Thread by @GFPhilosophy

I want to try something a little different this time. Instead of looking at a particular document, I want to look at a particular claim: “cultural genocide”.

This claim is frequently made, but when examined in detail, it is even more baseless than the genocide claim.

"Cultural genocide" is often used as an easier-to-prove alternative to genocide. But, there are many cultural elements which are thankfully gone, e.g. virgin sacrifices to the gods. Therefore, a value judgment is required to prove this claim, which is not required for genocide.

From affirmative action to requirements for mask wearing, people have been asked to change behaviour to fit the times. Given culture is closely tied to behaviour, it can be argued that each change replaces an old culture with a new one. The question is whether this is desirable.

As there is no commonly agreed definition, I propose that to prove cultural genocide, the following 5 steps are needed:
1. Define “culture” in general.
2. Define Uyghur culture and how it's distinguishable from Han culture, such that it can be targeted for elimination.

3. Show that certain elements of Uyghur culture (as defined above) are under threat of elimination.
4. Show that this threat is intentional by the government.
5. Show that it can be objectively considered “bad” or undesirable to lose these elements of Uyghur culture.

1: What is “culture”?

This is a key question for proving “cultural genocide”, because culture itself is difficult to define and can evolve. Some elements of culture are so central to a group of people, that the only way it would be lost is if the people are gone as well.

Indeed, well-known cases of cultural genocide happened simultaneously with collapses in population, e.g. American Indian cultures, South American cultures, Australian Aborigine cultures.

Therefore, it makes the Uyghur situation very unusual, in that cultural genocide is...

...said to be happening at the same time as a population boom, meaning really compelling evidence is needed before such a claim can be accepted.

I will define "culture" as anything manifesting from common habitual behavior of a group. Using this definition, cultural genocide...

...is synonymous with forced behavioural change, and it's obvious that not every instance of forced behavioural change is bad.

2. What is Uyghur culture?
Nowhere near an exhaustive list, but the major distinctive elements are:
- Language
- Religion
- Food
- Music/Dance
- Fashion

As an aside, most China watchers refer to “Han Chinese” as a homogeneous group, but this is far from accurate. Each Han community has it’s own culture; spoken language, foods, customs and other inherited behaviour. They can easily be distinguished as different ethnic groups.

3. Are these elements under threat?

Fashion, Music/Dance, Food - far from being under threat, these cultural elements are promoted so much by Chinese media, that there's antipathy towards "dancing Uyghurs" as a promotional tool. Uyghur restaurants are also in every city in China

Language - this is so protected that all Chinese bank notes have Uyghur language on it. Uyghur schools in XJ also teach in Uyghur, with Mandarin as a second language. China even implemented a typing system for Uyghur language: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_al…

web.archive.org/web/2013120110…

Religion - Islam is officially 1 of the 5 recognized religions of China: gov.cn/test/2005-06/2…
Islam has a long history of existence within China (since 7th Century CE) and there are a large number of mosques in China. Uyghur is also not the only Muslim ethnicity in China...

...with 10 out of 55 minorities being majority Muslim.

China also has freedom of religion regulations:
gov.cn/zhengce/conten…

As icing on the cake, China's Islamic Association website can be in Uyghur: uyghur.chinaislam.net.cn

Therefore, Islam is not under threat in China...

...and no significant element of Uyghur culture is under threat. What exactly is under threat then?

4. Intent of the government:
Government docs show the target is religious extremism. This is not confined to Islam, but Islamic terrorist groups are currently the biggest threat.

5. Is this a “bad” move?
To the extent that extremist groups are also a cancer for mainstream Islam, targeting them is actually helping to preserve the religious core, instead of destroying it.

XJ is now a safer place for both Muslims and non-Muslims, which is objectively good.

One may argue that some Uyghurs want to follow Islamic fundamentalism and they should be allowed to. But, this involves implementation of fundamentalist Shariah law, whereby women are subjugated, non-Muslims and moderate Muslims are labelled infidels and discriminated against.

These are all talking points in the Western media against Taliban rule in Afghanistan, as reasons why the US should have continued the occupation there. But, just across the border in China, there’s active support for groups that want these rules in XJ. It's hilarious hypocrisy.

Islamic fundamentalism kills more moderate Muslims than it does non-Muslims. Therefore, the vast majority in XJ are willing to put up with extra surveillance and checks to ensure safety.

Finally, people claiming "cultural genocide" hasn't put forward a compelling motive for...

...eliminating culture, whilst allowing population growth.

To the extent that behavioural change is really difficult and costly to achieve, there must be a compelling reason to do this besides bigotry.

If it was only bigotry, then actual genocide is much easier to implement.

Therefore, a more logical explanation is an anti-extremism campaign, implemented to preserve the mainstream Uyghur culture and allow the vast majority to live safely, prosperously and contribute to the growth of the region.

"Cultural genocide" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.