[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/china-has-buil...
There does indeed seem to be signs of oppression of ethnic minorities in China, but to me this is a relatively unrelated anomaly on a statistical basis compared to the general question of where do the fruits of labour in China go: to those doing the work, or to the ruling class.
Most of what I have observed suggests that there is a "rising tide lifts all boats" phenomenon underway, although determining the degree to which the distribution is consistent with what is "fair" is obviously problematic, as with any other country.
As for the Uighur & Tibetan situation, this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life, but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board. But then who knows, anything can happen.
The approach the government is taking there is certainly heavy-handed, but I think we should be careful not to fetishize their poverty as something to be preserved.
Are you sure? It doesn't mean it by semantic definition, so is there another ~authoritative source you're referring to that establishes that meaning?
Rural ethnic minorities in China live a life that consists solely of "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care", or they do not. And then on top of this is the question of why, specifically, is it plausibly because they are ethnic minorities, as in: no non-minority Chinese exist that have a "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care".
Is this not the point of contention?
I do not have this deep of knowledge of on the ground reality in China. Is there a data source of some kind we can turn to to resolve this uncertainty?
It's not because they're minorities in an American sense, the government there actually gives ethnic minorities a lot of extra privileges, they get to have more kids, etc. There's a form of affirmative action where they're "bussed" to other areas, which of course gets reported in the west as yet another form of repression. Not speaking Chinese is going to be an obstacle to getting ahead in general.
I don't have a cite, this is all based on conversations I've had and what I've seen of rural reality in China (haven't been to Tibet, Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia, but I've seen some really crappy lifestyles for rural poor Han Chinese. And they thought things were going great! Much better than in past decades).
Ethnic cleansing with helping of re-education camps and forced labor are just "unfortunate facts of life." Just give them 20-100 years and nobody will remember anyway...
Well, that's certainly a take on how things are going there.
Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite?
It is indeed, I imagine you have your own. My prediction will be correct, or it will be incorrect. As much as people enjoy posting heartfelt support on the internet, I don't see much happening beyond that. Who is going to come to their aid? The US Government? Bill Gates? You?
As for the rest of my prediction: "...but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board."
If this comes to pass, they'll be better off than the First Nations people of Canada, who found out today that the Government of Canada once again has found it "necessary" to delay their plans to provide safe drinking water to the communities we forced them into decades ago:
https://news.knowledia.com/CA/en/articles/covid-19-may-delay...
> Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite?
That seems to be a portion of actual reality, yes. Simultaneously, millions of people are also rising out of poverty at an unprecedented rate, including I would think the ethnic minorities who will gradually have their uniqueness eliminated over time. Whether this is a net benefit to them over time is a matter of opinion, but ultimately unknowable.
This reminds me of this quote:
"the Führer often informed those like Himmler tasked with implementing the Holocaust that extermination should be implemented as “humanely” as possible.... For Hitler, killing “impersonally” was, according to John Toland, synonymous with doing so “without cruelty.”"
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_...
The similarity I'd say is that I'm also emotionally detached from the situation (but intellectually attached - I perceive most people to have the opposite combo, fwiw). Differences I see are that I have no influence in the matter, and I have largely the opposite goals of Hitler.
My favorite relevant quote would probably be this one:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
"Moloch is introduced as the answer to a question – C. S. Lewis’ question in Hierarchy Of Philosophers – what does it? Earth could be fair, and all men glad and wise. Instead we have prisons, smokestacks, asylums. What sphinx of cement and aluminum breaks open their skulls and eats up their imagination?
And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it.
There’s a passage in the Principia Discordia where Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. “Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war.”
The Goddess answers: “What is the matter with that, if it’s what you want to do?”
Malaclypse: “But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!”
Goddess: “Oh. Well, then stop.”
The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent."
-------
I think this is a good estimate of what's going on. If everyone hates the system (maybe not unanimous, but likely pretty close), then instead of constantly fighting with people whose goals (as opposed to implementation preferences) are likely little different than our own, why don't we put down our weapons, come up with a mutually acceptable compromise, and make it happen?
And I think the answer to that question is: because we can't. Not that we don't want to, or "won't", but because we can't.
But it's just an armchair theory, odds are I don't have any better clue than anyone else.
That, is also, Moloch, of course. But if we can’t but fight, at least fight the good fight.
Perhaps I am.
> Over a lifetime, you could have an impact on China, through sanctions or whatever.
The status quo ("democracy", sanctions, "diplomatic talks") is what got us into this position in the first place. It's how the game is played.
> That, is also, Moloch, of course. But if we can’t but fight, at least fight the good fight.
What does the good fight consist of?
The seeming inevitable isn't. Things change.
> this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Sometimes some things change, sometimes they don't. It depends how you look at it. For example: there is change, and then there is rate of change. The latter typically doesn't get a lot of attention.
I wonder how the Uighurs look at it, or the millions of downtrodden and disenfranchised people now and throughout history - differently than IT folks like you and I who have the luxury of waxing philosophical about such things.
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I would say that this is both profoundly true, but also little more than a catchy slogan to reinforce the egos of people who think they are good.