Turkish ?

[Monoriu]

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.

The Uyghurs and Hans are pretty segregated.  They attend different schools, live in different cities/districts, generally do different businesses etc.  One major problem with Uyghurs is that, unlike the dozens of other minority groups in China, there is very little inter-marriage with Hans.  Marriage is very useful toward building racial harmony, and this has helped with bringing Hans and other minority groups closer.  Not with the Uyghurs.  The key problem, from what I've read, is their religion.  Uyghurs are pretty religious.  They pray often, don't eat pork, and concern themselves with spirituality.  The Hans on the other hand don't care much about religion, devour pork, worship their ancestors and build idols out of them, care much more about money and luxury than the afterlife, etc.  Hans are much much much more materialistic.  Starting from a young age, Hans study hard to get into a university, with the express aim of getting the best job that yields the most money.  People who don't share that goal are considered lazy.  Which is exactly how the Uyghurs behave    Actually, there is a similar problem with Tibetans.

So, no, the bulk of the Uyghurs keep to their own communities and languages. 

Yes, it is actually pretty easy to tell a Uyghur by sight.  Their skin is a lot darker than most Chinese, and their facial features are very different.  They are more Caucasian in appearance.

[Queequeg]

Yeah, there was a pre-existing, advanced Indo-European people there (the Tocharians, for the curious) who were there before the more mixed/Northern Asian looking Turks and Han came in.

Mono, I'm a little curious about this too; how many different 'looks' does China have ethnically? North/South/Uyghur/Tibet/Inner Mongolia, or are there more specific types?

[Monoriu]

Yeah, there was a pre-existing, advanced Indo-European people there (the Tocharians, for the curious) who were there before the more mixed/Northern Asian looking Turks and Han came in.

Mono, I'm a little curious about this too; how many different 'looks' does China have ethnically? North/South/Uyghur/Tibet/Inner Mongolia, or are there more specific types?

Generally three kinds of looks.  Southerner, Northerner, and minority.  Southerners are shorter, smaller, with pale skin.  Northerners are taller, broader, bigger, with slightly sharper facial features, and generally a little bit darker (especially for males).  Southerners are more likely to speak a dialect, while Northerners are better at Mandarin, the national language (which is based on Beijingnese).

All minority groups tend to be a lot darker than Hans.  Uyghurs are pretty distinct because they have a more European look.  Minorities also tend to behave slightly differently than Hans.  They tend to be more relaxed, more joyful, sing a lot, smile a lot, wear colourful clothes, more friendly toward strangers.  Hans tend to keep a greater distance, especially toward strangers.  Hans also tend to use various means to display their wealth, e.g. expensive cars, Gucci handbags, precious stones, brand name clothes, that sort of thing.

[Valmy]

"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Um...an ethnic clash?  I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.

[Queequeg]

"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Um...an ethnic clash?  I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.

It sounds like Uyghurs have it a lot better off than Kurds in Turkey do (or at least did until AKP), unless this riot completely changes the nature of their relations. 

[Viking]

"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Um...an ethnic clash?  I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.

It sounds like Uyghurs have it a lot better off than Kurds in Turkey do (or at least did until AKP), unless this riot completely changes the nature of their relations.

c'mon, confronting a Turk about issues like genocide or repression of minorities by Turkey is a bit unfair.. how can he pontificate without being a hypocrite then?

[Camerus]

The few minorities I notice in Nanjing (Muslims) seem to be dirt poor, often operating run-down tiny restaurants.  They generally look dirty and poorly dressed.  Later this summer I am going to Inner Mongolia province, so I will get to see first-hand a home province for a sizeable Chinese minority.

[Josquius]

-

I'm really becoming rather bored with you now.
From the very start here you've acted patronising and dickish. This is a form of behaviour I don't appreciate even coming from someone who genuinely can teach me something, when its coming  from someone who doesn't have a clue what he's on about and is trying to say a spade isn't a spade it just reaches new levels of annoyance.

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

Of course its not. Point to me where it says this please or concede your point.
 

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).

As I've said from the start I don't believe it is genocide. According to the UN rules however it technically is.

Stricken as non-responsive

As was what I was replying to.

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.

Replying 'yes it is' is enough of a argument when you have evidence which I clearly point out to you:  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.ht

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

Pardon?
I have no clue what on earth you're trying to say here.

O
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!

Of course. What does that matter?
People can be gassed as part of non-genocidal situations too.

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."

Aha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.

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.

Genocide (UN) != Genocide (common use).
I am saying exactly the opposite of that. I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.

Whining about strawmen that use your exact arguments again?  ::

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

That A and B can be C does not automatically mean A=B.

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."

Except they ARE committing several of those five acts.
This is beyond argument. Hell, the wording of the law is so bad ('in part')that even killing one man could fall under genocide if you're completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording.

I
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! 

Stating that green is green doesn't really need proving.

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

That's what I've just said. We're not going to do that.
It's not really something the Americans are controlling.
However you could according to the technical definition say such like France is genocidal against its minority languages.

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.

Do you not acknowledge that the Chinese have silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members of these minorities?
Many such occurrences of this are not just suspicion, they are recorded fact.

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?

That was a valid answer.
Not the answer you would like but you can't pick and chose.

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.

That only one man is saying this here is irrelevant, a witness is a witness and just because he is all mentioned there does not mean that there are others.
And you don't think the Nazis also picked on some Germans?

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.

Wrong.

Genocide consists of a concerted attempt to physically destroy an ethnic group as a whole.

Which goes completely contrary to what is said in the UN law.

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.

No we're not just talking about right now. Evidence from fifty years ago is a lot more widespread than that from fifty minutes ago.
But anyway. Even in your selective quoting you are walking on thin ice; SUFFICIENT PROOF. They couldn't find the evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt as such a case needs.
That the Chinese were technically breaking the rules though is noted as fact.
It was technically genocide however it was not proven to be actual genocide.

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.

Of course cultural genocide is genocide.
What is a people if not their culture?
In the early drafts of the '48 UN law in question (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/drafts/) they even make specific mention of different kinds of genocide including cultural, their thinking behind the document is clear. Its unfortunate they left it all so vague in the final version.

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.

Are you from Bizzaro world here?
I must ask you again to please read the document with an open mind. It's rather clear to see how broad and vague it really is.

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

To use your words against you;

Stricken as non-responsive.

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. 

I wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.

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. 

True. Nonetheless the common image of genocide is mass murder.
'Soft' means do exist of course however the word genocide should still be reserved for only the harshest of these- such as your example.

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

Loads of them. As said the law is so ridiculous even the killing of one man could be technically termed genocide; if a bunch of neo-nazis murder a black guy then they have fulfilled the intention to wipe out (at least) part of a ethnic/racial group and the actual killing of part of it.
UN law of course only applies to governments though so that is too much of a stretch but governments do kill people too. The Chinese on many occasions have killed various priests/monks/whatever- even if these were individual incidents, if you want to take the law literally it counts.

What is this supposed to mean?

You accuse me of ignoring your questions when I answer them directly...Only for you to ignore the answers.

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.

Its a very broad document that could be interpreted for means far beyond its intention. Such as for instance that site I posted where the guy is on about American genocide against Hawaiians.

[Valmy]

It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.

[Malthus]

It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.

Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.

Genocide, racism, colonialism ...

[Valmy]

Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.

Genocide, racism, colonialism ...

A good example of this was the characterization of Morales in Bolivia of the United States buying Bolivian Natural Gas as 'Imperialism'.

Buying a country's stuff = what Britain did to India it seems

[Monoriu]

It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.

A lot of factory owners from Hong Kong who have plants on the Mainland say that for years provincial officials from all over China "encourage" them to hire a certain number of Uyghurs. 

If this is considered genocide, I have no words.  Discrimination?  In many areas, yes.  No complete religious freedom?  Perhaps, but that applies to Hans and everybody else.  Genocide?  Give me a break.

[Valmy]

A lot of factory owners from Hong Kong who have plants on the Mainland say that for years provincial officials from all over China "encourage" them to hire a certain number of Uyghurs. 

If this is considered genocide, I have no words.  Discrimination?  In many areas, yes.  No complete religious freedom?  Perhaps, but that applies to Hans and everybody else.  Genocide?  Give me a break.

Now you know how Americans feel.  Every little thing we do gets merely compared to something the Empire from Star Wars would do on a good day.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.

Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.

Genocide, racism, colonialism ...

the term used is either inflation of deflation of meaning I think. same as with money and value :p

[grumbler]

I'm really becoming rather bored with you now.

There is a cure for that which is even easier than typing out the whine "I'm bored."

From the very start here you've acted patronising and dickish.

So have you.

This is a form of behaviour I don't appreciate even coming from someone who genuinely can teach me something, when its coming  from someone who doesn't have a clue what he's on about and is trying to say a spade isn't a spade it just reaches new levels of annoyance.

Pot, meet kettle.

As I've said from the start I don't believe it is genocide. According to the UN rules however it technically is.

Repeating unsupported assertions doesn't make them more credible.

Of course. What does that matter?
People can be gassed as part of non-genocidal situations too.

So you concede the point about "lining people up and shooting them?"  Wise.

Aha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.

Nope. Did the research, read your links (two of which agreed with me, one of which was ambivalent (on old court case remarking on a policy of thirty years ago, and supported by a single claimant who was four years old at the time), and two of which were not applicable).  You haven't begun to make your argument yet.

Genocide (UN) != Genocide (common use).
I am saying exactly the opposite of that. I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.

You are no0t saying the opposite of what I am saying, and you reconirm it one sentence after you deny it!

Of course one can find many cases of people yelling "genocide" when the technical definition isn't met.  I pointed out two cases in the links you provided (but apparently didn't read).
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html is one on the Cambodian genocide, which clearly was not "technicall" genocide because it wasn't aimed at a specific "national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll is someone "yelling genocide" about a brutal  attack in Iraq under Huseein, but notes that the regime's actions were triggered by a report that the target had been taken over by rebel Kurds (thus presenting a non-"technically genocidal" motive for the attack).

I could go on and on, and you know it.

Except they ARE committing several of those five acts.
This is beyond argument. Hell, the wording of the law is so bad ('in part')that even killing one man could fall under genocide if you're completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording.

Except that you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that they are committing those acts for the motives necessary, and this is what is "beyond argument."

Laws don't work the way you think they do.  One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person.  It is you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument.  I have said nothing of the sort.

Stating that green is green doesn't really need proving.

Ah, the old "this doesn't need evidence beause it is a fact" argument.  I bet your fellow-scientists love hearing those arguments from you! 

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

That's what I've just said. We're not going to do that.

You say "yes but no?"  WTF?  Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?

It's not really something the Americans are controlling.

However you could according to the technical definition say such like France is genocidal against its minority languages.

I wouldn't be that daft.  Maybe you are daft enough to argue that; be my guest.

Do you not acknowledge that the Chinese have silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members of these minorities?
Many such occurrences of this are not just suspicion, they are recorded fact.

Stricken as non-relevant.  Non of these acts are "technical genocide."

That was a valid answer.
Not the answer you would like but you can't pick and chose.

Stricken as non-responsive.

That only one man is saying this here is irrelevant, a witness is a witness and just because he is all mentioned there does not mean that there are others.

One man who is a witness testefying about conclusions he reached thirty years ago as a four-year old is not convincing testimony.

Of course cultural genocide is genocide.

But not "technical genocide" (iaw the convention), which is what we are addressing.

Are you from Bizzaro world here?

Stricken as ad hominim.

I must ask you again to please read the document with an open mind. It's rather clear to see how broad and vague it really is.

I have read it and disagree, and note that you have completely evaded answering my question.. 

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

To use your words against you;

Stricken as non-responsive.

You can try to use that phrase, but since my response goes directly to the heart of the matter, it only makes you look silly.

I wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.

I understand what he is saying (though I think his whole concept of "democide" is absurd and pretentious). The problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying (I have clearly demonstrated a much better grasp of the core issue here than you), it is that I disagree.

True. Nonetheless the common my image of genocide is mass murder.

Corrected for accuracy.  You accepted my example as true, so the only counter to it is that you don't think it genocide.  That isn't relevant here, though.

Loads of them. As said the law is so ridiculous even the killing of one man could be technically termed genocide; if a bunch of neo-nazis murder a black guy then they have fulfilled the intention to wipe out (at least) part of a ethnic/racial group and the actual killing of part of it.
UN law of course only applies to governments though so that is too much of a stretch but governments do kill people too. The Chinese on many occasions have killed various priests/monks/whatever- even if these were individual incidents, if you want to take the law literally it counts.

So your argument is that the exact wording of the Convention would, in your opinion, create a genocide if one neo-Nazi killed on black person?  That's it?  That is your whole argument?

Please find me an authoritative source that would agree with this interpretation.  I would be fascinated to read it.

Its a very broad document that could be interpreted for means far beyond its intention. Such as for instance that site I posted where the guy is on about American genocide against Hawaiians.

I think it is not nearly as broad as you claim, and your Dr. Rummel is not arguing that the Americans committed "technical genocide" against Hawaiians, so appealing to him is done in vain.