Is Treatment by China of the Uyghurs really "Genocide" -- and why discussion is impossible

This started with a heated discussion with my wife. She sympathises with the women who were required to limit number of children, mostly through birth control, along with a very few by surgical sterilazation. I took the position that was posted as a comment in the N.Y. Times, but there was still some tension. This polemic is going further, to illustrate how people tend to treat as reality that which fits there predispositions. China is a communist dictatorship, yet ruling by a type of consensus that is far beyond my knowledge to explicate, perhaps requring years of graduate study and emersion in the culture, including speaking relevent languages. Only such an autocracy that limited their idnigious polulation to the same kind of birth restrictions as now imposed on the Uyghers for several decades could have have moved from the dark ages to the advanced prosperous billion plus populated country that now is poised to be the most influential in the world. One metric is telling, that every child starting in the third grade studies English, while less than two percent of Americans children study their language.

---------------

To The New York Times:

Using the word "Genocide" to describe the action taken by China against the Uighurs is a gross distortion of the meaning of this word.

The word "genecide" was coined in 1944, referring to the arrest, transportation and murder of minorities, mostly Jews by the Nazis. We now know that their death was not "humane," rather they saw their children killed and the their death was slow and agonizing. Opposition to the Chinese effort to transform the Uyghurs makes the assumption that the norms and traditions one is born into is sacrosanct, not to be objectively evaluated, especially if it defined as religion.

China is officially an atheistic government that has managed to increase life expectancy and living standards dramatically over the last century. The process of eliminating the religion of the Uighurs will end their culture, yet they, and their progeny, especially women, will have the opportunity to live and to thrive,

Hundreds of pages of thecomprehensive program is available and worth studying at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

---------------------------

Then,a few day's ago The Washington Post, had a similar article: With allmost unanimous concurrance in comments, until I came across this sole contrary one:

---------

Give me a break. The whole Uyghur suppression story is nothing but a PR job by the World Uyghur Congress that lives on US tax dollars and is headquartered in DC. George Bush found a small group of Uyghur separatists in China's Xinjiang useful and invited their leaders to DC in 1990s. Since then, the group who called themselves the Eastern Turkestan has been the US sniper from time to time to wound the CCP politically. A divided and weaker China is the US' interest. In the court of laws, you need to provide material evidences along with testimonies. In the Uyghur story, it is just he said and she said with building photos that at best serve as circumstantial evidences. Repeating the story a hundred times, it becomes truth. All the suppressed Uyghur story tellers are asylum seekers. Aren't they?

A suggestion to China. Send a half million Uyghurs to the US by boats as refugees, as Cuba did in 1983 to help US politicians avoid paying lip service only.

----------------

---------

One can easily go on the Wikipedia article on this ethinic group which would include it's history with China. (with relevent links it's a medium sized college text book) But few will, as the human propensity to accept the thinking of their political party, religion or social group is more than a tendency, but overwhelming when compared with the exploration required to resarch a complex issue. -----

And thus we are brought back to the political divide in the U.S.A. of our times, one that was reflected by the visceral hatred between those who love Trump and those who hate him. Those who hate him demand that he be further shamed by the use of an impeachment process that was never intended for this purpose. Considering whether it will perpetuate his connection with those who revere him is not even explored. That's how powerful group hatred of an enemy is, with higher education have no deminishing effect.

While the transition from Trump leadership to that of Joe Biden may seem to be historic, in many ways it defies historic precedent. As of this writing (1/27/2021) Democratic legislators of both houses are unanimously are committed to hold an impeachment trial against Donald Trump. The letter and the purpose of this constitutional provision is clear enough that the individual, the head of the Judiciary branch of government, has declined to preside, with no other interpretation than that Chief Justice John Roberts considers this trial without the defined punishment of removal from office a misinterpretation of the Constitution. (Those interested in further explication this text is from the Library of Congress)

COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED