Hacker News Reader

> Various people have pointed out that they do not believe the forced labor stories, because over 70% of cotton in Xinjiang is picked by machines. Whether you believe this statistic is up to you — I'm simply saying that this statistic has been mentioned.

The point of forced labour in these situations is not the efficient picking of cotton but as a form of punishment.

> western narrative of forced labor cotton

Are we calling everything we disagree with a "narrative" now?

We don't have all the facts on Xinjiang because journalism is prevented there - which in and of itself should make us suspicious.

> Are we calling everything we disagree with

My comment is not a statement on whether I agree or disagree.

"Narrative" is a neutral word. Something can be a narrative even if it's true and I agree with it.

> "Narrative" is a neutral word

Not necessarily: a representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values

Narratives can be correct or incorrect (and this one is mostly correct insofar as it makes specific claims about the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.) Calling a set of claims a narrative for the purpose of pointing out some people don’t agree doesn’t entail that those claims are wrong.

> The point of forced labour in these situations is not the efficient picking of cotton but as a form of punishment.

Punishment isn't the right word. The goal is to obliterate Uyghur village life and shift them to a legible lifestyle that is integrated into the Chinese mass market. Having them e.g. pick cotton, aside from being a convenient way to pay off well-connected supporters, makes the Uyghurs dependent on a regime-friendly company and also gives them more income to buy the same goods and consume the same media as the rest of China.

ETA: I'm confused as to whether this comment pissed off a bunch of wumao or pissed off a bunch of Americans who somehow managed to misread it as praising China. An explanation of a bad behavior isn't a justification for it, but something that can help provide insight into why it's happening and possible pressure points to stop it.

Forced labour situations do not usually result in increased income. Sometimes, not any income at all.

That's not this situation, though. The original report on coercion in the Xinjiang cotton industry doesn't even make the claim that they're enslaved, uncompensated, or forced, although after passing through a dozen media articles it's warped into that. Most people here are seemingly unaware that this is an entirely different set of allegations than the reeducation camps.

Implicit coercion has been used to shift Uyghur people into the market economy. The visible income of poor Uyghurs is in fact the metric that local officials are being evaluated on for performance.

From the article: "While H&M's physical stores in China remain, it is no longer possible to hail a taxi to the shops using an app"

That doesn't seem like it's solely the choice of consumers/various celebrities.

Taxi app companies aren't government-owned.

Why would privately-held Taxi App companies unanimously take these brands off the maps? It's not like people are going to feel bad if they see H&M on the map, and lash out against a Taxi app.

You probably know how patriotic Americans are, right? Well: Chinese are the same! Chinese nationalism is a thing. Although I'm not sure whether you believe that.

In fact, nationalism is a thing in many Asian countries. In South Korea, there was recently a backlash against a K-drama for depicting that certain cultural elements may have originated from China. I don't know anything about the historical facts surrounding that case, but this is an example of how strong nationalism can be in east-Asian countries, including China.

Yes, and in both cases that makes people easily led into boycotts or panics by propaganda.

There is only one single Data Source for Maps in China. You are not even allowed to Map China and own those Data. So as long as that Data Source no longer shows H&M, every single App including Apple Map wont have H&M on it.

Simply because if they don't, the app will be attacked by the mass.

This isn't the first boycott in China. There have been lots and lots of boycotts in China. In all of those instances, people don't lash out to those who stay quiet.

Given this track record, why do you believe that this time is any different?

There is no such thing as a Chinese company not owned by the government of China.

But they are government controlled.

You're only mentioning facts, but not all of the facts.

The way you emphasised your comment as merely mentioning facts is making it obvious that you are selectively picking facts in favour of some narrative.

Care to mention how coordinated the "support XinJiang cotton" statements are? Like all the "support Hong Kong Police" posts before? I can also say I'm only commenting on the facts surrounding the situation.

It's interesting you mentioned Dilraba. If China can threaten Uighurs overseas, I wonder how one inside the country can wilfully oppose any propaganda.

I apologize if it came over as claiming that those are all facts. It is not meant as an exhaustive list of facts. In fact, I declare that I am not able to list all facts exhaustively.

I mentioned the facts that I know of, and that I think add something to the discussion (i.e. not things that people haven't already heard a million times).

Since you believe I missed mentioning important facts, I implore you to elaborate them. This is not meant as sarcasm, I'm truly curious about what you can add.

For example, you say that the statements are coordinated. Can you show examples and data?

Do they have any other option other than "support" Xinjiang cotton? The only other option Dilraba possibly would've had is "re-education."

Yes they have. They can choose to stay quiet and not say anything.

Such boycotts and backlashes are short-lived. If you look at past boycotts — against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist commercial, or against the Japanese prime minister visiting war crime shrines — then you also see that after a while people forget about the boycott and continue to buy things. None of those were government-instigated either: in fact the government actively called on people to calm down. There was for example a restaurant in Shenyang which put on an anti-Japanese banner, and the police told him to take it down because it's too insulting to Japan.

So yes celebrities absolutely have a choice to wait until the fuss is over.

> But it should be noted that this backlash and boycotting of western clothing brands is done by Chinese people, not by the Chinese government.

No it's the government.

So China will allow loads of Western journalists to investigate without hinderance? Excellent!

Access has been heavily restricted so far, so I’m eager to see the results of China’s new-found forthrightness on the issue.

If it’s as China says: show us.

If I was a responsible decision maker in China, wether or not I had something to hide, I would not allow Western journalists free access. The Western press is largely, though not entirely, a mouthpiece of the Western intelligence agencies. Why would anyone allow the presstitutes in ?

China also doesn't allow loads of Western journalists to investigate pretty much anywhere in China, so that can't really be taken as particular evidence that a "genocide" is happening in Xinjiang. Send a journalist to a random factory in Shenzhen and have them start questioning workers about how much they like the CCP and you'll get a similar response.

I don't see the fact about the Uyghur celebrity you singled out as interesting, for the simple fact that she's in China. As is painfully well known outside of China, they have a way of making businessmen disappear: https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/14/investing/china-missing-exe...

So I really don't see how any of your points make sense, about companies being private and all. The truth is there's no democracy in China.

Anything that comes out of there must be taken with a truckload of salt. Kind of like the ridiculous Covid numbers, that put the total number of cases in China lower than countries with a population 500x smaller than theirs.

Seems like this site has taken a turn for the worse. I expect downvotes without discourse on Reddit, it being a social media and all, but I thought the people here were above it. Oh well...

For what its worth: people on both sides get downvoted without discussion. You're not alone.

Yeah, I'm fairly aware. And it is a bit painful to see, because in the end I prefer some good discourse vs "winning" or "losing" an argument.

> Many do not agree with the western narrative of forced labor cotton.

Which implies that they haven't read their country's criminal law (which requires all able-bodied prisoners to work) or didn't think through it's implications (of course there's forced labor cotton, the same way there's forced labor rice, forced labor coal and forced labor textiles.) Mechanization doesn't negate that, since being forced to operate the cotton-picking machines or a sewing machine is still forced labor.

But part of the blame lies with the "Western narrative" not trying very hard to be believable. E.g. using "Xinjiang" as a shorthand for "Uyghur forced labor" when 1) there are other ethnic groups in Xinjiang 2) forced labor affects at most a few percent of the population (to be clear, that's still hundreds of thousands of people) and 3) it's not limited to Xinjiang, but applies to all of China (as I said, prisoners are required by law to work.)

In the West, Western reporting on China operates in easy mode: hardly anyone has the background knowledge to notice imprecise or even incorrect reporting. But Chinese people are going to notice a disconnect with their daily lived experience. That disconnect can be explained, but I've yet to see a Western journalist do a good job explaining it, or even realize that there's something to explain.

I would've only said that I laught at your naivete, but the gravity of the matter doesn't allow.

100 of random celebrities make nearly word for word identical posts within hours of each other?

Your naivete was exploited.

This is a very typical operation by the propaganda ministry.

P.S. I assume you are Chinese, and I cannot believe somebody with that level of intellectual achievement to make it to the West can't see a banal lie, when it is a joke material for local taxi drivers.

We've had to warn you before about violating the site guidelines. You've reverted to doing it extremely badly. If that continues we're going to have to ban you again. You ought to know better by now.

Ideological attacks, nationalistic attacks, personal attacks, and ethnic attacks are not what this site is for. We ban such accounts. No more of this please.

> P.S. I assume you are Chinese, and I cannot believe somebody with that level of intellectual achievement to make it to the West can't see a banal lie, when it is a joke material for local taxi drivers.

That personal attack is totally unnecessary.

Are they word for word identical? Can you show me? This is not meant to criticize your comment, I am truly curious about your sources.

You say it's propaganda. From everything I've seen, Chinese propaganda is much more crude and much more official than that. They don't force other people — like celebrities — what to say, they broadcast via state TV channels and they put up huge banners. They have censorship, which means forbidding certain things, but I've never seen them coercing celebrities to say things they don't agree with. In general people can choose to stay quiet and not get involved. Do you have evidence that shows that the celebrity statements are coerced? Again: this is not criticism, I am truly curious about your sources.

From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?

Agree that there is no need for CCP to coerce celebrities. But, help me understand, why should we give a rat's ass about what those celebrities say in favor of CCP policies, given that their only options are (1) Keep quiet (2) Endorse.

I don't comment on whether you should care. I am merely stating some facts. It's up to you to decide what to do with it.

Well, my point isn't really about whether I care or not. Any rational actor wouldn't give any weightage to celebrities supporting an authoritarian regime, simply because they don't have any other options. (The "option" to keep quiet can be taken away any time. Although I agree that this particular instance wouldn't warrant such measures.)

I find it interesting that you say that at any time they could be forced to say something. Can you show me some sources that indicate that this practice exists after the end of the Cultural Revolution? I am not criticizing you, I truly want to know because this is not something I am aware of.

Can you comment on past track record? In any of the previous boycotts (for example against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist video, or against Japan honoring war criminals), have you seen evidence of peopke coerced by the government to say something, or people being prosecuted for staying quiet?

Again, my point is that, if an authoritarian government has the power to silence a person, then they certainly have the power to make a person say what it wants them to say. (Not directly related, but "confessions" are fairly common in these regimes. Gui Minhai - for example.)

Past track record? I think the events you've mentioned are organic protests, but that is beside the point.

Not to pile on, objectively they are not facts but partial observations with concrete conclusions

I'm not the person you're replying to, and I don't have the evidence you're asking for.

However, China isn't stupid. Rather, they've often shown to be rather cunning, and it's impossible to know all the times they may use their weight and nobody notices.

I'd liken it to cold war era techniques from the US and Russia. Both sides would often do things wrong on purpose just to muddy the waters or throw red herrings. People at the time thought that the US was clumsy and stupid when a top-secret document was "accidentally" leaked, but it was done on purpose to track spies, waste Russia's resources, etc. I do not put it past China to have multiple prongs here, with the clumsy antics simply a smokescreen for the real propaganda. Obviously, this cannot be proven, but like I said, there are lots of lessons in history of this being the case with other states. They have lots of textbook examples to follow.

You say they've shown to be rather cunning. In what way? I've followed this topic for a long time, and from what I can see China is absolutely and horribly incompetent when it comes to media and propaganda. I know people who would be called "pro-China" in western circles, and even all of them think that the Chinese do a very bad job at propaganda and marketing themselves.

So I'm curious: what makes you believe that China is cunning? Is there anything you can show me?

Case in point: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1375898703970582536?s=19

A propaganda rap song? Really?? This is typical Chinese propaganda. How is this "cunning"?

They were retweeting the same post with the same slogan, essentially a hashtag, so being word for word identical neither supports nor denies the gp argument. It's like a bunch of people retweeting the same tweet with the exact same words "Black lives matter!"

In other news, apparently one of the most popular streamers in China sold CNY 23.52 million worth of Xinjiang cotton products within an hour yesterday (with 12M views). https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20210327-11345...

I haven't seen those posts. Can you link them? Again: not doubting you or criticizing you, I just want to read them myself.

Found it: https://weibo.com/2803301701/K7IpgaGqx?type=repost Slight correction to my original post: "essentially a hashtag" => "actually a hashtag". Most of the top retweets are just the hashtag or hashtag + emoji. Dilraba Dilmurat, a Uyghur actress, posted something more substantial.

This isn't about nationalism. Propoganda can also consist of censoring alternstive opinions. Chinese govenrment dont have to coerce celebrities to say something because it's totally sufficient for their regime is coerce everyone who not agree to keep their mouse shut.

Yeah you can tell something like "opinion majority of society align with government anyway", but if it was the case they wouldn't need censorship in first place.

I see your point. From what I understand though, your point contradicts a western study on Chinese censorship. This study was even featured in HN some time ago. The study states that censorship's goal is to limit controversy and to limit the ability of people to rally together, independent of whether the topic at hand is pro-government or anti-government. The censorship censored pro-government messages as well as anti-government messages: the only thing that mattered was whether it had the potential for lots of people to gather for activism.

This is not a criticism of your comment. I am truly curious about what you think of that study, and how that fits in this situation.

> From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?

I very much do. I've seen a few nationalist, but nationalism as such in China is not real.

The prime majority of people in China are completely apolitical, because they are afraid to get involved. Mainland Chinese are probably the most apolitical nation out there.

And of the few nationalists I've seen, none would come up in the open, and shout "I LOVE CHINAAAA," not even the dumbest ones. And none of those were normal people. One was a tech millionaire, another probably was already an insider to the system, and there were few idle socialite-intellectuals supported by rich parents who moved to the West.

The highly visible nationalism you see in China which pops out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace a day after is of a theatrical kind.

Okay, I see your point.

Although, are political participation and nationalism the same thing, or even strongly related? Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?

> Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?

In the context of China, no. Maybe in other countries, where the ruling party have not spent the last 100 years making an ideological singularity of itself, the state, the nation, and the country.

> This is a very typical operation by the propaganda ministry.

Needs proof