Thread by @GFPhilosophy

Here, I want to examine an article by Byler that is repeatedly used to push a Uyghur forced marriages narrative: supchina.com/2019/08/07/uyg…

It is at least cited by Amnesty Jun 2021, New Lines Inst Mar 2021, HRW Apr 2021 & Campaign for Uyghurs Oct 2020 (respective screenshots below)

Before we even start looking at the article, let's have a think about the narrative. It goes: "Han Supremacist China is trying to dilute the culture and bloodline of the Uyghurs, by forcing Uyghurs (mostly women) to marry Hans." Consider the logical fallacies of this narrative:

1. Why would Han Supremacists send their children to marry members of a perceived inferior race?
2. How do you force people to stay married without the support of the people involved, when there are divorce laws?
3. People don't forget their culture when they marry members...

...of another culture, so why bother implementing this policy?
4. You can't ensure that the children of a Han-Uyghur family will follow Han culture exclusively, so again, why use this method?
5. Genetic inheritance means that this won't eliminate the Uyghur bloodline.

So, we can see that this narrative makes no sense in the context of a Uyghur genocide, because it will not be able to achieve the goal of eliminating Uyghurs, making the narrative completely ridiculous before we even consider the "evidence".

Now let's get into the Byler article.

In the first blurb of the article (right beneath the title), it states that there's a notable increase in articles "promoting [inter-ethnic] marriage". Note the immediate shift in goal posts from "forced marriage" to "promote marriage".

It's a good indication that the forced marriages narrative is trash and there's no evidence to support it.

Note also that the blurb says Uyghurs (women in particular) are considered potential fashion models, which is unlikely if there's a large Han Supremacist movement in China

Moving on.

In the second paragraph of the body, it states that past generations of Uyghurs had marriages arranged for them, i.e. the most traditional and common type of "forced marriage". Remember this for later, as it will possibly help to explain later sections.

Next paragraph is about an experience with a police officer. The lad probably got stopped in the first place because he tried to hide his face...and then he was let go and let out of the country. Byler tried hard to make this encounter sound evil, but he fails miserably.

Next is a video section, where the message of the video is presented in a completely dishonest way. "Safe" is not used in the video and it quotes 1 Uyghur woman saying they were willing to have relationships with suitable Han men, which was mistranslated into the underlined part.

This is not the only instance of such dishonesty in this article.

Next comes a long paragraph that needs to be broken down to sections, so we can digest it for the pile of poo that it is.

First section points to a historically low inter-ethnic marriage rate between Uyghurs...

...and Hans. This indicates to me that the government is right to try to break down historically embedded and irrational barriers.

The word "articles" is linked to this: archive.fo/oiX4v

Byler intended to use this as evidence of abnormal recent marriages between Han...

...and Uyghurs.

But instead, it actually shows many ethnicities happily marrying each other, and one Han-Uyghur couple who recently got their marriage certificate after being in a 34 year long relationship.

This is another piece of dishonest writing by Byler.

The next section talks about this "marriage guide", which is really a dating guide, written by a person on the internet: archive.is/UKSQf#selectio…

Byler seems to suggest that this person is writing on behalf of the government, but the guide clearly states it is his own opinions.

There are countless numbers of dating guides for all sorts of occasions out there, and this is just another one that happens to be about how to date Uyghur women. It is based on a personal opinion and is not guaranteed to work, so I can't see how this is evidence of anything.

Moving on.

Next bit is really dishonest. Byler mentions Uyghur women are part of "Han erotic fantasies", but the 3 words have 3 separate links (not 1 link supporting his statement).

"Han" is linked to this article: cambridge.org/core/journals/…

"erotic" is linked to this article: proquest.com/openview/ae812…

and "fantasies" is linked to this article: eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/pro…

As far as I can tell, none of them support his statement about a long history of Han men having erotic fantasies of Uyghur women.

Next is another long paragraph of spew. Remember earlier I asked you to note historical importance of arranged marriages for Uyghurs? Now, I think that can explain all the points noted by Byler below:
1. Getting parental support is crucial.
2. Inter-ethnic Han-Uyghur marriages...

...are not traditional, therefore they are more likely to face pushback from parents.
3. Therefore, it is important to get support of the local community and government officials, if you want to maximize your chance of success.

Byler didn't (couldn't??) put 2+2 together.

Next paragraph, Byler admits that he has no idea what he's talking about. (BTW, the links referenced in "stories" and "images" are broken.)

His "research" is to ask 3 (yes, THREE) Uyghur women about their experiences.

They must be the 3 most heartbreaking stories you've ever heard, right? RIGHT?!

Byler undercuts this expectation by saying that they are actually not evidence of forced marriages, but shows the as yet intangible impact on their futures.

Basically, nice stories, but useless.

Before going on to the girls' stories, there's another misleading translation of a video. This time, the description in the article is completely fabricated, and doesn't appear at all in the video. The video again just quotes 1 Uyghur woman who says she likes Han men.

Moving on to the first story, Gulmira is quoted saying that she thinks the inter-ethnic marriages must have been happening willingly!...which completely destroys the "forced marriages" narrative.

Well done, Byler! One-third of your testimonies already contradict your story.

Next paragraph reveals that Uyghurs are deeply ashamed to marry Hans. Again, this is evidence to me that there's ingrained backward thinking in traditional Uyghur culture that should be modernized. Why is it shameful for Uyghurs to marry Hans? Why is this celebrated by Byler?

Gulmira then tells of the many dating events that are organized for Uyghurs and Hans. She also mentioned that they knew how to get out of these events, by saying they are sick or had a date with a boyfriend.

This is evidence that there's coercion happening?!!

Doesn't it indicate that women are free to choose their own boyfriends, and if they don't have one, the company will organize dating events for you, so that you have a better chance of finding someone?

My mind boggles at the gymnastics required to interpret this as coercion.

Next is the testimony from Bahar, who promptly describes Uyghur men as cheating bastards that prey on desperation of unmarried Uyghur women.

Gee...I wonder why Han-Uyghur marriage rates are increasing...

(FYI, Byler refers to his own article in the "often note" link.)

Next is Abdulla's testimony, where she mentions she doesn't have the same problems because she has a Hui boyfriend. Once again, this shows that women are free to choose their boyfriends, so the forced marriages narrative is completely false.

This means that out for 3 testimonies included in the article, exactly 0 supported the forced marriages narrative. One wonders why Byler even included them in his article.

Next is another paragraph where Byler forgot the importance of family approval in Uyghur marriages.

As I argued before, getting family support is crucial to successful Uyghur marriages (because they were traditionally arranged by parents (i.e. forced!), so it's no surprise that community approval is crucial to success.

Byler then goes on to quote officials who say things that most Chinese people would agree with. And one of them says that inter-ethnic marriages should be normalized, with rewards and support given to mixed children because they face extra social pressures. (Oh how terrible!)

Next comes another interesting paragraph.

First, Byler links an article that states Uyghur women AND men are in demand models, which contradicts his point that Uyghur men are viewed as potential terrorists in China.
npr.org/sections/paral…

Next, he makes a statement that minority women are exoticized and exploited by sex tourists. However, he does the trick of linking each word to an article that has nothing to do with the claim.

The word "exoticization" is linked to this: speakingofchina.com/wp-content/upl…

The word "sex" is linked to this:
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

And the word "tourists" is linked to this: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

None of the articles support Byler's assertions, as far as I can tell, so his statements are pure fantasy with no evidence in support.

Next paragraph, Byler again spews some of his preconceived ideas, then admits again that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Final paragraph shows the 2 young people at the start of the article still expecting to get married, with a cute little story about their thoughts on Uyghur society, which may have had more impact if Byler hasn't shown himself to be a dishonest writer earlier.

And that's it....

So, in summary:
- The article told 4 stories, none of which showed forced marriage. In fact, they all showed that people were free to choose their partners.
- It dishonestly summarized 2 videos.
- It mischaracterized a dating guide.
- It didn't consider liberalization from...

...traditional Uyghur arranged marriages as a possible explanation of the need to get community buy-in. And
- It tried to sell "promotion of inter-ethnic marriages" as "forced marriages".

All in all, a terrible article, written dishonestly and on a false premise, trying to push an idea that was absurd from the beginning. I hope you're proud, Mr. Byler!

This should not be referenced by any other reports. Any report that does so should be instantly disqualified.