Read on Twitter
I've now read it. Just a few random thoughts on some points it tries to make:
1. Focus on Pompeo, implying that if he said it, it's likely false. But of course what Pompeo says simply has no relation to the truth, one way or the other. No serious person is relying on Pompeo. https://twitter.com/mikeygow/status/1387147344060239878
1. Focus on Pompeo, implying that if he said it, it's likely false. But of course what Pompeo says simply has no relation to the truth, one way or the other. No serious person is relying on Pompeo. https://twitter.com/mikeygow/status/1387147344060239878
2. When governments say "genocide", it's politically motivated. But when governments say there's a terrorist problem, that's objective and reliable.
3. Lots of analysis of whether the genocide charge is justified. No analysis of crimes against humanity.
3. Lots of analysis of whether the genocide charge is justified. No analysis of crimes against humanity.
4. "No major terrorist attacks in Xinjiang since 2016!"
What can this statement possibly justify? You could have said the same if everyone in Xinjiang had been executed. Making a desert and calling it peace was Roman policy, but this is the 21st century.
What can this statement possibly justify? You could have said the same if everyone in Xinjiang had been executed. Making a desert and calling it peace was Roman policy, but this is the 21st century.
4. Evidence of actual witnesses dismissed as "anecdotal".
What witness evidence could not be described this way? Is all witness evidence to be dismissed?
What witness evidence could not be described this way? Is all witness evidence to be dismissed?
5. Evidence of witnesses dismissed as coming from those with "skin in the game."
So if you or your relatives are detained, then ur testimony about it doesn't count because you have "skin in the game"? I guess this means we shouldn't listen to black people about racism.
So if you or your relatives are detained, then ur testimony about it doesn't count because you have "skin in the game"? I guess this means we shouldn't listen to black people about racism.
6. Naively accepts China's framing that it is trying to deradicalize those with extremist ideology.
No mention of the fact that "extremism" is construed to include having a beard, traveling abroad, abstaining from alcohol, etc.
No mention of the fact that "extremism" is construed to include having a beard, traveling abroad, abstaining from alcohol, etc.
7. Argues that there is no intent to destroy Uyghur culture.
Makes no mention of destruction of Uyghur cultural symbols, detention of carriers of Uyghur culture, and suppression of Uyghur language.
Makes no mention of destruction of Uyghur cultural symbols, detention of carriers of Uyghur culture, and suppression of Uyghur language.
8. Says The Economist was heavily criticized for an editorial saying Xinjiang events weren't genocide.
The Economist was criticized for *redefining* genocide. By its redefinition (mass killing alone, nothing else), all agree there's no genocide.
The Economist was criticized for *redefining* genocide. By its redefinition (mass killing alone, nothing else), all agree there's no genocide.
9. Says, "Trying to ‘shame’ Beijing into changing course appears only to reinforce perceptions that the West is out to get China, and that some of its media and think tanks are part of an organised disinformation campaign."
Whose perceptions? We're not told. (cont'd)
Whose perceptions? We're not told. (cont'd)
This vagueness is a weaselly way of trying to suggest that there is an organized disinformation campaign, while retaining deniability and not having to identify who's doing the organizing. (End)
