However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let’s just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.
This is a photo of Rikers Island, New York City’s biggest prison. The actual size of a facility interning ten thousand people.
According to Wikipedia, “The average daily inmate population on the island is about 10,000, although it can hold a maximum of 15,000.” Let’s assume this is a Xinjiang detention camp, holding ten to fifteen thousand people. How many of these would it take to hold one million people?
Let’s do some math:
Rikers Size
Rikers Prisoners
One Million Uyghurs Size
413.2 acres (0.645 square miles)
10,000 to 15,000
43 to 64 square miles
In reality, one million people would probably take more space; all the supposed detention camps we see are much less dense than Rikers.
For comparison, San Francisco is 47 square miles. Amsterdam is 64 square miles. You’d literally need detention camps that total the size of San Francisco or Amsterdam to intern one million Uyghurs. It’d be like looking at a map of California. There’s Los Angeles. There’s San Diego. And look, there’s San Francisco Concentration City with its one million Uyghurs.
Practically all the stories we see about China trace back to Adrian Zenz is a far right fundamentalist nutcase and not a reliable source for any sort of information. The fact that he’s the primary source for practically every article in western media demonstrates precisely what I’m talking about when I say that coverage is divorced from reality.
Along with his “mission” against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity.
The fact that this nutcase is being paraded as a credible researcher on the subject is absolutely surreal, and it’s clear that the methodology of his “research” doesn’t pass any kind of muster when examined closely.
It’s also worth noting that there is a political angle around the narrative around Xinjiang. For example, here’s George Bush’s chief of staff openly saying that US wants to destabilize the region, and NED recently admitting to funding Uyghur separatism for the past 16 years on their own official Twitter page. An ex-CIA operative details US operations radicalizing and training terrorists in the region in this book. Here’s an excerpt:
It’s also worth noting that the accusations originate entirely from the west while Muslim majority countries support China, and their leaders have visited Xinjiang many times.
The whole conspiracy theory started with a claim of millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”.
However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let’s just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.
Based on the article you linked from quartz, I think you may be misconstruing the claim of 1 million people in detention. The article seems to suggest that the potential million people have been through the process of work or education camps, not that there are a million people actively held in detention at the same time.
Technically anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it must be weighed as such, and is not conclusive unless supported with verifiable data. But, that’s kinda besides the point.
I was merely pointing out an issue with your methodology, not the overall argument.
These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims. For example, plenty of people from all over the world have been to places like Xinjiang, and there are plenty of local people who speak about this.
These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims.
Yes the 1 million thing is a claim, which is “supported” by anecdotal evidence. Which as you say needs to be weighted against negating evidence, and can be dismissed by contrasting anecdotal evidence.
Again, not trying to attack your overall argument, just pointing out a problem within the framework of your negation. Mostly because you seem like a person who might care about that.
Fair, I’m just noting that the anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence. Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common, that’s using anecdotal evidence. If you had somebody come to you and say there are a lot of car crashes happening, that’s just an unsubstantiated claim. I’m saying that what you refer to as anecdotal evidence doesn’t even live up to that standard.
It’s not a semantic dispute it’s a very important difference. Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not. On the other hand, hearsay is information that’s received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, a rumor. Trying to conflate these two things is disingenuous.
The whole conspiracy theory started with a claim of millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”.
However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let’s just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.
This is a photo of Rikers Island, New York City’s biggest prison. The actual size of a facility interning ten thousand people.
According to Wikipedia, “The average daily inmate population on the island is about 10,000, although it can hold a maximum of 15,000.” Let’s assume this is a Xinjiang detention camp, holding ten to fifteen thousand people. How many of these would it take to hold one million people?
Let’s do some math:
In reality, one million people would probably take more space; all the supposed detention camps we see are much less dense than Rikers.
For comparison, San Francisco is 47 square miles. Amsterdam is 64 square miles. You’d literally need detention camps that total the size of San Francisco or Amsterdam to intern one million Uyghurs. It’d be like looking at a map of California. There’s Los Angeles. There’s San Diego. And look, there’s San Francisco Concentration City with its one million Uyghurs.
Literally visible to the naked eye from space.
CHRD states that it interviewed dozens of ethnic Uyghurs in the course of its study, but their enormous estimate was ultimately based on interviews with exactly eight Uyghur individuals. Based on this absurdly small sample of research subjects in an area whose total population is 20 million, CHRD “extrapolated estimates” that “at least 10% of villagers […] are being detained in re-education detention camps, and 20% are being forced to attend day/evening re-education camps in the villages or townships, totaling 30% in both types of camps.” Furthermore, it doesn’t even make sense from logistics perspective.
Practically all the stories we see about China trace back to Adrian Zenz is a far right fundamentalist nutcase and not a reliable source for any sort of information. The fact that he’s the primary source for practically every article in western media demonstrates precisely what I’m talking about when I say that coverage is divorced from reality.
Zenz is a born-again Christian who lectures at the European School of Culture and Theology. This anodyne-sounding campus is actually the German base of Columbia International University, a US-based evangelical Christian seminary which considers the “Bible to be the ultimate foundation and the final truth in every aspect of our lives,” and whose mission is to “educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ.”
Zenz’s work on China is inspired by this biblical worldview, as he recently explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “I feel very clearly led by God to do this,” he said. “I can put it that way. I’m not afraid to say that. With Xinjiang, things really changed. It became like a mission, or a ministry.”.
Along with his “mission” against China, heavenly guidance has apparently prompted Zenz to denounce homosexuality, gender equality, and the banning of physical punishment against children as threats to Christianity.
Zenz outlined these views in a book he co-authored in 2012, titled Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation. In the tome, Zenz discussed the return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God, and the rise of the Antichrist.
The fact that this nutcase is being paraded as a credible researcher on the subject is absolutely surreal, and it’s clear that the methodology of his “research” doesn’t pass any kind of muster when examined closely.
It’s also worth noting that there is a political angle around the narrative around Xinjiang. For example, here’s George Bush’s chief of staff openly saying that US wants to destabilize the region, and NED recently admitting to funding Uyghur separatism for the past 16 years on their own official Twitter page. An ex-CIA operative details US operations radicalizing and training terrorists in the region in this book. Here’s an excerpt:
US has been stoking terrorism in the region while they’ve been running a propaganda campaign against China in the west. In fact, US even classified Uyghur separatists as a terrorist group at one point https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-was-at-war-uyghur-terrorists-now-claims-etim-doesnt-exist/276916/
Here’s an interview with a son of imam killed in Xinjiang https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-19/Son-of-imam-assassinated-in-Kashgar-s-2014-mosque-attack-speaks-out-RqNiyrcRuo/index.html
Here’s an account from a Pakistani journalist who has been all over Xinjiang (which borders Pakistan) claims that western media reports on “atrocities” are lies. https://dailytimes.com.pk/723317/exposing-the-occidents-baseless-lies-about-xinjiang/
It’s also worth noting that the accusations originate entirely from the west while Muslim majority countries support China, and their leaders have visited Xinjiang many times.
Also notable that whenever western media actually deigns to visit Xinjiang, which is not often, they’re unable to produce support for any of their claims of mass imprisonment and oppression, so they opt for insinuations instead https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-china-health-travel-7a6967f335f97ca868cc618ea84b98b9
There’s a further list of debunking here if you’re interested https://redsails.org/the-xinjiang-atrocity-propaganda-blitz/
The whole thing is very clearly a propaganda blitz that US is cynically using to manipulate impressionable people in the west.
Based on the article you linked from quartz, I think you may be misconstruing the claim of 1 million people in detention. The article seems to suggest that the potential million people have been through the process of work or education camps, not that there are a million people actively held in detention at the same time.
There is no evidence for such claims either though.
Technically anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it must be weighed as such, and is not conclusive unless supported with verifiable data. But, that’s kinda besides the point.
I was merely pointing out an issue with your methodology, not the overall argument.
These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims. For example, plenty of people from all over the world have been to places like Xinjiang, and there are plenty of local people who speak about this.
Yes the 1 million thing is a claim, which is “supported” by anecdotal evidence. Which as you say needs to be weighted against negating evidence, and can be dismissed by contrasting anecdotal evidence.
Again, not trying to attack your overall argument, just pointing out a problem within the framework of your negation. Mostly because you seem like a person who might care about that.
Fair, I’m just noting that the anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence. Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common, that’s using anecdotal evidence. If you had somebody come to you and say there are a lot of car crashes happening, that’s just an unsubstantiated claim. I’m saying that what you refer to as anecdotal evidence doesn’t even live up to that standard.
I would say that’s a semantic dispute.
The incorrect application of logic in this scenario is still making a claim drawn on too little evidence, not an inherent problem with the evidence.
It’s not a semantic dispute it’s a very important difference. Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not. On the other hand, hearsay is information that’s received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, a rumor. Trying to conflate these two things is disingenuous.