And might those ethnic Russians have been there due to a sustained campaign on the part of the Soviets to depopulate the region of ethnic Ukrainians and replace them with ethnic Russians as part of a plan to increase loyalty of the region to the central Soviet authority?
My guy, Douglas Tottle’s central thesis wasn’t that the genocide didn’t happen, it was that it was unintentional. He uses the exact same arguments holocaust deniers use of muddying facts and saying “well no one explicitly signed a document saying kill all these people so did it really happen?” You can do better. Unrelated but evidence he cites couldn’t have possibly have been obtained by him without working with the Soviets, which speaks to who was in control of the narrative in the book, because the Soviets sure as shit weren’t gonna work with anyone who was going to blame them.
Also cool of you to insist that the EU somehow made Russia do this. And that the existence of some people who might be Nazis totally justifies killing indiscriminately inside another country. Do you think Russia’s treatment of LGBT people would justify someone invading them and killing indiscriminately to “solve” that situation?
Not to mention that the literal Nazis used the exact same justification of “ethnic Germans are being mistreated in the Sudetenland, so we must invade and intervene” as the Russians are doing right now.
I bet you think Xinjiang is just suffering from “abnormally low birth rates” too.
In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups were subject to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas.
My guy, every definition of genocide is predicated on intentionality. Look it up.
You can argue this all you want, but when does something become intentional when you know about it and do not act to stop it? The Soviets at best knew people were dying and did nothing. Is that affirmation of the outcome, and therefore intentionality?
I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist biting the Xinjiang bait, but nice try citing a historical policy that is no longer in effect that has nothing to do with the very present low birth-rate situation.
The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing Salafi terrorist into Xinjiang, and once its efforts failed, it made lemonade out of its lemon by concocting and promoting a genocide narrative.
The only countries pushing this narrative are the “always the same map” imperial core countries, which just so happen to be largely the same ones supporting Israel’s genocide.
Almost no predominantly-Muslim country buys the Uyghur genocide narrative, because they know it’s bullshit, because they talked to the Uyghurs themselves. https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330
#HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
In accordance with China’s affirmative action policies towards ethnic minorities, all non-Han ethnic groups were subject to different laws and were usually allowed to have two children in urban areas, and three or four in rural areas.
(e) Show me the forcible transfer of children from one group to another group
violent incidents in East Turkestan
I wonder where those Salafi terrorists came from? Oh right: the US, UK, and Israel organized, funded, and trained them, as they did Al Qaeda and the various flavors of ISIS/ISIL, including the “moderate rebels” that just took over Syria. The blueprint of regime change operationsHow regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent.
No, that narrative came from fascist Banderite propaganda. Relatedly, Nazis created the Ukrainian genocide myth in the 1930s, and Banderites coined the term “Holomodor” in the 1980s to evoke associations with the Holocaust.
It ought to be very easy to stop believing something that isn’t true, but sadly it’s not so easy.
My guy, Douglas Tottle’s central thesis wasn’t that the genocide didn’t happen, it was that it was unintentional. He uses the exact same arguments holocaust deniers use of muddying facts and saying “well no one explicitly signed a document saying kill all these people so did it really happen?” You can do better. Unrelated but evidence he cites couldn’t have possibly have been obtained by him without working with the Soviets, which speaks to who was in control of the narrative in the book, because the Soviets sure as shit weren’t gonna work with anyone who was going to blame them.
Also cool of you to insist that the EU somehow made Russia do this. And that the existence of some people who might be Nazis totally justifies killing indiscriminately inside another country. Do you think Russia’s treatment of LGBT people would justify someone invading them and killing indiscriminately to “solve” that situation?
Not to mention that the literal Nazis used the exact same justification of “ethnic Germans are being mistreated in the Sudetenland, so we must invade and intervene” as the Russians are doing right now.
I bet you think Xinjiang is just suffering from “abnormally low birth rates” too.
My guy, every definition of genocide is predicated on intentionality. Look it up.
Cool straw man.
Quite the opposite happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China#Affirmative_action_policies
You can argue this all you want, but when does something become intentional when you know about it and do not act to stop it? The Soviets at best knew people were dying and did nothing. Is that affirmation of the outcome, and therefore intentionality?
I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist biting the Xinjiang bait, but nice try citing a historical policy that is no longer in effect that has nothing to do with the very present low birth-rate situation.
It was still in effect when the bogus allegations were first raised.
Also, previously:
and previously: