There’s plenty of material that breaks the number of fallacies and lies in his “research” down, but if you prefer a more western source - quoting me
Grayzone isn’t a western source now? Interesting, because they certainly identify as one. (them)
Anyway, this is the same critiques that I’ve seen before. Including claims that what’s happening in Xinjiang isn’t technically “genocide” as long as the population is growing (which does not contradict the UN’s definition of genocide). It’s also openly admitting that the Chinese government started clamping down on Uyghur birth rates while they were loosening birth restrictions on all other ethnicities, which IS textbook genocide. They also admit that the CCP’s enforced limitations on Uyghur births are what caused their birth rates to crater in 2017, at a time when the CCP was openly lamenting an impending demographic crisis. The government clearly wants more babies, they just don’t want them to be of the wrong ethnicity. Again, genocide (them)
Among Zenz’s “major findings” was the claim that “80 percent of all net added IUD placements in China… were performed in Xinjiang, despite the fact that the region only makes up 1.8 percent of the nation’s population.”
According to the 2019 China Health Statistics Yearbook published by the National Health Commission–the original source of Zenz’s claim–the number of new IUD insertion procedures in Xinjiang in 2018 accounted for only 8.7 percent of China’s total. So Zenz’s “major finding” appeared to be off by a factor of 10, a staggering error that substantially undermined the explosive quality of his argument.
Amazingly, this is the same error that I’ve seen every other tankie parrot. It relies on comparing two different statistics, “new IUD insertions” and “net IUD insertions”. Zenz was pretty clear in his paper that “net IUD insertions” are defined as the number of new IUDs inserted, minus the number removed that year. And he saw a huge red flag that unlike every other province, very few of the IUDs in Xinjiang were being removed. (him)
The point about Grayzone is a silly one, especially considering it wasn’t the only source I mentioned. I have work in like 30 minutes, so I don’t want to hastily push out some arguement centered around sophistry.
I won’t have till tomorrow to finalize a response, but I figured I might ask for a bit of help from people more familiar with the work. I think i vaguely remember reading something tangential to the claim of “They also admit that the CCP’s enforced limitations on Uyghur births are what caused their birth rates to crater in 2017, at a time when the CCP was openly lamenting an impending demographic crisis. The government clearly wants more babies, they just don’t want them to be of the wrong ethnicity. Again, genocide”.
IIRC, the Uyghur populace were given more wiggle room for more birth rates than other ethnic groups in china when taking their size into account.
I know it seems like a waste of time, but we cannot stop explaining. Thank you in advance.
It’s just like that time when CCP genocided the Han people with their pesky one child policy.
current link I’m looking to prime my response with
