Dr. Asatar Bair

nor with official funding and support of the culture, religion, and language of the supposed victims

The total Uyghur population doubled in the last four decades, from 1978 to 2015; the average annual population growth is 1.94%, which is considered extremely rapid, and is close to the peak numbers for population growth globally, seen in the late 1960s.

It is a rather problematic if your evidence for genocide consists of relatively small fluctuations in the minority population that come after large increases: the minority population grew over 17% from 2013 to 2017 and decreased some after that

The main source of accusations concerning the Uyghur population is Adrian Zenz https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Sterilizations-IUDs-and-Mandatory-Birth-Control-FINAL-27June.pdf?x71937 …

Zenz puts a truly sinister spin on all of China’s population control and family planning measures by taking quotes out of context and giving them an interpretation that is not present in the Chinese context.

For example, speaking of Uyghur populations as weakening “national identity and identification with the Chinese Nation-Race”. (p. 7) By using the word “race” in such a way, Zenz would like to imply racism without directly making the accusation

What is meant here is clearly national unity, not a racial purity construct such as that found in US white nationalist groups. He concludes that “population control must be at the heart of the CCP party-state’s social re-engineering project.”

Zenz consistently refers to articles such as the Xinjiang White Paper as “propaganda”. Zenz discusses population trends in an alarmist fashion, using language such as ‘drastic declines’, and ‘draconian birth control measures’; his conclusion: ‘future developments look bleak.’

It makes the reader wonder, what population growth rate would Zenz approve of? Would there be any kind of national family planning or population growth target that he would find satisfactory?

As countries grow wealthier, they inevitably go through a ‘demographic transition’, where population growth rates fall, and may even turn negative. Sometimes this situation is viewed with alarm, but usually only by those with deeply traditional views,

who would like to keep women confined in the household, or those with white supremacist views, who point out that ‘non-white’ populations have a more rapid population growth rate.

What needs to be kept in mind here is that a slowing of the population growth rate is not necessarily some kind of huge problem, and is occurring in the context of continued POPULATION GROWTH, albeit growth that is slower

It also seems to be the case that there is a lot of filtering of firsthand reports -- we never hear anything about positive stories of Uyghur life in Xinjiang.

Imagine how life in the US would look if you took only the stories of those most harmed by US policies, who had experienced poverty, denial of healthcare, unemployment, homelessness. Imagine if the media depicted ONLY such stories

3. The bias problem: what is cited as evidence for the rather outrageous figures that 1 to 3 million Uyghurs are in concentration camps comes from:

Adrian Zenz: noted Christian fundamentalist who works for the US Natl Endowment for Democracy - funded right wing think tank the Victims of Communism Foundation.

Radio Free Asia: again, deep ties here to the US State Dept and intelligence agencies

The World Uyghur Congress: a radical separatist organization seeking to break Xinjiang off from China and turn it into ‘East Turkistan’.

4. The motivation problem: the critics never really explain what on earth China’s interest could be in slaughtering Uyghurs or destroying their culture. China’s interest is clearly in social stability and territorial integrity. Oppressing the Uyghurs runs counter to these goals.

5. The deduction problem: what see in Zenz's estimates of the Uyghurs 'detained' is the use of facts (such as building costs, square footage, food receipts, etc.) to establish a narrative that simply does not follow from the stated facts

For example, to say China has built a series of buildings does not imply that what occurs therein is a concentration camp. To say that China has an explicit policy of suppressing radical separatism does not establish that there is a war on Islam, or that Uyghurs lack freedom

of speech. The old chestnut, “freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire” applies here

6. The rhetoric problem: supporters of the genocide charge use a very inflammatory rhetoric, accusing any who question the very shaky data and methodology of the genocide claim as ‘denialists’ to be attacked into silence. This is not how serious scientific inquiry takes place.

This is how you attempt to ram your weak case through all opposition, no matter how full of holes your narrative is. Those supporting the charge of genocide are not proceeding in the spirit of dispassionate inquiry, but from a prejudiced position

where they feel they already know all the answers. Such a position is dangerous for getting to the truth, but excellent for stirring up support for a new cold war

I have written a few other threads on this topic that may be of interesthttps://twitter.com/asatarbair/status/1365184988396748802 …