It’s just hard, because I know the people I’m referring to are generally good, empathetic people who care about social justice. They just have unfortunately had their consent manufactured in favor of these pro-imperial/US talking points. They genuinely think there’s a humanitarian crisis and that China is killing a minority. They simply just don’t realize everywhere they’re being informed by is steeping in anti-communist, right wing sources vying to create propaganda.
It’s honestly so much easier dealing with a shitty reactionary than a liberal who simply doesn’t recognize their own biases. And you trying to reveal said propaganda to them comes off as you being a heartless freak trying to justify some terrible act, no matter how legitimate your proof against said narrative is.
Like, what if I am wrong? Idk, sometimes it just feels like I must be, because I’m so outside the narrative. For instance, people trying to justify Israel’s treatment of Palestine is complete BS to me, so isn’t that how my defense of China sounds to said liberal? I just get worried sometimes that I’m the one brainwashed and on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to be the bad guy, I’m just trying to do what I beleive to be right. But isn’t that how every shitty side in history feels?
A glimmer of hope on the topic is how the “Iraq has WMDs” propaganda completely disintegrated. Of course there are counterexamples (people still believe all sorts of wild shit about the USSR), of course we aren’t going to occupy western China and have a highly-publicized search for evidence, but it is possible for a manufactured narrative to come undone, and to come undone in a way that the lie becomes common knowledge.
Say 10-15 years from now there are undeniably still Uyghurs in China, and their population has even grown. That would take a lot of wind out of the story’s sails.
Met my new lab partner yesterday, we were discussing our upcoming trip to do fieldwork in China and he said he’s been before and didn’t like it because “the communism thing was just all made so apparent” and that he “felt constantly watched”. He’s a 6 foot 3 white dude. OF COURSE PEOPLE LOOKED AT HIM. Nice guy other than that, so I’m hopeful.
White guy experiences a tiny insignificant dose of what minorities experience in America for a fraction of the time and it literally shook him to his core lmao. Maybe he’ll be more empathetic from now on.
My university is holding an entire seminar about the “Chinese concentration camps”. It felt like the narrative never really caught on up here, but unfortunately it seems the narrative was just delayed
My university has like a group dedicated to liberating NK or some shit? I guess if you’re tryna get an in with the CIA, it’s a good place to start
I don’t know how old most people are, and dont wana go all “Back in my day.” But back when I was in HS in the early oughts I remember articles being published about how China was ethnically cleansing Tibet then. The dastardly Chinese COMMUNISTS were either literally genociding Tibetans, flooding Tibet with Han Chinese to displace Tibetans or, eliminating Tibetan culture, or some combination thereof. These articles were worded EXACTLY like they are now writing about Xinjiang, and strangely now Tibet is still like 95% Tibetan, there are more Tibetan people today than 20 years ago, and Tibetan culture is propagated in public schools there. So is a genocide happening to the Uyghurs? Maybe? I am not an expert or anything but I have learned to be super distrustful of any narrative that paints US ‘Enemies™’ as bad.
EDIT: I also remember when I first saw articles published discussing a “Havana Syndrome” like condition back in 2010. The articles were basically the same as now, only no one seemed to bite then so they went away; they were patently stupid bullshit back then too. I guess they figured the political environment has changed so they dusted off those old articles and updated the new dates and names.
I remember in college in around 2014 being told by my geography professor something along the lines of “The one child policy doesn’t apply specifically to han chinese who move to tibet because they’re trying to replace their culture” or something like that. I imagine this is based on something true that was misinterpreted either intentionally or unintentionally rather than being a complete fabrication, which I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised by either. Does anyone happen to have any idea what he was talking about?
I don’t remember the specifics, but the one-child policy was never one-child for every couple in the country. You got a bonus kid allowance for falling into certain groups, up to three (maybe four?) children.
You got a bonus kid if you lived in a rural area, you got a bonus kid if you were an ethnic minority, at certain times you could get a bonus kid if your first child was a girl. Apparently over half of Chinese were allowed two kids during most of the one-child policy.
So it’s very possible that Han Chinese in Tibet were allowed two children, and Tibetans were allowed three.
