Beijing will be sending what they have described as "harmony makers" to the Uighur city of Urumqi to "soothe tensions" following a fresh round of rioting caused by rumors of "syringe stabbings". Doubtlessly, the city's Uighurs were just dying to have a word with government agents telling them to stay calm. This whole "rioting" thing was just a misunderstanding that distracts from the glory of Han rule and the impending dissolution of archaic and decadent Uighur cultural habits, you see.The big question (still) left unexamined by Beijing: whether the state sponsored migration of millions of Han Chinese to traditionally non-Chinese areas, like Xinjiang and Tibet may have something to do with the surliness of the natives towards the central government.
Posts
13 comments:
You may have noticed that white colonization efforts were met, rather predictably, with extreme hostility by the natives they were attempting to displace.
What is equally predictable is the smug, Chinese assumption that the glories of Han imperialism are infinitely more civilized (and therefore, infinitely preferable) the evils of any other form of imperialism by anyone else, be it the Americans, Japanese, French, etc. In fact, as the argument goes, it is so wonderful and incredible, that it's practically vulgar to refer to it as imperialism, colonization, or ethnic chauvinism at all.
So when are they sending you to Urumqi to tell the natives about the glorious privilege of being part of China, Lxy?
Bob, I would agree that modern Chinese civilization is definitely not without benefits for Xinjiang. With that said, it is also no surprise that when offered no choice but to accept it, with a resultant refusal by the Chinese government in Beijing to budge an inch on issues of even modest political autonomy or religious freedoms, unrest was (and is) bound to occur.
What China doesn't get is that the absolutely inflexible government attitude towards the "benefits" of one party, ethnic Han rule has caused problems in Tibet and Xinjiang that cannot be fixed by sending party operatives to Urumqi to say nice things about the state.
The Chinese strategy isn't new - the Soviets likewise heavily "Russified" (ie, state sponsored resettlement of ethnic Russians) the Baltics, Central Asia and the Caucasus regions as a means of blunting demands from the native peoples for political and cultural autonomy from Moscow, but unlike the Chinese, the Soviets blunted the obvious ethnic chauvinism (ie, the "civilizing benefits" of Russian civilization) in favor of promoting an equally preposterous lie that ethnicity was a non-issue in the Soviet Union. That the Chinese government is acting even more heavy handedly than the Soviet Union speaks volumes.
China's strategy has been to adopt a tone straight out of Victorian England - the "civilizing mission" of an obviously superior Chinese race, culture and political system on poor backwards regions that have been denied their glories. It didn't work out for the English in India, and it's not exactly working very well for China. I will leave it as an exercise to Bob and Lxy to see if they can figure out why.
Roger
What's your point? China has a totalitarian political system? That's hardly an earth-shattering revelation. I'll remind you that political and religious freedoms are denied to all the citizenry of China, Han or otherwise.
The Chinese authorities are equally happy to torture and suppress dissenting Han as they are to torture or suppress Uighurs. Surely you're not suggesting that suppression of the Han is okay because it might be carried out by other Han?
I can't help but feel as though your own personal distaste for Chinese people (perhaps simply because they are Chinese people) drives your rhetorical flourishes. Any victim of the Soviet Union's ethnic policies would be absolutely offended by your apparent ignorance of the brutality of Soviet actions in enforcing this policy. It's nice to be able to paint Soviet ethnic policy as a simple process of "Russification" immigration, because that makes your anti-Chinese (yes, not anti-communist totalitarianism mind you) rant more forceful. In case you don't know, Soviet ethnic policy included such "non-heavy-handed" things like deportation of ethnic-minorities to Siberia, suppression of languages, torture of ethnic community leaders, destruction of cultural icons, and finally outright ethnic cleansing. Let's not forget the Stalin-created famine of the thirties that was designed to kill millions of ethnic Ukrainians. Let it be an exercise for you to do more reasearch on the subject before you attempt to speak with self-righteous authority.
Your call for more flexibility from China is naive at best. Ethnic Hawaiians want their country back, do you also propose that the U.S grant that wish? Should the U.S give in to white supremacists that want to take five northwestern states and cede from the union? If you support these ideas, then congratulations for your consistency. For some reason I'm skeptical though.
Finally, what do you actually know about Britain's "civilizing mission" in India? Not much apparently. The genius of England's colonization of India was that they exploited the existing inequalities of the caste system in Indian society. They empowered the higher castes in order to enlist their help in continuing to suppress the lower castes. Of course, they created a new caste at the top consisting of British, and half British, half Indian people, but notions of superiority were not introduced by the British. Furthermore, it was not these inequalities that ended the Raj. Bankruptcy resulting from the depression, and two world wars, and most importantly the promise of independance in exchange for Indian support of the war against Japan, could be advanced as more accurate reasons for the end of British rule.
There is a strong case for, and good reason to advance the cause of freedom in China. You haven't made it though. Unfortunately, you have presented a case that is historically ignorant, not to mention xenophobic. The attempt to disguise this as self-righteous indignation for the ill-treatment of an ethnic minority has succeed only in appearing self-righteous.
Bob
Bob,
I'm starting to wonder if you even read anything I wrote.
My point here is that the Chinese government, fundamentally, has failed to see why there's been systematic unrest in Tibet and Urumqi, and has chalked it up to an attitude that the ungrateful natives are simply ignorant of the benefits of one party Han rule. What the government in Beijing has failed to understand (but would understand if they'd bothered to listen what Tibetans and Uighurs have told Beijing over and over again) is that the dissatisfaction with rule by Beijing is caused by a Sinicization policy intended to make them minorities in their own regions coupled with a total, complete, and often violently expressed refusal to give any ground on issues of political or cultural autonomy. These are issues that cannot be resolved, even a little bit, by China's half baked idea to send in communist party operatives to talk up the glories of Chinese rule.
This is a very easy concept to understand.
"Roger Wiliams":
Where are you from? The USA, Canada, Australia? New Zealand?
Your "humanitarian" concern displays the disingenuous arrogance that Anglos from these glorious democracies usually display.
Too bad it has about as much credibility as, say, Anglo-American lies about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. You should stick to your oh-so-snarky ruminations as to why some Japanese women engage in cosplay.
And if you had bothered to review the links I provided above, you'd see that the unrest in Xinjiang fundamentally undermines your Anglo corporate media "reality" of what is happening there and why.
It is not a coincidence that this recent unrest has occurred with the increased American and Western military "activity" in this region.
Simply put, the Anglo-American War of Terror in Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with Anglo-American destabilization and domination of this region.
This includes American and Western covert support of separatists in China (Xinjiang and Tibet), Iran, and even into Russia.
Escalation of the Afghan War? US-NATO Target Russia, China and Iran
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15144
Apparently, you would prefer not to admit that the self-proclaimed "East Turkestan Goverment in Exile" is based (surprise, surprise) in the USA and is backed by the American regime and its allies.
Indeed, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has intimated the dirty covert operations that America and Turkey are waging in Chinese Xinjiang.
Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam & Madrassas
http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2008/07/court-documents-shed-light-on-cia.html
As stated above, your concern is more promoting about ethnic balkanization in China disguised behind the mask of humanitarianism.
Indeed, this is a quintessential form of Anglo-American imperialism: Divide-and-Conquer.
And I suggest if you're truly concerned about "minority political and cultural autonomy" that you work for the end of White European rule in the USA, Canada, and Australia among other places--as one Reverend has suggested that Whites in Australia do.
Compensate Aborigines or leave, says minister
http://www.smh.com.au/national/compensate-aborigines-or-leave-says-minister-20090810-efoe.html
But that would be striking a little bit close to home, wouldn't it?
You shed crocodile tears for minorities in "enemy" nations like China--even as you sweep under the rug the imperialist nature of your own "democracy."
After all, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are nothing but European colonizer nations, dripping in the blood of millions of non-White people throughout the Global South--past and PRESENT.
Lxy may not know where I'm from, but I've got a strong suspicious I know where he's from.
Give it a rest, Lxy. You're giving off a slightly crazy vibe.
Roger,
Devoid of the historical inaccuracies and inflammatory rhetoric the simplistic nature of your post is more apparent, if only less entertaining. What is not easy to understand is why you believe you are making any sense.
It's not clear why you believe that China should be more willing to impart political and cultural autonomy (whatever that means) to an ethnic minority. What other country in the world gives political autonomy to minorities within its borders? Does the U.S.A? France? Australia? You haven't presented any reasons why China should do these things when these other more enlightened countries won't.
Obviously, the notion of totalitarianism is outside your realm of comprehension. Almost by definition, a totalitarian government is one that doesn't listen to its citizens. If it did, it wouldn't be totalitarian. It seems as though it's not the totalitarianism (or even the possible ethnic conflicts) that bothers you but the fact that it is the Han that are in control of it.
Your post is childish and can be summed up thusly; "..the Chinese are totalitarian and backward...not like us in the west..." I guess the irony is lost on you.
Bob
Yes, Bob, most countries do find a way to impart political and cultural autonomy to minorities when they've reached the realization that killing and them and clubbing them just won't solve the problem any more. Indians in the US, Canada and Mexico have territory and some freedom to make their own laws and measures of self rule, as do some of the Aboriginal nations in Australia. China, however, views any sort of flexibility on the devolution of political power, no matter how slight, as an unacceptable admission that the almighty communist party cannot be all things to people. The attitude has changed considerably when the Communist party wooed support from minorities in China like the Mongols, Miao and Uighurs by dangling self-rule as a carrot ... only to replace it with the stick when any deviation from one party Han rule became viewed as "revisionism" and "nationalism" - an attitude punished with especial severity during the Cultural Revolution.
They say when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and China's only tool for dealing with the "minority question" has been the hammer.
Roger
LOL! Are you serious?
Now I know you're crazy. I think you need to do more research before you write these kinds of posts. It's becoming embarassing.
The fact that you hold the situation of aboriginal peoples in the U.S and Australia as a model of how to treat indigenous peoples speaks volumes of your self-righteous ignorance.
Sadly, you don't know what you are talking about.
Bob
Well, Bob, you've confused concession of limited autonomy with complete political independence, which would be an understandable mistake for someone with a limited education or understanding (or a troll, but I don't really think you're that clever).
So I hereby concede defeat: China's handling of their minority problems is great. In fact, I don't know where these ungrateful Uighurs, Tibetans, et al get the fucking stones to revolt against their Han betters. After some further tear gassing and clubbing, they'll come around - eventually - to recognizing the twin glories of Han and Communist supremacy. What is their pitiful list of demands for any sort of political freedoms compared to reflexive, violent rule by the PRC?
lol @ Roger ! Someone that knows everything about China just because he dated few Asian's and read a book on it.
Roger
I'm disappointed (yet, unsurprised) that you have resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks to hide the weakness of your arguments. I'm certain that the exhibition of your educational level will motivate many to investigate homeschooling options for their kids.
If you don't like people to challenge and question your perspectives then either disable the comments from your blog, or, even better, don't publish poorly thought through, historically inaccurate, and ultimately, ignorant posts. It makes you look silly and is hardly worthy of your Ivy League-esque education.
Your last post is especially ironic. Surely even you can see that the "autonomy" imparted to indigenous people in the U.S and Australia is only possible precisely because they have well and truly been beaten, clubbed, raped and murdered into submission? For you to uphold these as models for how to treat indigenous people is to support the very policies that you assert China is pursuing. You don't get it.
Bob
"Roger Williams":
Nice evasion--replete your usual brand of smugness.
Apparently, you are ashamed to admit what nation you are from. You must be another White male from the glorious "Land of the Free" that is America, or perhaps the Great White North of Canada? (I'm from the USA, BTW).
"Indians in the US, Canada and Mexico have territory and some freedom to make their own laws and measures of self rule, as do some of the Aboriginal nations in Australia."
You honestly believe that Native nations have "measures of self-rule" in the USA, Canada, or Australia? Talk about giving off a slightly crazy vibe.
You confuse formalistic "self-rule" with actual self-rule. Most Native nations living under USA, Canadian, or Australian occupation are impoverished, exploited, and subjected to thinly disguised repression by these glorious democracies.
That's why the Lakota and Hawaiian nations, for example, have significant independence movements.
Freedom! Lakota Sioux Indians Declare Sovereign Nation Status
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1220-02.htm
H A W A I ` I: Independent & Sovereign
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/
Indeed, the entire "American" southwest was originally part of Mexico, stolen and seized by the USA as a result of the US-Mexican War. For some La Raza, this USA-occupied region is better known as Aztlan.
EL PLAN DE AZTLÁN
http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/mecha/archive/plan.html
Since you are a self-styled advocate of minority rights, you should certainly champion movements for Indigenous, Hawaiian, and Chicano independence from Anglo rule.
But, as suggested by other people here, the fact that you uphold the USA, Canada, or Australia as examples of liberal tolerance for non-Whites is laughably hypocritical--particularly as you have a talent for shedding crocodile tears for minorities in China.
lol @ Roger ! Someone that knows everything about China just because he dated few Asian's and read a book on it.
Yes. "Roger Williams" sounds like one of these White Asianophiles who have appointed themselves so-called experts on the Orient.
Post a Comment