Comment by tepidandroid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tepidandroid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is an example of what I mean by lack of scrutiny or criticism. If you look at the study by CHRD [1] cited in the article you’ve linked, you’ll see that their methodology is flawed in many ways. The most worrying part is that this study in particular is the basis of many articles similar to the one you've posted.

What they did was they interviewed eight ethnic Uyghurs from eight different villages in Kashgar Prefecture in Xinjiang (the poorest and most problematic area in terms of violence and extremist ideology). They asked them questions like “how many people do you estimate live in your village” and “how many people do you think were taken from your village”. They then calculated the ratio of people detained to total inhabitants in these eight villages and extrapolated this ratio to the entire Uyghur population in the province of Xinjiang (population 23 million, many parts of which are prosperous and violence-free) in order to obtain the million+ estimate. The 1 million number (or 3 million, it’s hard to keep track of these days) is always thrown around like it’s a confirmed fact, which it decidedly is not.

Furthermore, as the article mentions, CHRD is a group based in Washington, D.C that is almost wholly funded by U.S government grants [2, p.9]. There is a clear conflict of interest here especially in the context of growing rivalry and geopolitical posturing between China and the U.S. The article also mentions Radio Free Asia, an organization literally founded by the CIA [3][4] as an anti-Communist propaganda arm. They claim they are no longer affiliated. Again, another source wholly funded by the U.S government.

[1] https://www.nchrd.org/2018/08/china-massive-numbers-of-uyghu...

[2] https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2015/260/523/2015-26052...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propag...

Most research in America is funded by U.S. government grants at least partially if not mostly. What's your point? Am I to believe that any research agency that receives US grant money is secretly a propaganda arm of the government?

I don't really know what you expect me or the average layperson to do. I can't get on a plane and go to Xianjing, but I can read and listen to the experiences and stories of the many people that have fled the region and entrust the credibility that (certain) journalists have to do investigative journalism. The source of the article I linked to is one of many.

Also consider that you don't have to be sitting in a detainment camp to be a victim of a cultural genocide.

> Most research in America is funded by U.S. government grants at least partially if not mostly. What's your point?

My point, as I’ve stated earlier, is that there is a conflict of interest here. It's not that much of a stretch to think that the U.S government would like to delegitimize the CCP to further their own geopolitical and strategic interests.

> I don't really know what you expect me or the average layperson to do.

I expect you as a HN reader (but perhaps not the average layperson) to not view news reported in the mass media as infallible, but to scrutinize everything that is said with a high degree of criticality. Whose interests do these stories represent? Who benefits from fomenting mass outrage against an external boogeyman? Who is paying for the experiences and stories which you are consuming and why?

Knowledge of history can be of help here. One example is Rebiya Kadeer’s testimony to the U.S Congress about the Uygher situation [1] which many people accept verbatim. We can see an exact, historical parallel in the form of the Nayirah testimony [2], which was a contributor to the U.S decision to engage in the Gulf War. We all know how that turned out.

> The source of the article I linked to is one of many.

Look at the primary sources. There barely a handful of them which 99% of articles like these trace their journalism back to.

> Also consider that you don't have to be sitting in a detainment camp to be a victim of a cultural genocide.

This is true. I’d like to add that asking Uyghers to speak Mandarin in these “education camps” does not constitute cultural genocide and neither is banning elements of Wahhabi Islam which is not native to their culture in the first place. It’s a simple fact of life that if you want to do business in China or have any kind of economic opportunity, you need to learn Mandarin. This does not preclude the practice of your own native customs or languages. People think China is all Han when in fact there are many, many ethnic groups there [3] practicing their own languages and customs, and getting along just fine.

I'll end by saying that Uyghers are definitely being detained and "re-educated", I've never contested that. I'm merely questioning the scale and characterization of these camps as well as the motivations of some of the mainstream publications.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFWBCPuzl5E

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China

> My point, as I’ve stated earlier, is that there is a conflict of interest here. It's not that much of a stretch to think that the U.S government would like to delegitimize the CCP to further their own geopolitical and strategic interests.

And it's also not a stretch to suggest that a government that defines separatism and religion as two of it's three defined evils is committing cultural genocide on a large (millions+) section of it's country that doesn't conform to the rest of it's society.

> I expect you as a HN reader (but perhaps not the average layperson) to not view news reported in the mass media as infallible, but to scrutinize everything that is said with a high degree of criticality.

There is only so much time in the day, and today I'll spend most of mine scrutinizing the layout of virtual networking devices. In order to receive news and information about topics I am less knowledgeable about I unfortunately must entrust others with the credibility to perform this scrutiny on my behalf. The ones I entrust to do this may fail, but that doesn't mean that I'd necessarily do better than them.

Perhaps my original statement doesn't withstand scrutiny when put into certain context but I don't think it's hyperbole in this discussion.

> And it's also not a stretch to suggest that a government that defines separatism and religion as two of it's three defined evils is committing cultural genocide on a large (millions+) section of it's country that doesn't conform to the rest of it's society.

I’ve already addressed the million+ figure and cultural genocide point above. As far as the Three Evils, religion is not one of them. Religious extremism is (for example, Wahhabism and Salafism). Many religions are practiced openly in China today. There are 39,000 mosques in China, many of them paid for by the state. Separatism is considered an evil for obvious reasons. Namely, it undermines the stability of society which can lead to large scale consequences in a country of 1.4 billion that is barely four decades removed from third world status, like China.

> There is only so much time in the day, and today I'll spend most of mine scrutinizing the layout of virtual networking devices. In order to receive news and information about topics I am less knowledgeable about I unfortunately must entrust others with the credibility to perform this scrutiny on my behalf. The ones I entrust to do this may fail, but that doesn't mean that I'd necessarily do better than them.

This is all fine and understandable. But if that is the case, don’t you think it would be better not to perpetuate conjecture masquerading as facts which can’t withstand basic scrutiny?

> But if that is the case, don’t you think it would be better not to perpetuate conjecture masquerading as facts which can’t withstand basic scrutiny

Not any more than claiming that research data is automatically conflicted out just because it receives government funding.

I’ve merely said that there exists a conflict of interest due to funding sources, which is a legitimate concern in any context let alone geopolitics.

I’ve never advocated for automatically dismissing anything wherein a conflict of interest exists, only to regard it with a critical eye and a grain of salt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com