I think it would be good to point out how repackaged a lot of arguments that badempanda used were with relations so first he personally responded to me when i challenged his conception of chinese history with this
He unironically thinks uyghurs have been in Xinjiang for longer than han people so I'm just going to do a simple thing and show you the extent of the historical 'han' empire. china-mike.com/chinese-histor… from as far back as 206 BC
Why i make a big deal about this point is because its critical to discussing such works as the war on uyghurs a book by sean roberts.
Now lets begin with the real fun... So the whole central argument of badempanda is while 'genocide' is not happening *cultural genocide is* which is exactly the same thing sean roberts says... BUT as bad empanada starts the history of xinjiang at 1700s
Bad empanada makes this same point in the video essentially.
Badempanada basically starts chinese history wrt to xinjiang at 1700s/1800s like sean roberts
Essentially badepanda says the exactly same thing as here that the book which delegitimizes han claim to xinjiang.
LIke the book bad empanada down plays the level of autonomy in the XUAR the same way as sean roberts
One thing BE doesn't tackle is the "calls for self-determination" spurred by the collapse of soviet union but he did suggest that china's repression spurred more militancy but focuses mostly on economic factors.
One point is around here he says most Xinjiang uyhgurs live in south Xinjiang which should pose you a few problems, down the line, historically han people have mostly always lived in the north more fertile regions not the desert south see the map of the han dynasty.
However, badempanda presents it as a case of 'settler han moving into Xinjiang when the part of 'settler-colonialism' was the largest issue is the process of taking native land and deplacing them but his claim most uyghurs live in south Xinjiang well contradicts the logic.
Another discrediting point is the way he brushes over the qing empire, Han people... were oppressed under the qing dynasty and actually forbidden from settling in Xinjiang until 1830. So sean-roberts logic of 'settler-colonialism' relating to 1800s
Is just a faulty as badempanda's logic of 'settler-colonialism' in all but directly stating in the 1940s because he doesn't substantiate the history of xinjiang in total but instead brushes over it while sean-roberts attempts to distort the history instead.
Sean roberts and bad-empanda make the same comment on repression begetting violence too.
But BE fails to include the mention of 'three-forces' and the perspective of seperatism tied to religious extremism tied to terrorism which came as a result of the spread of fanaticism and seperatism from the USSR collaspe.
Again though BE does not put in the work of sean-roberts to delegitimize han claim to china, but this account of sean is just as absurd and
THe actual document says sometihng more nuanced, there has never been a united turkic nations and that uyghur developed beyond its 'turkic origins' which is true: fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cetur/eng/x…
One thing BE does throughout the video that is similar to sean roberts is insinuating that what china is doing is comparable to western nations one example is using the notion of 'global war on terror rhetoric' and motive
in fact this central point of violence being a reaction to government repression is literally the header of a chapter in the book
Badempanda brings up boarding schools for children twice but this is literally the same as the mention of the 'xinjiang class' program which he kinda didn't bring up as a tool for assimilating uyghur children.
Sean roberts says pretty much the same thing about the same law BE brought up
BE literally talks in the same tone saying 'residental schools' and implying china is settler-colonial throughout the video.
And sean-roberts also idenitifes how 'culture' of uyghurs is seen as the issue.
Now why am i posting all this? because its to point out how repackage a lot of the tone and rhetoric he is using which fails to properly answer one question... is China settler colonial? BE doesn't say it as explicitly as sean-roberts but essentially tries to justify it.
His question asking me about 'uyghur self-determination' plays into the rhetoric of chinese settler-colonialism and such and that han people say are 'invaders' into the rightful 'homeland' of uyghurs when xinjiang's history is far more complicated
This is categorically a falsehood when Xinjiang has been always on the periphery of china's influence or a part of it and Han culture played a significant part throughout its whole history. Han people have always migrated in and out of Xinjiang.
once we disarm this rhetoric all the time he say about geopolitical campism and such is weakened because he starts from a notion that china's relationship to uyghur is exactly the same as americans or canadians to indigenous people which is false.
A lot of his talking point is dependent on a scaffolding that china is an authoritarian repressive regime and settler-colonial and assimilationist ignoring the plural-national origins of the Chinese nation.
also yeah he blocked me after being so confidently wrong

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with TiredSleepyCommunist

TiredSleepyCommunist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CommunistSleep

8 Apr
I show the han map to point out specifically that BE is ignoring that han people were in xinjiang further back than turkic people to display is ignorance of history... That point went over your head, I also could've shown that parts of xinjiang were under the tibetan empire
I then note that Xinjiang is complicated because its been directly administer by china, or a part of china, or influenced by china and has long had migration, trade and movement of han people inside and out of the region which is something that wasn't wrangled with.
The reason why is because it raises the question that comes before settler-colonialism of... who's land is it? do modern uyghurs have the same claim to xinjiang as turkic people? well then the claim is only to the tarim basin
Read 7 tweets
23 Feb
You know the author has annoyed me so much I might as well come for their article: [PART 1]
So.... you think there are different stratas of sex-workers who benefit and are at different levels of risk to the system and so would have developed entirely different positions on the topic? Speaks for itself
The quote does not support your point. It literally just makes a point that you just repeat here. There are voluntary and involuntarily sex-workers and voluntarily ones are not best positioned to talk for involuntary sex-workers.
Read 36 tweets
23 Feb
Ok no this one im gonna have to post the actual policies to point out how distorting this is... Lets actually engage what policies? I nabbed this off line: hawaii-78988.medium.com/the-nordic-mod…
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!