This is such an ignorant & under-researched article. How embarrassing that @TheEconomist published this.

"Genocide" is actually the exact *right* word for the horrors of Xinjiang. If the author had cracked a book on genocide, they would know

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">
1/7 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word-for-the-horrors-of-xinjiang">https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...

By privileging the act of mass killing over other genocidal acts, you are causing great harm to victims. Genocide is an intent to destroy. You do not get to rank what constitutes genocide and what doesn& #39;t when international law has already done so.

2/7

The 1948 Genocide Convention lays it out in plain terms. But according to the author, genocide means killing a people. And *only* killing a people.

Newsflash: it doesn& #39;t.

3/7

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, as such:
(a) (yes) Killing members of the group; BUT ALSO
(b) Causing serious bodily/mental harm to members of the group;

4/7

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

5/7

I& #39;m sorry that you think calling a genocide for what it is is "counter-productive" and that it "accomplishes nothing to exaggerate the Communist Party’s crimes in Xinjiang." There is no exaggeration. Under int& #39;l law, the U.S. and other signatories to the Convention must act.
6/7

I& #39;ll just say thank god this article was short, because I certainly wouldn& #39;t have been able to read a paragraph more of this apologist bullshit from @TheEconomist.

7/7