing. But then neither does that there are more of them today.

What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?

Wiping out a people is pretty much the core definition of genocide.

You have done it in this very thread:

Technically what's going on in China is genocide.

Your evidence for this seems to be that Uighurs are not "just as Uighur as their grandparents were." That is trivializing the issue of genocide.  My sibs and I are not as Scottish as our grandparents were.  Does this make us victims of a genocide?

Except I'm not (as unfortunate as it is) the writer of the big book of international law. Its not me doing the trivialization here, I'm just going by what it says.
The Scots are just as Scottish as they've ever been for a good century or something. More so in fact perhaps, since the 40s (or was it 30s?) Scottish nationalism has really arose and Scottish identity became much stronger with this.
If you go back to the Highland Clearances and all that though then you may well have a case for genocide providing you're using the broad definition that encompasses anything remotely to do with ethnic cleansing.

I know you've noted the word technically. Don't start ignoring it now.
I don't actually believe what's going on in China is genocide and have never said that.

You certainly have more experience creating stawmen than I, so I will defer to your expertise.  However, you cannot weasel out of this by crying "strawman" when I am, in fact, quoting you!

Oh please, all you're doing is making strawmen.

[Monoriu]

Take the Manchu for instance. They're one of the biggest groups in China. Any idea of a independent Manchuria though these days is just silly. They've been totally integrated and spread out amongst the Han for ages (a century? two?)

The Qing dynastry, which ruled China for more than two hundred years, was Manchurian.  The Qing emperors, princes, and nobles were Manchurian. 

But guess what, that's when Hansification of the Manchurians took place.  The Manchurian language almost disappeared long before the communists took over. 

In other words, the Manchus did it to themselves.  Voluntarily.

[Josquius]

The Qing dynastry, which ruled China for more than two hundred years, was Manchurian.  The Qing emperors, princes, and nobles were Manchurian. 

But guess what, that's when Hansification of the Manchurians took place.  The Manchurian language almost disappeared long before the communists took over. 

In other words, the Manchus did it to themselves.  Voluntarily.

Oh yeah, of course (largely- I doubt many of them had much choice. Its all long in the past now though).
Not really my point though. To point to their high numbers and how well minorities are doing as lots of mainland Chinese are fond of doing is a bit of a iffy prospect.

To go a bit off topic: I wonder Mono since I figure you know more on this sort of thing; since the Manchu are so integrated and minorities get various privileges do many people try to highly the Manchu side of their ancestry (or the same for other integrated minorities) to take advantage of this?
Or is the prestige of being Han better?

[grumbler]

Check the wikipedia genocide article yourself. They provide the same original source (though admittedly in another location).

  Why would I check Wikipedia when I already have the sources some bozo used to construct his Wikipedia article?  Wikipedia is fine as a place to start in one's research.  As i am already knowledgable on the topic, I certainly didn't need to start so far away from the citable sources.

L2R and you will avoid getting yourself redassed over assertions like the one that the University of the West of England is part of "Wikipedia."

Nothing. But then neither does that there are more of them today.

If they were victims of a genocide, wouldn't there be fewer of them, not more?  That is certainly true for all of the acknowledged genocides (see: Armenians in Turkey after 1917, Jews in Germany after 1944, Tutsis in Rwanda after 1994.

Wiping out a people is pretty much the core definition of genocide.

Yes, and we have both agreed that this isn't happening - there are more Uighurs now than ever.

Except I'm not (as unfortunate as it is) the writer of the big book of international law. Its not me doing the trivialization here, I'm just going by what it says.

Actually, no, you are not.  The Genocide Convention states what is "technically" genocide, and what is happening in China does not, even by your own admission, fall into that category. Your use of the term is pure rhetoric and thus trivializing it.

The Scots are just as Scottish as they've ever been for a good century or something. More so in fact perhaps, since the 40s (or was it 30s?) Scottish nationalism has really arose and Scottish identity became much stronger with this.

Stricken as non-responsive.

I know you've noted the word technically. Don't start ignoring it now.

Indeed, and I am holding you to it.  the difference is that I know what it means! 

I don't actually believe what's going on in China is genocide and have never said that.

So you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically?    I would love to hear the explanation of how this is possible!

Oh please, all you're doing is making strawmen.

Uh, no, you don't get to weasel out of this by shrieking "strawman!' all the time.  I am using your very arguments.  You have to respond to my actual arguments in return - something you have pretty much avoided doing:
1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2.  What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3.  How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?

[ulmont]

1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?

Maybe the Chinese aren't very good at it?   

[Josquius]

  Why would I check Wikipedia when I already have the sources some bozo used to construct his Wikipedia article?  Wikipedia is fine as a place to start in one's research.  As i am already knowledgable on the topic, I certainly didn't need to start so far away from the citable sources.

Bloody hell.
Wikipedia is a very good place to find reliable sources, its where I looked to get my reliable source. That is all. Done.

If they were victims of a genocide, wouldn't there be fewer of them, not more?  That is certainly true for all of the acknowledged genocides (see: Armenians in Turkey after 1917, Jews in Germany after 1944, Tutsis in Rwanda after 1994.

Hence the trivialization of genocide.
According to the official definition it doesn't just refer to actively going in and murdering everyone (though I would agree with you that this is more what genocide actually means).
The Chinese are practicing a slow, gradual process of ethnic cleansing. Rather than following the traditional genociders ideas of racial purity and killing off all those who don't conform to this as quickly as possible they're instead gradually diluting the alien populations within their borders into the general Han population.
There are more Uighars now than there were ever before but then most places in the world have more people than they have ever before. What is more important to check is how big a percentage of the population in their lands are they today?
Even this though doesn't tell the whole story of what is happening in China. The very core of Uigharness is being slowly eaten away by the central government. This is a very hard thing to measure, modernisation helps to camouflage it a lot and its something that in most aspects can only ever be observed as opposed to measured. Nonetheless the Chinese government has over the past 60 years undoubtedly been attacking the cultures of various people under their rule; big examples of this have arisen rather often.

Yes, and we have both agreed that this isn't happening - there are more Uighurs now than ever.

There are more ways to wipe out a people than to line them up and shoot them.

Actually, no, you are not.  The Genocide Convention states what is "technically" genocide, and what is happening in China does not, even by your own admission, fall into that category. Your use of the term is pure rhetoric and thus trivializing it.

No, not at all.
I don't believe according to how I regard the word that it is genocide.
According to the UN definitions however a case could really be built up for genocide.

Stricken as non-responsive.

Pardon?

Indeed, and I am holding you to it.  the difference is that I know what it means! 

Google is your friend.

according to the exact meaning; according to the facts; "technically, a bank's reserves belong to the stockholders"; "technically, the term is no longer used by experts"

Check other more proper dictionaries if you want, they say the same thing. In this usage technically means a somewhat similar thing to theoretically.
Technically != in practice.
Technically the Queen rules the UK. She doesn't though.

So you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically?    I would love to hear the explanation of how this is possible!

You have.

Uh, no, you don't get to weasel out of this by shrieking "strawman!' all the time.  I am using your very arguments.  You have to respond to my actual arguments in return - something you have pretty much avoided doing

Because what you are saying is not addressing the point. You're just looking for a argument and are trying to turn this into one about whether what is going on in China is a genocide or not. We both seem to be agreed that it is not.
The questions are already covered in the rest of my reply.


<p.s: checking up myself to delve deeper I find Webster. Apparently the main American dictionary? Its definition for this context of technically:

based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation

>

[grumbler]

Bloody hell.
Wikipedia is a very good place to find reliable sources, its where I looked to get my reliable source. That is all. Done.

Bloody hell.
Why on earth are you so hung up on this Wikipedia thing and the and and ?  You used Wikipedia, I didn't.

Hence the trivialization of genocide.
According to the official definition it doesn't just refer to actively going in and murdering everyone (though I would agree with you that this is more what genocide actually means).
The Chinese are practicing a slow, gradual process of ethnic cleansing. Rather than following the traditional genociders ideas of racial purity and killing off all those who don't conform to this as quickly as possible they're instead gradually diluting the alien populations within their borders into the general Han population.

But this isn't "technically" genocide, this is called "assimilation."  To confuse the two is to trivialize the term genocide.

There are more Uighars now than there were ever before but then most places in the world have more people than they have ever before. What is more important to check is how big a percentage of the population in their lands are they today?

What does this have to do with genocide?

Even this though doesn't tell the whole story of what is happening in China. The very core of Uigharness is being slowly eaten away by the central government. This is a very hard thing to measure, modernisation helps to camouflage it a lot and its something that in most aspects can only ever be observed as opposed to measured. Nonetheless the Chinese government has over the past 60 years undoubtedly been attacking the cultures of various people under their rule; big examples of this have arisen rather often.

Thus is not "technically genocide."  Read the definition of genocide again.

There are more ways to wipe out a people than to line them up and shoot them.

There are five ways to do it and be "technically" committing genocide.  This isn't one of them.  Besides, the issue of motive also must be demonstrated and you haven't even begun to do that.

No, not at all.
I don't believe according to how I regard the word that it is genocide.
According to the UN definitions however a case could really be built up for genocide.

You keep saying that a case could be built, but you have yet to build one.

Pardon?

A non-responsive reply is one that purports to aswer an argument (even quotes it) but in fact ignores it.
Are my sibs and I victims of genocide because we are not as "Scottish" as our grandparents?  It is a yes or no question.

Google is your friend.

according to the exact meaning; according to the facts; "technically, a bank's reserves belong to the stockholders"; "technically, the term is no longer used by experts"

Check other more proper dictionaries if you want, they say the same thing. In this usage technically means a somewhat similar thing to theoretically.
Technically != in practice.
Technically the Queen rules the UK. She doesn't though.

Google is not your friend, though, because it makes my argument clearly:  If China is not committing genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention (which is the "exact meaning" according to international law), then she is not "technically" engaged in "genocide."

So you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically?    I would love to hear the explanation of how this is possible!

You have.

No, you don't get to weasel out of this one so easily!  You have made no argument whatever that supports the fact that China is "technically" committing genocide, nor how they could be doing it "technically" without actually doing it in practice.

Because what you are saying is not addressing the point. You're just looking for a argument and are trying to turn this into one about whether what is going on in China is a genocide or not. We both seem to be agreed that it is not.

We agree that it is not.  You are asserting that is "technically" is, though, and so far the sole evidence that you have presented is that you don't think Uighurs are as "Uighar" as their grandparents.  That's not an argument for "technical genocide."

The questions are already covered ignored in the rest of my reply.

Fixed that for you.  This is a first-class weasel.  You have not addressed any of my questions.  Here they are, again:
1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2.  What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3.  How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?

<p.s: checking up myself to delve deeper I find Webster. Apparently the main American dictionary? Its definition for this context of technically:

based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation

>

Again, precisely as I have argued, and you have ignored.  The UN Convention is the law, and you have not demonstrated a "technical" violation of the law.

[grumbler]

1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?

Maybe the Chinese aren't very good at it?   

That, I'd accept with some supporting evidence! 

[Josquius]

Bloody hell.
Why on earth are you so hung up on this Wikipedia thing and the and and ?  You used Wikipedia, I didn't.

I'm not hung up at all on wikipedia. I mentioned it in passing as it helped me out in finding the right UN site for reading up on the exact wording of all this stuff before I'd even replied here.
You however in a typical politician style seem to see the mention of the word wikipedia as evidence of bad research and are attacking it.

But this isn't "technically" genocide, this is called "assimilation."  To confuse the two is to trivialize the term genocide.

Now we're getting somewhere
Assimilation is indeed what in large part is happening and what the Chinese objective is. Assimilation however is not mutually exclusive with genocide.
Assimilation can happen completely innocently and naturally or it can happen in far more sinister manners.
In the case of China it is an active government policy to change the population of an area over time. i.e. 'genocide'.

What does this have to do with genocide?

A lot.

Thus is not "technically genocide."  Read the definition of genocide again.

Yes it is. Read the definition yourself.
I don't really know what else to say as I can't understand what on earth you're thinking to possibly give this answer.

There are five ways to do it and be "technically" committing genocide.  This isn't one of them.  Besides, the issue of motive also must be demonstrated and you haven't even begun to do that.

I guess you're referring to the five points from the UN genocide convention?
Of course lining people up and shooting them is one of them, it lines squarely under A. Its pretty much the commonly accepted view of what genocide involves.
What is actually underway- well as said B,C and D are known to have been met at various times.

Motive- well how about the Chinese heavy encouragement of mass immigration to the occupied areas? Sure, economic development is a part here, its the nice face they put on it, but you can hardly expect the Chinese to be cackling away like comic book villains about fully assimilating the western regions can you? Even the Nazis were more subtle than that.
How does one 'prove' motive?

You keep saying that a case could be built, but you have yet to build one.

To do so would win me the nobel prize. Teams of people devote their lives to it.
All that I need to do here is point out that some of what the Chinese are up to could be classed as genocide.

A non-responsive reply is one that purports to aswer an argument (even quotes it) but in fact ignores it.
Are my sibs and I victims of genocide because we are not as "Scottish" as our grandparents?  It is a yes or no question.

In that case as you know its a obvious no but its an irrelevant strawman.

Google is not your friend, though, because it makes my argument clearly:  If China is not committing genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention (which is the "exact meaning" according to international law), then she is not "technically" engaged in "genocide."

err what? No, that definition proves MY point.
China is not actually commiting genocide according to how most of the world would interprate that word or what the UN would actually care to do much about however according to the written letter of UN law it is "technically" breaching it.

No, you don't get to weasel out of this one so easily!  You have made no argument whatever that supports the fact that China is "technically" committing genocide, nor how they could be doing it "technically" without actually doing it in practice.

What's your obsession with weasels?
I'm a scientist, not a politician, I deal in the truth, not bending selective facts to suit my point.
I've repeatedly shown that China is technically commiting genocide.

We agree that it is not.  You are asserting that is "technically" is, though, and so far the sole evidence that you have presented is that you don't think Uighurs are as "Uighar" as their grandparents.  That's not an argument for "technical genocide."

Why are you obsessed with that one bit I wonder?
No, that's not an argument for technical genocide on its own. Many in Europe are a lot more American than their grandparents but we aren't going to start accusing the US of genociding the Europeans.
The situation vis-a-vis China and Xinjiang/Tibet is quite different to that between the US and Europe though.

Fixed that for you.  This is a first-class weasel.  You have not addressed any of my questions.  Here they are, again:
1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2.  What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3.  How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?

I'm not at all weaseling. Not even in the third class. I'm addressing the topic straight forward.
Are you just trying to be dense to piss me off here?
To repeat myself yet again;
1: The population of most people around the world has rose.
2: There's reams of the stuff. Exact first hand evidence is not exactly something I can come by (what with not knowing Chinese, not having access to public records, etc...) but some articles and whatnot on the stuff:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/29426.html  (trying to find more on this Spanish case. You should look up what evidence they've got if you're interested)
http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/  (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)
http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)
http://www.pop.org/20030417558/new-evidence-unfpa-support-of-forced-abortion-genocide (read like typical moany rubbish to me at first but investigating more its mentioned elsewhere too).
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/03/the-uyghurs-persecuted-muslim-minority-in-northwest-china/

3: Because the definition of genocide according to international law is ridiculously broad and goes far beyond what most people would actually class as genocide.
What the Chinese are doing does technically tick off as genocide according to the rules. Its not actually genocide though.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM explains the point of technically committing genocide quite well. The legal, technical definition is so strict that even many things that obviously aren't genocide can be classed as such there

Again, precisely as I have argued, and you have ignored.  The UN Convention is the law, and you have not demonstrated a "technical" violation of the law.

No. It is what I have argued that you are ignoring.
We both have access to the UN definitions of genocide. We should both be laughing at them but instead you're insisting they say something completely different? You got your version from another site to me, try mine, it proves what I'm saying;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

[Siege]

Grumbler and Tyr should marry.

Yo Tyr, what was your name before?

Captain Carrot?

[grumbler]

I'm not hung up at all on wikipedia. I mentioned it in passing as it helped me out in finding the right UN site for reading up on the exact wording of all this stuff before I'd even replied here.

And I noted that Wikipedia is not reliable for technical information, which you seemed to find offensive.  Since you now concede that you are using the source I provided, I don't know why you keep coming back to this.

You however in a typical politician style seem to see the mention of the word wikipedia as evidence of bad research and are attacking it.

An ad hominim attached to s strawman! 
See, now the bolded bit is a strawman.  It directly contradicts my own stated position.  The "in typical politician fashion" is, of course, an ad hominim.

Now we're getting somewhere
Assimilation is indeed what in large part is happening and what the Chinese objective is. Assimilation however is not mutually exclusive with genocide.

Assimilation is mutually exclusive with "technical genocide" (per the UN Convention).
   

Assimilation can happen completely innocently and naturally or it can happen in far more sinister manners.
In the case of China it is an active government policy to change the population of an area over time. i.e. 'genocide'.

Perhaps 'genocide' but not "technical genocide" (ie you can believe that it is genocide - even though in your last post you stated that it wasn't genocide - I suspect that you need to think this through and decide whether you believe that China is committing 'genocide' or not).

A lot.

Stricken as non-responsive

Yes it is. Read the definition yourself.

Merely repeating "yes it is, yes it is!" isn't an argument.  there are two elements to the proof of guilt in the convention, and you have met neither.

I don't really know what else to say as I can't understand what on earth you're thinking to possibly give this answer.

You might refer to the two elements (motive and actions) and give any examples at all that provides evidence of them both.

I guess you're referring to the five points from the UN genocide convention?

Ah, yes.  "Technical genocide."  Don't try to get away from your wording now!

Of course lining people up and shooting them is one of them, it lines squarely under A. Its pretty much the commonly accepted view of what genocide involves.

Genocide can involve many things.  People can be shot in non-genocide situations as well.  In fact, the majority of people shot are probably NOT shot as part of a genocide!

What is actually underway- well as said B,C and D are known to have been met at various times.

Bullshit.  Mere assertion is not an argument.

Motive- well how about the Chinese heavy encouragement of mass immigration to the occupied areas? Sure, economic development is a part here, its the nice face they put on it, but you can hardly expect the Chinese to be cackling away like comic book villains about fully assimilating the western regions can you? Even the Nazis were more subtle than that.
How does one 'prove' motive?

One proves motive by providing evidence that the perp is acting according to a specific motivation.  Obviously, explicit statements are best, but one can provide specific exmples of acts which would not be undertaken unless the motive was "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

To do so would win me the nobel prize. Teams of people devote their lives to it.
All that I need to do here is point out that some of what the Chinese are up to could be classed as genocide.

No, you need to show that the actions of the Chinese meet the technical definition of genocide.  That is, after all, your point.  You argue (in some posts) that this isn;t a genocide (of course, you directly contradict yourself elsewhere).  If you want to argue that it isn't technically genocide, but is in your opinion genocide nonetheless, that is a different matter entirely.  Had you made that argument, I wouldn't have objected to it.

In that case as you know its a obvious no but its an irrelevant strawman.

Whining about strawmen that use your exact arguments again? 

No, it isn't a strawman, it is an asschapping.

err what? No, that definition proves MY point.
China is not actually commiting genocide according to how most of the world would interprate that word or what the UN would actually care to do much about however according to the written letter of UN law it is "technically" breaching it.

Precisey the opposite.  In order for China to ge "technically" committing genocide, as you allege, they would have to be committing one of the five acts 9or an equivelent) and be motivated by the "desire to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."  This is the legal standard.  Had it been doing so, the world would think it committing genocide.  The popular conception of genocide is much less stringent than the technical one, which is why the UNGC can call Israel's actions in the West Bank "genocide."

What's your obsession with weasels?

I call a weael a weasel.  It's a good word, and describes your arguments precisely.

I'm a scientist, not a politician, I deal in the truth, not bending selective facts to suit my point.
I've repeatedly shown that China is technically commiting genocide.

I, too, an a scientist who deals in truth.  And, as I scientist, I know that stating something is a far cry from showing it.  You have used not a single specific fact or example to back up your repeated unsupported assertions.  In fact, when specific facts are brought in (like the increase in the Uighur population) you very unscientifically dismiss those actual facts as irrelevant in the face of your unsupported assertions! 

Scientist my ass!

Why are you obsessed with that one bit I wonder?
No, that's not an argument for technical genocide on its own.

I am not "obsessed" with anything.  I keep repeating your unsupported assertions because they are all I have to quote.

Many in Europe are a lot more American than their grandparents but we aren't going to start accusing the US of genociding the Europeans.

But are you going to argue that they are "technically" committing genocide?

The situation vis-a-vis China and Xinjiang/Tibet is quite different to that between the US and Europe though.

True but irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether the Chinese are acting in such a way and for such a motive as to violate the UN Convention on Genocide.  You have offered not a scrap of evidence that this is true.

I'm not at all weaseling. Not even in the third class. I'm addressing the topic straight forward.
Are you just trying to be dense to piss me off here?

I don't think it is my denseness that is pissing you off.

To repeat myself yet again;

1: The population of most people around the world has rose.

Not responsive to the question.  The question is
1.  How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?

3.  How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?

2: There's reams of the stuff. Exact first hand evidence is not exactly something I can come by (what with not knowing Chinese, not having access to public records, etc...) but some articles and whatnot on the stuff:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/29426.html  (trying to find more on this Spanish case. You should look up what evidence they've got if you're interested)

This is about one guy claiming that, when he was four years old, the Chinese were rounding up pregnant Tibetan women and working them to death.  It seems strange that only one man has asserted this.  However, if you can show that Han Chinese women were not worked to death in camps, I will accept this as some provisional evidence.  If Han women were, though, then this would seem like the typical assholishness that totalitarian regimes engage in, and not genocide at all.

http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/  (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)

Actually, this one directly supports my position and opposed yours:

First, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide.  Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Thanks for walking onto that land mine.

http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)

Uh, this is from 1960. We are talking about now.  In any case, this one concluded that:

The COMMITTEE did not find that there was sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law.

So, this group found that there was 'genocide' but not "technical genocide."  That's another one for me.

http://www.pop.org/20030417558/new-evidence-unfpa-support-of-forced-abortion-genocide (read like typical moany rubbish to me at first but investigating more its mentioned elsewhere too).

The only yhing I can find in this that mentions genocide is the lead-in paragraph, and this writer clearly doesn't understand what his organization's report is saying.  The report is talking about what is happening in the urban areas of Xinjiang Province, which is where the Han live.  His organization's report notes that "peasants" (those are the Uighars) are allowed three children.  The Han are allowed one.  That sounds pretty far from genocide to me.

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/03/the-uyghurs-persecuted-muslim-minority-in-northwest-china/

This uses the phrase "cultural genocide" (which is not "technical genocide" exactly once, referring to an allegation.  This is no proof of technical genocide at all.

So, the bottom line is that even quotemining you found only two sources that backed me and refuted you, one generalized bleat about "genocide" without a scrap of evidence to support it, one case of a clear allegation by a single person, and one document that isn't even about technical genocide.

3: Because the definition of genocide according to international law is ridiculously broad and goes far beyond what most people would actually class as genocide.

Quite the opposite.  Most people would call many acts that are not covered by the law genocide. I think no reasonable person would look at acts that clearly violated the international standard (ie were "technical genocide") and conclude that they were not genocide.

What the Chinese are doing does technically tick off as genocide according to the rules. Its not actually genocide though.

Nope, it does not technically qualify as genocide because it meets neither of the standards of the law. 

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM explains the point of technically committing genocide quite well. The legal, technical definition is so strict that even many things that obviously aren't genocide can be classed as such there

The fact that you have found one person on the web who agrees with you does not make your point any more convincing.  I find the assertion (by you and by R.J. Rummel) that acts of government cannot be genocide unless the government is committing murder, and that most people would agree with this, to be wholly unpersuasive.  If a government were to herd all the members of an ethnic group into an area, remove all their children for fostering in government creches, and simply let the older ones live on until the group died out of old age, I think most people would recognize that this was genocide. 

What types of acts committed in violation of the law would you consider NOT to be genocide?

No. It is what I have argued that you are ignoring.

What is this supposed to mean?

We both have access to the UN definitions of genocide. We should both be laughing at them but instead you're insisting they say something completely different? You got your version from another site to me, try mine, it proves what I'm saying;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

I have no idea why you would be laughing at the legal definition of genocide, nor why you would expect me to.  As far as me " insisting they say something completely different?" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Your source is identical to mine, with the exception that Arabic numerals have been substituted for the original roman numerals.

[grumbler]

Grumbler and Tyr should marry.

No, you and Neil will have to go to the alter alone. Sorry.

[Monoriu]

To go a bit off topic: I wonder Mono since I figure you know more on this sort of thing; since the Manchu are so integrated and minorities get various privileges do many people try to highly the Manchu side of their ancestry (or the same for other integrated minorities) to take advantage of this?
Or is the prestige of being Han better?

My understanding is that playing the race card won't get you very far.  It is true that there is some affirmative action in place.  For example, for a supposed target of genocide, the Uyghurs actually enjoy privileged access to universities.  University admission in China is determined by a single test score.  But Uyghurs get a few extra marks for no reason other than race.  This is one reason why the Hans dislike them.  But the problem is even if they graduate, their chances of finding a job is much lower than equivalent Hans.  There is a general feeling among Hans, rightly or wrongly, that Uyghurs are less materialistic, less ambitious, or even outright lazy.  Hans feel Uyghurs care more about their religion than making money.   

A more practical concern is language barrier.  Uyghur is a language that is based on alphabets.  It is tough for them to learn Chinese.  A famous Chinese reformer once said that "if Chinese as a language doesn't die, China will".  He said that at a time when the bulk of the Han population was illiterate.  One of the causes was the difficulty of learning Chinese, even for Hans.  Good luck if you are a Uyghur expecting to see alphabets when they walk into a Chinese language class. 

Indicentally, I think my grandmother is a Manchu.  So I actually have some Manchu blood 

[Queequeg]

How much are Uyghurs exposed to Chinese on a daily basis?  You'd think that they are dominated by the Han enough economically that the younger generation would grow up bilingual at least.  I mean, the Manchu alphabet is an alphabet, but they are not just integrated today but largely extinct.  Same is true for the Mongols. 


Also, Mon, can most people tell the difference between a Northern Chinese or Inner Mongolian and a Uyghur by sight? They are supposed to have a lot of Caucasian admixture.