Muslims are forced to eat pork and drink alcohol as punishment in China's Islamic 're-education' cam

If this is their response to the knife attacks, this will just cause more tension and resentment. How radicalized are the Uygurs in general have they been funded by other extreme groups if not this is just a wasted opportunity.

The way I see it looks like the PRC just wants them to move out of the region.
 
Well at least the stuff they are doing to the Uyghurs, the Chinese under Mao did to themselves in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
 
The Chinese don't mess around and have a different culture than us. That said while this appears bad, remember that our jails are pretty bad as well. We cuff people all the time for long periods.



https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/wer...es-of-chinas-muslim-reeducation-camps-1853220


BEIJING: Kayrat Samarkand says his only "crime" was being a Muslim who had visited neighboring Kazakhstan. On that basis alone, he was detained by police, aggressively interrogated for three days, then dispatched in November to a "reeducation camp" in China's western province of Xinjiang for three months.

There, he faced endless brainwashing and humiliation, he said in an interview, was forced to study Communist propaganda for hours every day, and chant slogans giving thanks and wishing long life to President Xi Jinping.

"Those who disobeyed the rules, refused to be on duty, engaged in fights or were late for studies were placed in handcuffs and ankle cuffs for up to 12 hours," he said. Further disobedience would result in waterboarding or long periods strapped in agony in a metal contraption known as a "tiger chair," he said, a punishment he said he suffered.

Between several hundred thousand to just over 1 million Muslims have been detained inside China's mass "reeducation" camps in the restive province of Xinjiang, Adrian Zenz of the European School of Culture and Theology in Korntal, Germany, said in a report released Tuesday. Zenz is a leading authority on the current crackdown in Xinjiang.

In a region of 21 million people, including 11 million Muslims, the number of those he reports to be detained would be a significant proportion of the population, especially of young adult men.

Emerging accounts of the conditions in these camps make for chilling reading.

"China's pacification drive in Xinjiang is, more than likely, the country's most intense campaign of coercive social re-engineering since the end of the Cultural Revolution," Zenz wrote, referring to the chaos unleashed by Mao Zedong in the 1960s.

"The state's proclaimed 'war on terror' in the region is increasingly turning into a war on religion, ethnic languages and other expressions of ethnic identity."

China has blamed violent attacks in Xinjiang in recent years on Islamic extremists bent on waging holy war on the state, with radical ideas said to be coming from abroad over the Internet and from visits to foreign countries by Uighurs, the region's predominant ethnic group.

In response, Beijing has turned the entire region into a 21st-century surveillance state, with ubiquitous checkpoints and widespread use of facial recognition technology, and has even forced Muslims to install spyware on their phones that allows the authorities to monitor their activity online, experts say. Long beards and veils have been banned, and overt expression of religious sentiment is likely to cause immediate suspicion.

In an extension of the already pervasive program of human surveillance, more than 1 million Communist Party cadres have been dispatched to spend days on end staying in the homes of (mostly Muslim) families throughout Xinjiang, according to a report by Human Rights Watch released this week, where they carry out political indoctrination, and report back on anything from the extent of religious beliefs to uncleanliness and alcoholism.

"Muslim families across Xinjiang are now literally eating and sleeping under the watchful eye of the state in their own homes," said Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The latest drive adds to a whole host of pervasive - and perverse - controls on everyday life in Xinjiang."

But reeducation camps that appear to have opened all across the region have sparked the greatest global concern.

Samarkand said 5,700 people were detained in just one camp in the village of Karamagay, almost all ethnic Kazakhs and Uighurs, and not a single person from China's Han majority ethnic group. About 200 were suspected of being "religious extremists," he said, but others had been abroad for work or university, received phone calls from abroad, or simply been seen worshiping at a mosque.

The 30-year-old stayed in a dormitory with 14 other men. After the room was searched every morning, he said, the day began with two hours of study on subjects ranging from "the spirit of the 19th Party Congress," where Xi expounded his political dogma in a three-hour speech, to China's policies on minorities and religion. Inmates would sing Communist songs, chant "Long live Xi Jinping" and do military-style training in the afternoon, before writing an account of their day, he said.

His account was corroborated by Omir Bekali, an ethnic Kazakh who was working in a tourism company in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, until he was arrested by police on a visit to his parents in the village of Shanshan in March 2017. Four days of interrogation, during which he was prevented from sleeping, were followed by seven months in a police cell and 20 days in a reeducation camp in the city of Karamay, he said. He was given no trial, he said, nor granted access to a lawyer.

He described a day that would begin with a flag-raising ceremony at 6:30 a.m. followed by a rendition of one or more "red" songs praising the Communist revolution. After breakfast, inmates would spend 10 minutes thanking the Communist Party and Xi for providing everything for people, from food and drink to their livelihoods.

Inmates had to learn the national anthem and red songs, he said, as well as slogans condemning the "three evil forces" of separatism, extremism and terrorism.

"There were so many things to recite, and if you couldn't recite them, they wouldn't allow you to eat, sleep or sit," he said. "They brainwash you, you must become like a robot. Listen to whatever the party says, listen to the party's words, follow the party."

Some inmates committed suicide, he said.

Both men said the food was poor, with meat rare and food poisoning not uncommon. Inmates were sometimes forced to eat pork, forbidden in Islam, as punishment, while Bekali said those accused of being "religious extremists" were also forced to drink alcohol.

Bekali, 42, had emigrated to Kazakhstan in 2006 and become a Kazakh citizen, and said the Kazakh government eventually won his release. Samarkand said he was allowed to leave for Kazakhstan to join his wife and children after having his house and savings, worth about $190,000, confiscated by the government. He was given 500 yuan, equivalent to $80, by police at the border as he departed.

Both men, interviewed by phone, are now in Kazakhstan.

Although the Chinese government has officially denied the existence of these camps, Zenz gathered evidence of 73 government procurement and construction bids valued at more than $100 million, along with public recruitment notices and other documents, pointing to the establishment of camps across the region.

He dates the onset of widespread detentions to March 2017, and a government campaign of "de-extremification" through education. That followed the appointment of Chen Quanguo as party secretary in Xinjiang in August 2016, and his transfer from Tibet, where he oversaw a similar program of intense social control, surveillance and securitization.

Many procurement bids, Zenz noted, mandate the installation of comprehensive security features that turn existing facilities into prisonlike compounds, with walls, security fences, barbed wire, reinforced security doors, surveillance systems, secure access systems, watchtowers, and guard rooms for police.

"While there is no published data on reeducation detainee numbers, information from various sources permit us to estimate internment figures at anywhere between several hundred thousand and just over one million," Zenz wrote in a report first published by the Jamestown Foundation.

"The latter figure is based on a leaked document from within the region's public security agencies, and, when extrapolated to all of Xinjiang, could indicate a detention rate of up to 11.5 percent of the region's adult Uighur and Kazakh population."

Bekali said he met doctors, lawyers and teachers in the camps, while Radio Free Asia (RFA) has reported that wealthy businessmen, 80-year-olds and even breast-feeding mothers have been among the detainees.

One of the most well-known detainees is a Uighur soccer player, Erfan Hezim, 19, a former member of China's youth soccer team and now a forward for Chinese Super League team Jiangsu Suning. Hezim, also known by his Chinese name Ye Erfan, was detained in February while visiting his parents in Xinjiang, according to RFA, on the pretext that he had visited foreign countries, although he had reportedly traveled abroad only to train and take part in soccer matches.

Also detained have been dozens of family members of journalists from the Washington-based RFA, who have been at the forefront of reporting on the deepening crackdown in Xinjiang and the reeducation camps. At least two of the affected reporters, both naturalized U.S. citizens, have reason to believe their family members were detained directly because of their reporting, RFA said.

In one report, RFA quoted a Chinese official as justifying the widespread detentions in blunt terms.

COMMENTS
"You can't uproot all the weeds hidden among the crops in the field one by one - you need to spray chemicals to kill them all," the official was quoted as saying. "Reeducating these people is like spraying chemicals on the crops. That is why it is a general reeducation, not limited to a few people.


<GSPWoah> OH!! THE HORROR!!



Beer_ribs_L.jpg




<DCWhoa> .
 
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. American moral authority has been undermined for good reason, I'll concede that, but I don't accept that this means Americans have to be quiet when we witness atrocities in other countries. Personally, I don't want to live in a world where everyone cloisters themselves to their own countries and turns a blind eye to oppression elsewhere. That includes other nations. I'm not trying to argue America has a unique responsibility to call out this kind of thing or something about it, we should all be outraged at it regardless of where we're from.

This stance of yours strikes me as not entirely different from the usually satirized "Different culture, hard to judge" statement. Would you refrain from criticizing Saudi Arabia because South Africa has its own skeletons in its closet? I would hope not, the Saudis deserve criticism from every corner of the globe.

Oh, it is definitely a case of "different culture. Hard to judge" which is how I feel when cultures are not forcing themselves on those beyond their borders.

Maybe if China were going to Muslim countries and violently forcing change on them there, like America does, I would have feel a bit differently about the validity or legitimacy of american moralising.

If my government criticized the internal policies of Saudi Arabia, I could probably support the criticism because, for all of our national flaws, I do not think that we could presently be accused of having a history of enabling human rights atrocities, flouting international law or using international law/human rights as an excuse for aggression and regional destabilisation.

I have a counter question: if the apartheid government were still around, how seriously would you take them if they started criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians?

Also, I am not saying American citizens should shut up, I am saying western governments should not take an official and public stance of condemnation.
 
Sure, there is force in the second line. The verbal abuse of calling someone "a racist" is a form of force. Control by shame/guilt.

It can also have legal/social ramifications as if someone is publically labelled a racist, then they can lose their jobs, livelihoods.

It's similar to being accused of being a pedophile/rapist. The accusation and label alone can destroy your life.

No-one wants that label and will "tow the line" to avoid it. There is your force.


Calling someone a racist is an attempt to control that has no power if you don’t feel shame in your beliefs.

The social ramifications, including losing your job, are just that people don’t like you or being around you.

It’s similar to being a pedophile, and if it was an unwarranted accusation, it would be fucked up. If it’s warranted, then see the sentence above. Also, unlike the pedophile/rapist example, if it is a false accusation then every time you are around those that you have been accused of racism towards you can prove your “innocence” by not exhibiting the racist views that you don’t actually hold. Obviously this is harder to do if you’re actually racist.

Last, there are people out there who don’t tow the line, Richard Spencer as one example, and actually see success not despite their views but because of them. Being labeled a racist is only damaging to your social status among those who find your views reprehensible, those who share your views won’t ostracize you for them.

You’re complaining that those who don’t hold your views control you by labeling you a racist. Do you suggest that they shouldn’t be allowed to call you that? Is that not even more controlling? You can always label them judgmental or race baiters, in the right circles it will b damaging to their reputation in the same way.
 
Calling someone a racist is an attempt to control that has no power if you don’t feel shame in your beliefs.

The social ramifications, including losing your job, are just that people don’t like you or being around you.

It’s similar to being a pedophile, and if it was an unwarranted accusation, it would be fucked up. If it’s warranted, then see the sentence above. Also, unlike the pedophile/rapist example, if it is a false accusation then every time you are around those that you have been accused of racism towards you can prove your “innocence” by not exhibiting the racist views that you don’t actually hold. Obviously this is harder to do if you’re actually racist.

Last, there are people out there who don’t tow the line, Richard Spencer as one example, and actually see success not despite their views but because of them. Being labeled a racist is only damaging to your social status among those who find your views reprehensible, those who share your views won’t ostracize you for them.

You’re complaining that those who don’t hold your views control you by labeling you a racist. Do you suggest that they shouldn’t be allowed to call you that? Is that not even more controlling? You can always label them judgmental or race baiters, in the right circles it will b damaging to their reputation in the same way.

The word "racist" gets thrown around so loosely because of the power it has. And it only ever seems to apply exclusively to white people. You don't think that people abuse that word?

To some, If you are on the right of Bernie Sanders, you are racist. If you voted for Trump or Brexit, then you are racist. If you are white and man and have self-respect/boundaries ... etc.etc.

My point is, there doesn't seem to be an agreed definition of "racist" that applies to all races equally. If I express some opinions, but replace the word "white" with "black" .... it suddenly becomes acceptable. What do you have to say about that?

This thread is a prime example. I dont think I've said anything racist itt, but people are already insinuating that I am.

Also, I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about human nature, likes/dislikes. You don't really have any control over what you like/disike.
 
Last edited:
The word "racist" gets thrown around so loosely because of the power it has. And it only ever seems to apply exclusively to white people. You don't think that people abuse that word?

To some, If you are on the right of Bernie Sanders, you are racist. If you voted for Trump or Brexit, then you are racist. If you are white and man and have self-respect/boundaries ... etc.etc.

My point is, there doesn't seem to be an agreed definition of "racist" that applies to all races equally. If I express some opinions, but replace the word "white" with "black" .... it suddenly becomes acceptable. What do you have to say about that?

This thread is a prime example. I dont think I've said anything racist itt, but people are already insinuating that I am.

Also, I'm not talking about beliefs, I'm talking about human nature, likes/dislikes. You don't really have any control over what you like/disike.

You heavily implied that you felt blacks and Muslims brought nothing of value to society, that’s why it’s being assumed you’re racist. That’s not a like or a dislike, that’s a belief.

Agreed upon definition by who? People say dumb shit all the time and abuse words and concepts all the time to sway things in their favor. It’s a bitch move, but it’s also human nature.

Some dude I had to work with on a job site the other day was lying to his boss about some work I had done. I interjected, he told me to shut up, I told him fuck you, he said you’re racist, and I told him to shut the fuck up. He tried to use the word to hold power over me, to cow me into doing what he wanted. It didn’t work. Nobody in the room thought I was racist cause I didn’t let some dude tell lies about my work. His boss, the same race as him, apologized and told me he would’ve punched the dude in the mouth. I was congratulated because no one actually thinks holding to your boundaries is racist.

Your point has not been about holding your boundaries, it has been that you want to be free to dislike people without being tied to terms like racist, or islamophobic because...you don’t want to look bad? That’s not how life works, if you want to hold racist beliefs you deal with societies consequences. In 1950 you woulda been the epitome of good citizen. If I had the strength of character to hold my beliefs in 1950 maybe they’d have strung me up as a :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: lover. Different societies different standards.

As far as the replacing white with black thing. I’ve done it, I might get called a racist. I don’t wig out about it. I clearly explain my stance. Whatever someone feels about it afterwards is okay by me, I don’t try to control them and I don’t let them control me. If I don’t think they’re capable of a rational discussion on sensitive topics I don’t bother with the discussion. That applies to race, religion, immigration, war in the Middle East, whatever might get someone heated to a point where nothing is gained by discussing.
 
You heavily implied that you felt blacks and Muslims brought nothing of value to society, that’s why it’s being assumed you’re racist. That’s not a like or a dislike, that’s a belief.

Agreed upon definition by who? People say dumb shit all the time and abuse words and concepts all the time to sway things in their favor. It’s a bitch move, but it’s also human nature.

Some dude I had to work with on a job site the other day was lying to his boss about some work I had done. I interjected, he told me to shut up, I told him fuck you, he said you’re racist, and I told him to shut the fuck up. He tried to use the word to hold power over me, to cow me into doing what he wanted. It didn’t work. Nobody in the room thought I was racist cause I didn’t let some dude tell lies about my work. His boss, the same race as him, apologized and told me he would’ve punched the dude in the mouth. I was congratulated because no one actually thinks holding to your boundaries is racist.

Your point has not been about holding your boundaries, it has been that you want to be free to dislike people without being tied to terms like racist, or islamophobic because...you don’t want to look bad? That’s not how life works, if you want to hold racist beliefs you deal with societies consequences. In 1950 you woulda been the epitome of good citizen. If I had the strength of character to hold my beliefs in 1950 maybe they’d have strung me up as a :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: lover. Different societies different standards.

As far as the replacing white with black thing. I’ve done it, I might get called a racist. I don’t wig out about it. I clearly explain my stance. Whatever someone feels about it afterwards is okay by me, I don’t try to control them and I don’t let them control me. If I don’t think they’re capable of a rational discussion on sensitive topics I don’t bother with the discussion. That applies to race, religion, immigration, war in the Middle East, whatever might get someone heated to a point where nothing is gained by discussing.

It's also human nature to recognize patterns. If you recognize that certain demographics of people commit more crimes, cause more trouble or terror in society than others. Your brain recognizes this.

If then you feel as though you dislike this particular demographic. You are then publically called "evil" and verbally abused for not having "unconditional love" for all and everyone.

Their behavior has no consequences.

No matter what happens, you can't feel more favorably over one demographic than others, otherwise you're evil (if you're white, that is).

I like principles that are equally applied to all people.
 
It's also human nature to recognize patterns. If you recognize that certain demographics of people commit more crimes, cause more trouble or terror in society than others. Your brain recognizes this.

If then you feel as though you dislike this particular demographic. You are then publically called "evil" and verbally abused for not having "unconditional love" for all and everyone.

Their behavior has no consequences.

No matter what happens, you can't feel more favorably over one demographic than others, otherwise you're evil (if you're white, that is).

I like principles that are equally applied to all people.

First. Why do they commit more crimes? Melanin in their skin? Disproportionately live in poverty?

Second. You dislike black people or criminal black people or criminals? Do you bother to differentiate?

Third. Stop crying about other people and their behavior and consequences and worry about your own. You believe there is disproportionate crime but not prison sentences? That’s the consequence but it’s weak to keep changing how you do you because of your perception of someone else’s life.

Fourth. I feel less favorably to the demographic of people that commit violent crimes. And by that I mean the individuals that commit violent crimes. No one claims I’m evil.

You feel less favorably to the demographic of people who commit violent crimes. By that you mean a racial group of people who statistically commit violent crimes. Literally the definition of racism. You judge the entire demographic based on their racial group statistics not on the actions of the individual.

I’m done with this conversation. You are arguing for the definition of racist thought and crying that people associate your ideas with racism. Be a man and hold values that you can ascribe to despite what others think of you.
 
Oh, it is definitely a case of "different culture. Hard to judge" which is how I feel when cultures are not forcing themselves on those beyond their borders.

Maybe if China were going to Muslim countries and violently forcing change on them there, like America does, I would have feel a bit differently about the validity or legitimacy of american moralising.

If my government criticized the internal policies of Saudi Arabia, I could probably support the criticism because, for all of our national flaws, I do not think that we could presently be accused of having a history of enabling human rights atrocities, flouting international law or using international law/human rights as an excuse for aggression and regional destabilisation.

I have a counter question: if the apartheid government were still around, how seriously would you take them if they started criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians?

Also, I am not saying American citizens should shut up, I am saying western governments should not take an official and public stance of condemnation.
South Africa doesn't have a history of human rights atrocities? You say this in the same post you mention Apartheid...

As far as your question about how seriously I would take South African criticism of Saudi Arabia if apartheid was still around, I'd answer as I did before in saying I'd take it seriously if the criticism could stand on its own merits which in this case it very likely would. That's not mutually exclusive to me then turning around and criticizing South Africa.

A modern example would be that Israelis have legitimate criticisms of their Arab neighbors despite the fact that they have their own apartheid problem.
 
The Chinese don't mess around and have a different culture than us. That said while this appears bad, remember that our jails are pretty bad as well. We cuff people all the time for long periods.



https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/wer...es-of-chinas-muslim-reeducation-camps-1853220


BEIJING: Kayrat Samarkand says his only "crime" was being a Muslim who had visited neighboring Kazakhstan. On that basis alone, he was detained by police, aggressively interrogated for three days, then dispatched in November to a "reeducation camp" in China's western province of Xinjiang for three months.

There, he faced endless brainwashing and humiliation, he said in an interview, was forced to study Communist propaganda for hours every day, and chant slogans giving thanks and wishing long life to President Xi Jinping.

"Those who disobeyed the rules, refused to be on duty, engaged in fights or were late for studies were placed in handcuffs and ankle cuffs for up to 12 hours," he said. Further disobedience would result in waterboarding or long periods strapped in agony in a metal contraption known as a "tiger chair," he said, a punishment he said he suffered.

Between several hundred thousand to just over 1 million Muslims have been detained inside China's mass "reeducation" camps in the restive province of Xinjiang, Adrian Zenz of the European School of Culture and Theology in Korntal, Germany, said in a report released Tuesday. Zenz is a leading authority on the current crackdown in Xinjiang.

In a region of 21 million people, including 11 million Muslims, the number of those he reports to be detained would be a significant proportion of the population, especially of young adult men.

Emerging accounts of the conditions in these camps make for chilling reading.

"China's pacification drive in Xinjiang is, more than likely, the country's most intense campaign of coercive social re-engineering since the end of the Cultural Revolution," Zenz wrote, referring to the chaos unleashed by Mao Zedong in the 1960s.

"The state's proclaimed 'war on terror' in the region is increasingly turning into a war on religion, ethnic languages and other expressions of ethnic identity."

China has blamed violent attacks in Xinjiang in recent years on Islamic extremists bent on waging holy war on the state, with radical ideas said to be coming from abroad over the Internet and from visits to foreign countries by Uighurs, the region's predominant ethnic group.

In response, Beijing has turned the entire region into a 21st-century surveillance state, with ubiquitous checkpoints and widespread use of facial recognition technology, and has even forced Muslims to install spyware on their phones that allows the authorities to monitor their activity online, experts say. Long beards and veils have been banned, and overt expression of religious sentiment is likely to cause immediate suspicion.

In an extension of the already pervasive program of human surveillance, more than 1 million Communist Party cadres have been dispatched to spend days on end staying in the homes of (mostly Muslim) families throughout Xinjiang, according to a report by Human Rights Watch released this week, where they carry out political indoctrination, and report back on anything from the extent of religious beliefs to uncleanliness and alcoholism.

"Muslim families across Xinjiang are now literally eating and sleeping under the watchful eye of the state in their own homes," said Maya Wang, senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The latest drive adds to a whole host of pervasive - and perverse - controls on everyday life in Xinjiang."

But reeducation camps that appear to have opened all across the region have sparked the greatest global concern.

Samarkand said 5,700 people were detained in just one camp in the village of Karamagay, almost all ethnic Kazakhs and Uighurs, and not a single person from China's Han majority ethnic group. About 200 were suspected of being "religious extremists," he said, but others had been abroad for work or university, received phone calls from abroad, or simply been seen worshiping at a mosque.

The 30-year-old stayed in a dormitory with 14 other men. After the room was searched every morning, he said, the day began with two hours of study on subjects ranging from "the spirit of the 19th Party Congress," where Xi expounded his political dogma in a three-hour speech, to China's policies on minorities and religion. Inmates would sing Communist songs, chant "Long live Xi Jinping" and do military-style training in the afternoon, before writing an account of their day, he said.

His account was corroborated by Omir Bekali, an ethnic Kazakh who was working in a tourism company in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, until he was arrested by police on a visit to his parents in the village of Shanshan in March 2017. Four days of interrogation, during which he was prevented from sleeping, were followed by seven months in a police cell and 20 days in a reeducation camp in the city of Karamay, he said. He was given no trial, he said, nor granted access to a lawyer.

He described a day that would begin with a flag-raising ceremony at 6:30 a.m. followed by a rendition of one or more "red" songs praising the Communist revolution. After breakfast, inmates would spend 10 minutes thanking the Communist Party and Xi for providing everything for people, from food and drink to their livelihoods.

Inmates had to learn the national anthem and red songs, he said, as well as slogans condemning the "three evil forces" of separatism, extremism and terrorism.

"There were so many things to recite, and if you couldn't recite them, they wouldn't allow you to eat, sleep or sit," he said. "They brainwash you, you must become like a robot. Listen to whatever the party says, listen to the party's words, follow the party."

Some inmates committed suicide, he said.

Both men said the food was poor, with meat rare and food poisoning not uncommon. Inmates were sometimes forced to eat pork, forbidden in Islam, as punishment, while Bekali said those accused of being "religious extremists" were also forced to drink alcohol.

Bekali, 42, had emigrated to Kazakhstan in 2006 and become a Kazakh citizen, and said the Kazakh government eventually won his release. Samarkand said he was allowed to leave for Kazakhstan to join his wife and children after having his house and savings, worth about $190,000, confiscated by the government. He was given 500 yuan, equivalent to $80, by police at the border as he departed.

Both men, interviewed by phone, are now in Kazakhstan.

Although the Chinese government has officially denied the existence of these camps, Zenz gathered evidence of 73 government procurement and construction bids valued at more than $100 million, along with public recruitment notices and other documents, pointing to the establishment of camps across the region.

He dates the onset of widespread detentions to March 2017, and a government campaign of "de-extremification" through education. That followed the appointment of Chen Quanguo as party secretary in Xinjiang in August 2016, and his transfer from Tibet, where he oversaw a similar program of intense social control, surveillance and securitization.

Many procurement bids, Zenz noted, mandate the installation of comprehensive security features that turn existing facilities into prisonlike compounds, with walls, security fences, barbed wire, reinforced security doors, surveillance systems, secure access systems, watchtowers, and guard rooms for police.

"While there is no published data on reeducation detainee numbers, information from various sources permit us to estimate internment figures at anywhere between several hundred thousand and just over one million," Zenz wrote in a report first published by the Jamestown Foundation.

"The latter figure is based on a leaked document from within the region's public security agencies, and, when extrapolated to all of Xinjiang, could indicate a detention rate of up to 11.5 percent of the region's adult Uighur and Kazakh population."

Bekali said he met doctors, lawyers and teachers in the camps, while Radio Free Asia (RFA) has reported that wealthy businessmen, 80-year-olds and even breast-feeding mothers have been among the detainees.

One of the most well-known detainees is a Uighur soccer player, Erfan Hezim, 19, a former member of China's youth soccer team and now a forward for Chinese Super League team Jiangsu Suning. Hezim, also known by his Chinese name Ye Erfan, was detained in February while visiting his parents in Xinjiang, according to RFA, on the pretext that he had visited foreign countries, although he had reportedly traveled abroad only to train and take part in soccer matches.

Also detained have been dozens of family members of journalists from the Washington-based RFA, who have been at the forefront of reporting on the deepening crackdown in Xinjiang and the reeducation camps. At least two of the affected reporters, both naturalized U.S. citizens, have reason to believe their family members were detained directly because of their reporting, RFA said.

In one report, RFA quoted a Chinese official as justifying the widespread detentions in blunt terms.

COMMENTS
"You can't uproot all the weeds hidden among the crops in the field one by one - you need to spray chemicals to kill them all," the official was quoted as saying. "Reeducating these people is like spraying chemicals on the crops. That is why it is a general reeducation, not limited to a few people.



It's in China, it isn't my problem.

Stop letting them and their products into your country. I'm tired of watching Americans finance the Chinese military.
 
Forced to eat Chinese-style pork?

Most delicious torture everrrrrrr
 
In terms of method I'd agree, if anything the NK camps are probably worse in that regard. But I think there's something to be said about the insidiousness of the attempt at such widespread social engineering that's distinct from the use of camps against dissidents though of course both are bad. With the former you're targeting people based on their religion and/or ethnicity whereas with the latter at least you're only targeting people who choose to engage in dissent. You could conceivably avoid the latter by keeping your head down but in the Chinese case simply being religious or speaking the wrong language can get you targeted for re-education.

Any evidence that what they do is anywhere near what the Chinese are doing? I find it hard to believe they can get away with anything close to what the Chinese are doing to the Uyghurs.
My question is, what prompted the Chinese to do this? My gut says something like this does not happen out of nothing. Was there some huge spate of terror there and people called for revenge?
 
We did that, DID being a very important word.

It is a chapter of our history no one is proud of and our society still pays the price of it today
Quick question, not trying to be a dick. But what price are you paying today, for your treatment of them? It's not like there are that many of them, nor are they likely a major political force. Unless they are launching terrorist attacks, what price are you paying?
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here but historians believe that the reason pork consumption became less common in the Middle East thousands of years ago, even before the Jews explicitly prohibited it, is that pork is an inefficient source of protein in terms of the amount of resources needed to raise a pig to maturity relative to the amount of protein it provides. Poultry is far more efficient because you can harvest eggs and in general you get more protein for the same amount of water and food resources you spend on it relative to a pig.

.

I thought it was because pork had a higher incidence of disease being present in the meat and other edibles inside the body? I mean they didn't just eat the muscle back then, they used the whole animal. That would explain the whole "unclean" phraseology used in Abrahamic faiths when referencing Pork. It honestly makes sense.

Now I had not considered that Pork was very inefficient to raise. Which is weird is that some Celtic cultures raised pigs exclusively for meat, and ate lots of it. If it was so inefficient why did they do it?
 
Back
Top