Thanks for the additional context.

The only real point of contention I really saw in that thread is about whether the Uyghurs are Turkic or not. Due to the social construction of ethnicity it’s probably something that cannot really be proved one way or the other. All the thread says is that it’s fascists who claim the Uyghurs are Turkic and that the Uyghurs were oppressed in the distant past by Turks at war and that the ethnic group is partially assimilated due to time and generations. Is the claim that Uyghurs are not Turkic really all that important to the question of whether or not there’s a cultural genocide in the first place? From the outside, it seems unnecessary to me to even mention it. If there’s anyone here who’s willing to put this claim in more context I’d appreciate it.

you are out here acting like something being political is a high bar when it really isn’t.

historically speaking, when you consider its domestication by indigenous people in South America, its appropriation by Spanish colonizers, its resistance to looting by marauding armies compared to grain crops, and the freaking Irish potato famine, I think it becomes quite clear that the potato is a politically relevant crop and could reasonably be considered political.