At least, you should get the person’s name right.

March 9, 2008 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

I can’t say yet whether there was any actual terror threat here or not, but I’m afraid we’re going to see more and more stories like this.

911 was really a godsend for the anti-Uigher campaign. Following Bush’s lead, the government can do just about anything by invoking the T-word.

March 9, 2008 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Hmm.. This signals up coming mass arrests of Uyghurs in China. Time for them to go to Afghanistan to escape all the violence, get some R and R, and some needed training.

March 9, 2008 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

Bill, your point being…? That all the Uighers are Al Qaeda-linked because they are Muslim?

March 10, 2008 @ 12:08 am | Comment

Yeah….sorry for the typos. This was a draft entry and I have no idea how it got published early before I had a chance to proofread.

I’ll go through and make the necessary changes this morning.

March 10, 2008 @ 6:53 am | Comment

Of course, this is the mindset of many people here, like Richard and Nanheyangrouchuan. There are 10 famous “whatevers” regarding events in America and China:

Anything America does is called “Democratic”

Anything China does is called “Dictatorial”

If American citizens support American gov’t, it’s called Will of the People

If Chinese citizens support Chinese gov’t, it’s called Brainwashed.

If American citizens oppose their gov’t, it’s called “Look how democratic USA is, all citizens can oppose the gov’t!”

If Chinese citizens oppose their gov’t, it’s called “Look how evil the China is, evil its own citizens are opposed to the gov’t!”

If America develops its economic, its called defending world peace.

If China develops its military, its called threat to the world.

If America has economic problems, its called an economic slow-down.

If China has economic problems, it’s called the coming collapse.

If America opposes a neighboring country, it’s called defending American interests.

If China opposes a foreign country, it’s called being hostile to its neighbors.

If America searches a foreign ship/plane, it’s called inspection.

If China searches a foreign ship/plan, it’s called intrustion.

If America fights terrorists, it’s called War on Terrorism.

If China fights terrorists, it’s called suppressing locals.

If Bin Laden attacks America, it’s called a terrorist act.

If Urghers attack China, it’s called a voice of the oppressed!

March 10, 2008 @ 8:51 am | Comment

@HongXing
You aren’t the guy that called Steven Spielburg a ‘dirty little kike’ are you?

March 10, 2008 @ 9:09 am | Comment

@Lime

Yes, it’s him. No point responding to his diatribes.

March 10, 2008 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Do people still wear Ray-bans? I haven’t seen them since, like, the 80s in Ocean City.

March 10, 2008 @ 10:20 am | Comment

Secessionism always has a “noble appeal” to the liberals, despite the shitty logic that backs it and the racist brutality that always ensures. That’s why most political theorists are scornful of it secessionism in general.

A friend of mine once mentioned that he believes Western liberals to be the most dangerous proponents of imperialism.

I didn’t think much about it back then, but now things are getting clearer and he was clearly right.

The “eye-opener” for me was Kosovo. Despite the repeated efforts of the Kosovo Liberation Army (previously considered a “terrorist organization”) to ethnically cleanse Serbians in Kosovo, Western liberals remain supporters of Kosovo’s so-called “independence” (read “NATO occupation”), because of their willingness to be subjugated by Western imperialism. But at the same time, it opposes the separation of Northern Kosovo, even though they are clearly an oppressed nation at the hands of the separatists.

In conclusion, liberals only support the “national struggle” of those who are willing to be enslaved by Western imperialism.

The same “rationale” (or the lack thereof) applies to the Xinjiang affair. Because the Eastern Turkistan Independence Movement showed willingness to co-operate with the West in undermining the “new Soviet Union”, the West is quite willing to ignore irrelevant matters such as the fact that the militarist wing of the Eastern Turkistan Independence Movement is classified as a terrorist organization. This reminds me of how US employed the Al-Qaeda against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The only mystery to me is how come people aren’t seeing through this bullshit?

The news reports on Xingjiang are incredibly biased against China, constantly citing unnamed “New-York based rights groups” (who actually happened to be part of separatist organizations) in their one-after-another baseless accusations against China.

One gets the strong impression that the Western liberals are trying to whip-up fear and anger against their perceived enemies. This has served the interest of imperialism well in the past, and the seemingly “innocent” liberals have served their empire well.

March 10, 2008 @ 11:06 am | Comment

@Subutai and others

I’m not sure how to respond to your post.

Anyway, given the fact the Bush administration and the Beijing government have cooperating in the “war on terror” since 9/11 and consequently faced criticisms from human rights groups, I find it baffling that someone would argue that there is a double-standard at work here.

This is a blog about China, so of course this blog comes down harder on China than outher countries because of its geographical focus, but criticism of China cannot and should not been interpreted as endorsing current US or UK foreign policy.

If you want to argue the merits of US foreign policy, go and check some of the blogs mentioned on the blogroll at the left.

March 10, 2008 @ 11:17 am | Comment

“Anyway, given the fact the Bush administration and the Beijing government have cooperating in the “war on terror” since 9/11 and consequently faced criticisms from human rights groups, I find it baffling that someone would argue that there is a double-standard at work here.”

The difference here, I guess, would be that the US went tens of thousands of miles away to invade a semi-sovereign country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.

China didn’t. There is no comparison between the US’s invasion of Iraq and China’s domestic policy in Xingjiang.

March 10, 2008 @ 11:40 am | Comment

Look through this site and see how often I condemn America’s stupidity and hegemonistic tendencies. Look at all I have to say about Bush and the “war on terror.” No one’s more outspoken than I am. I despise our pseudo-war, which has been a failure in every way and an embarrassment to America.

As usual, everything goes back to the “US is worse” argument. And either way I go, from defending (or at least trying to understand) the CCP to damning them, I am a bad guy either way, either a panda lover or a running dog.

The above story may be true and there may have been a terrorist plot against the Olympics. And China may have been entitled to take action. But I am highly skeptical. Journalists around the world are treating this story with a critical eye because of the sloppy way it was reported. Go to the Mutant Palm link cited by Jeremiah to see exactly why. I believe this story is most likely BS, but am willing to adjust that opinion if I see some consistent and meaningful evidence. Again, go to Mutant Palm now. To me, it’s pretty clear this story is as significant as those post-911 “terror alerts” when John Ashcroft would get in front of the camera and tell us we were all in imminent danger, but then throw in that we should all go shopping.

March 10, 2008 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

“To me, it’s pretty clear this story is as significant as those post-911 “terror alerts” when John Ashcroft would get in front of the camera and tell us we were all in imminent danger, but then throw in that we should all go shopping.”

Again, you are attempting to draw comparison between two completely different things.

The security policy in Xinjiang hasn’t changed since the mid-1990s, when separatism was identified as the greatest threat.

Since the 1990s, the policy has been high degree of surveillance over separatist movements. It was not 911 that changed China’s policy. Besides, China did not use the “terror threat” to invade Kazakhstan or use it scare its population into paranoia.

Instead, it used the “terror threat” only in diplomatic deals, but only with limited success, since the US is still sponsoring Xinjiang separatists.

March 10, 2008 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

“This is far more than what any minorities or indigenous people in the West enjoy”.

Subutai, have you ever been to Quebec? You might want to re-check that statement.

I certainly agree that the historical treatment of aboriginal peoples in North America has been utterly reprehensible, and is not the proudest moment of the countries involved. But, reality check: at least we don’t pretend everything is rosy and full of happy, government-loving smiles. We KNOW it is shameful.

It’s interesting how quickly some threads on this blog mutate into a queue of people lining up to get a kick in at the US. As Amban said, this is a blog that concentrates on China. And in case no one has noticed, the site admins aren’t exactly cheerleaders of American foreign policy- or its current government, for that matter.

You want to talk about the US? Yep, for the most part the Bush administration has been a disaster. It’s funny when people call out “double standard”, because American policy over the past 8 years has been so convoluted and contradictory I’m not sure there is a standard in there at all. Iraq, Turkey and the Kurds, Israel and the Palestinians, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Guantanamo…

…yeah. It has been a rough ride, and the world is worse for it. I can see how some are tempted to give the CCP the moral upper hand in this day and age. I, for one, still find that incredibly hard to swallow.

I’m still having trouble with the logic of the equation that is “US=bad, therefore China=good”. There’s one hell of a causal link missing there, guys.

I think almost all of us can agree that the invasion of Iraq was reprehensible (try, even, baffling). All of us I’m sure can agree that terrorism is reprehensible. I’m grateful a potential attack on the Olympics was stopped, even if it means I have to read about the CCP kissing its own ass. The Chinese deserve freedom from random violence as much as anyone else.

But, arguing that Chinese policies in Tibet and Xinjiang are somehow models of tolerance and ethnic accommodation? That’s where the storyline becomes incredulous- read ludicrous.

March 10, 2008 @ 12:42 pm | Comment

“I’m still having trouble with the logic of the equation that is “US=bad, therefore China=good”. There’s one hell of a causal link missing there, guys.”

You are making the same fallacious argument you claim “we” make against you—and a couple of others, one of which being the straw-man fallacy.

Just because I’m scornful of liberals and secessionist movements in general does not mean I’m a “fan” of the Chinese state.

“Subutai, have you ever been to Quebec? You might want to re-check that statement.”

I have been there.

People there aren’t exactly happy, are they?

Depending on how you look at it, both Quebec nationalists and the Canadian government’s past wrong doings are to blame.

But if you ask me, Quebec is proof that secessionism is a piece of crap built on their perceived injustices which is almost always bloated by secessionist propaganda.

“You want to talk about the US? Yep, for the most part the Bush administration has been a disaster.”

It’s Richard that first compared the American policy with that of the Chinese—and I’m simply saying, there’s no comparison.

March 10, 2008 @ 12:59 pm | Comment

@Jinhan (CCT?)

It’s Richard that first compared the American policy with that of the Chinese—and I’m simply saying, there’s no comparison.

You may be right, China’s record in Xinjiang may be even worse that US occupation of Iraq. Perhaps it is more comparable to US westward expansion, whereby native populations became minorities in their own land.

March 10, 2008 @ 1:13 pm | Comment

Actually, it was the Chinese government that made the parallels, altering their rhetoric about “terrorism” following 911, and seeking to make their conflict with Uigher separatists seen as in keeping with Bush’s “war on terror.” Once you do that, you can go ahead and do just about anything in the name of “fighting terrorism,” no matter how brutal or illegal it may be.

March 10, 2008 @ 1:22 pm | Comment

Jinhan,

You could argue that the emergence of Quebec secessionism/nationalism is exactly what fixed many injustices- you might call them ‘perceived’, but they were quite real barely two generations ago. Of course, the debate now is whether the movement has outlived its usefulness, which many would tell you it has. But it certainly had an important role to play in the development of Quebec, bumps and all.

“People there aren’t exactly happy, are they?”

Not really sure where that huge generalization came from, but I’d argue that in 2008, us Quebeckers are pretty satisfied with our lives.

March 10, 2008 @ 1:23 pm | Comment

Just to throw this out there;

Iraq was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm) I don’t know if you want to classify this as Islamic terrorism, or terrorism by people who happened to be Muslims, but the ‘no connection’ to Islamic terrorism’ is overstating the case a bit, don’t you think.

Also, as long as we’re trying to be honest with ourselves here, as much as we like to tell each other that the CIA funded and trained Osama bin Laden in the Afghan war, this is unfortunatley a very shaky theory. The CIA funnelled money through Pakistan’s Intelligence service to Afghan fighters, while the Arab fighters were getting money from supporters in the Middle East. (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html). I suppose it’s possible everybody is lying; the CIA the Pakistani Intelligence Service, and bin Laden himself, but until somebody actually gets some proof, emphatically declaring that the CIA created or ’employed’ al Qaeda is a bit stupid.

March 10, 2008 @ 1:40 pm | Comment

“Perhaps it is more comparable to US westward expansion, whereby native populations became minorities in their own land.”

Here we go with the liberal rhetoric again.

Care to show proof?

In case you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, here’s some background info. Uyghurs are no more “native” to Xinjiang than the Hans, Tibetans or Mongols that currently live in it. Compared to the Hans and Tibetans, the Uyghurs were late-comers… They originated somewhere in Mongolia and modern day Russia. Xinjiang has always been home to a mixture of Uyghurs, Hans, Tibetans, Mongols and various other ethnicities. Talking about a piece of land as if it “belongs” to a specific ethnicity is essentially denying other ethnicities the right to live there, and therefore racist. It is a preposterous claim because it ignores reality and the history behind it. Unlike secessionists, I believe land belongs to HUMAN BEINGS INN GENERAL, and not a specific “race”, whatever that means.

On “genocide”: Unlike the genocide conducted against the Indians in Western America, there was no racial genocide launched against them, though ethnic conflict was a reality.

On the contrary, when the Hui Muslims and Uyghurs declared a Jihad against the Qing Dynasty in late 19th century, they were said to have killed 9 out of 10 Han Chinese in many parts of the North West. A lot of Muslim/Uyghur lives were also lost, of course. But the Qing court (Manchus) did not commit genocide against the Huis and Uyghurs as they were expected to do after the suppression of the Jihad. They much preferred to play Hans and Muslims against one another.

“Actually, it was the Chinese government that made the parallels, altering their rhetoric about “terrorism” following 911, and seeking to make their conflict with Uigher separatists seen as in keeping with Bush’s “war on terror.””

I did say they used it in diplomatic dealings.

But you are twisting the argument a bit there. You did say that the government used it to scare its own people, which I doubt, mainly because there is not a general feeling of being threatened by it, at least not outside Xinjiang.

“Not really sure where that huge generalization came from, but I’d argue that in 2008, us Quebeckers are pretty satisfied with our lives.”

Sorry about the generalization.

But there’s no denial that, like in Xinjiang, a *considerable* francophone minority does hold a grudge against the federal government and anglophones in general.

I have encountered a few individuals who refuse or were reluctant to speak with me in English, which is a shame because as much as I’d love to learn it, I don’t speak French.

Oppression against “racial” minorities is always unjustifiable, but secessionism often manifests in itself a reverse-racism, which is just as unjustifiable especially in cases like China where racial oppression was not at all severe and often not intended.

Marxism, or even the degenerated version of it which was the foundation of the PRC, does not believe in “race” and did not enforce Han rule.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

“On the contrary, when the Hui Muslims and Uyghurs declared a Jihad against the Qing Dynasty in late 19th century, they were said to have killed 9 out of 10 Han Chinese in many parts of the North West. A lot of Muslim/Uyghur lives were also lost, of course. But the Qing court (Manchus) did not commit genocide against the Huis and Uyghurs as they were expected to do after the suppression of the Jihad. They much preferred to play Hans and Muslims against one another.”

Do you have source on this? I’m not doubting it, but I would like to read about it.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

I’m baffled, Jinhan. In the comment above you say On “genocide”: Unlike the genocide conducted against the Indians in Western America… Who are you quoting with the quote marks around “genocide.” You brought up genocide, no one else. Are you arguing tjhis point with anyone in particular?

March 10, 2008 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

I was replying to this:

“You may be right, China’s record in Xinjiang may be even worse that US occupation of Iraq. Perhaps it is more comparable to US westward expansion, whereby native populations became minorities in their own land.”

Posted by: Amban at March 10, 2008 01:13 PM

The allusion to genocide is un-missable.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:24 pm | Comment

“Do you have source on this? I’m not doubting it, but I would like to read about it.”

I sincerely apologize.

It seems that I was misled by a Chinese nationalist source which I’m beginning to doubt now that I did a little research into it.

It seems that the Qing Dynasty DID commit genocide in response to the Jihad in retribution. Though I don’t have the details.

I promise to be more careful from now on.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:37 pm | Comment

But also worth mentioning is the CCP’s official “verdict” on this rebellion/Jihad.

The CCP classify it as a heroic peasant rebellion on the part of the Huis and Uyghurs against feudal oppressors; omitting the ethnic cleansing that was involved on the part of the rebels.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:41 pm | Comment

If anybody is interested in the historical question mentioned above, might I suggest Peter Perdue’s magnificent China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:44 pm | Comment

Jinhan, YOU put genocide within quote marks misleading readers into thinking someone said genocide. I don’t want to get hung up on what seem to be small details, but I’ve noticed that is a good “metaphor” for the “way” you “argue.” Slick.

March 10, 2008 @ 2:50 pm | Comment

“Jinhan, YOU put genocide within quote marks misleading readers into thinking someone said genocide.”

According to what I know, quotation marks are not used only in quoting others but also has other functions such as citing sarcasm.

But I’m glad I’m not the only one who dislikes getting “hung up” on details.

So please, do attack my *argument* instead when you get around to it.

March 10, 2008 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

Jinhan, your arguments sloppy and I learned long ago not to enter a shouting match with someone perched over a thread and determined to dominate it. An example of your casual sloppiness:

This reminds me of how US employed the Al-Qaeda against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The only mystery to me is how come people aren’t seeing through this bullshit?

There was no Al Qaeda back in 1980. America definitely helped the mujahadeen and then abandoned them. But to say we “employed al qaeda” is a grotesque distortion of history.

Anyway, here’s my main question: Why do the most vitriolic, anti-Western, pro-CCP commenters here all post from either the US or (in Jinhan’s case) Canada? Such an odd phenomenon.

March 10, 2008 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

Speaking of seccessionists;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7286863.stm
Anybody think this might be trouble?

March 10, 2008 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

“There was no Al Qaeda back in 1980. America definitely helped the mujahadeen and then abandoned them. But to say we “employed al qaeda” is a grotesque distortion of history.”

Would it help if I say “you” “employed the Mujahadeen”?

It’s like saying employing the Nazis is somehow better than employing the S.S.

“Anyway, here’s my main question: Why do the most vitriolic, anti-Western, pro-CCP commenters here all post from either the US or (in Jinhan’s case) Canada? Such an odd phenomenon.”

Many of the China-critics are in China. You were once there, too, from what I’ve gathered. Not that it matters.

Oh, and it’s really a funny one you pulled labelling someone calling for *an organized working-class resistance against the CCP* a “pro-CCP commenter”.

Should I return the favor and call you a “Bush-loving pundit”?

March 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm | Comment

Jinhan, since you like to play games with words, I never once said you were pro-CCP. You just inferred it. And I bet a friend you would reply to my last comment within 15 minutes because you are clearly perched here for the day, serving your round. I was wrong; 14 minutes.

The Mujahadeen’s relationship with AQ is not symmetrical with the SS’s relationship with the Nazis. Not even close. You really are historically sloppy. Again, argument is hopeless, which is why you’;e now being ignored – we’ve all been through this kind of dialog before that goes ’round and ’round in circles. But enjoy your strutting across this thread. Everyone’s getting a big kick out of it.

March 10, 2008 @ 4:03 pm | Comment

“Jinhan, since you like to play games with words, I never once said you were pro-CCP. ”
Posted by: richard at March 10, 2008 04:03 PM

“Why do the most vitriolic, anti-Western, pro-CCP commenters here all post from either the US or (in Jinhan’s case) Canada? Such an odd phenomenon.”
Posted by: richard at March 10, 2008 03:17 PM

*Rolls eyes*

“And I bet a friend you would reply to my last comment within 15 minutes because you are clearly perched here for the day, serving your round. I was wrong; 14 minutes.”

So this is your final argument? that I’m here too often?

The unspoken implication is that I “have no life and therefore not worth debating with”. *Laugh*

Man you sure went through great lengths to avoid debating about the actual topic.

March 10, 2008 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

Jeb/Wei/Wayne/Subutai:

A few weeks ago, you left some of the most despicable and hateful comments to ever grace this board, which is saying something. Please respect our request that you not comment here. Thank you.

March 10, 2008 @ 6:12 pm | Comment

Jinhan, I made it clear earlier I would not debate you on this topic. I said that. Are you just seeing what you want to see (to play your own game)? Seriously, I won’t debate hongxing or Math or anyone else who uses extravagant and sloppy generalities to slam the US and let China off the hook. Because I know I can’t win, especially when, as I’ve mentioned multiple times now, you have been assigned perch duty for the day and are hovering over the comments here like a mosquito.

Peking Duck, thanks for that reminder to our new friends.

March 10, 2008 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

@Jinhan

Just for the record, there are two things you need to keep in mind when it comes to Xinjiang. (1) Go and read Perdue’s China Marches West and what Perdue has to say about the conquest of Xinjiang in 1760 and why there are so few Zungars in Xinjiang today. Perdue talks about the extermination of the Zungars in terms of genocide. (2) Yes, Xinjiang is home of many nationalities today and the Uighurs are relatively new. But they were the majority population in sixty years ago. In 1949, only 6 per cent of the population was Han Chinese, today that figure is 40 per cent, if not more.

March 10, 2008 @ 7:55 pm | Comment

@Richard

It seems that this Jinhan is none other than CCT, don’t you think? At least like to *roll their eyes* on this blog.

March 10, 2008 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

[Anyway, here’s my main question: Why do the most vitriolic, anti-Western, pro-CCP commenters here all post from either the US or (in Jinhan’s case) Canada? Such an odd phenomenon.]

So that’s why Redstar was able to write such an eloquent and up-to-date comparison of the USA and China. I first thought he was being sarcastic, but now I guess he meant every word of it. He probably even voted for Bush, because the Democrats are much too liberal for his taste.

March 10, 2008 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

CCT, are you Jinhan?

Can’t tell by the IP address, sorry.

And yes, just about every fenqing fanatic here screaming America is worse is living in America, or its 51st state.

March 11, 2008 @ 12:20 am | Comment

* Rolls eyes at people who type comments like “rolls eyes” *

March 11, 2008 @ 12:21 am | Comment

“(1) Go and read Perdue’s China Marches West and what Perdue has to say about the conquest of Xinjiang in 1760 and why there are so few Zungars in Xinjiang today. Perdue talks about the extermination of the Zungars in terms of genocide. ”

Without having to read the book, I only have a vague understanding of what happened there.

From what I recall, the Qing Emperors launched wars against the Zungars in what is now Northern Xinjiang, as result of their aggressions against Mongols and Tibetans. As “collective punishment” against them, the Qing troops indiscriminately murdered some half a million Zungars.

Then they moved others (including Uyghurs) into the region after the Zungar Empire was annihilated.

But does that in any way reinforce the Uyghur separatists’ desire to found an Islamic theocracy in Xinjiang?

“In 1949, only 6 per cent of the population was Han Chinese, today that figure is 40 per cent, if not more.”

So? Are you implying that Han Chinese (or anyone else, for that matter) do not have a right to live there? Why not? So long as they are not displacing the existing population, why can’t they choose where to live?

Incidentally, of all the “freedoms” that early capitalist revolutionaries came up with (but never intended to implement), only the *freedom of movement* ever made any sense to me.

Though personally I have not seen concrete evidence of it, it is observed that the CCP is actively encouraging Han Chinese to move into Xinjiang and “thin-out” Uyghur population and therefore closing the curtains on the separatist movement. I’m willing to say that this is *probably* true, at least to a certain degree.

But so what? So long as they are not killing and bullying the locals or kicking them out of their homes like the Israelis did in Palestine, what’s the problem?

Surely you don’t mean to say Xinjiang belongs to Uyghurs and Uyghurs only.

“It seems that this Jinhan is none other than CCT, don’t you think? At least like to *roll their eyes* on this blog.”

And we both breathe the air. We both speak English and we both have access to the Internet.

The similarities are getting eerie, aren’t they?
*Laugh*

I swear, if people here would spend half the time they spent trying to “frame” others with these pathetic little details to form a coherent argument, things might actually get intellectual around here.

“And yes, just about every fenqing fanatic here screaming America is worse is living in America, or its 51st state.”

And just above every US-Empire-worshipping Sinophobe here is living in China.

Coincidence?

Or, maybe it’s just because *both are fucking shitholes* and the nationalists on either side refuse to admit it.

It’s amazing how pathetic patridiots around the world behave similarly.

March 11, 2008 @ 2:37 am | Comment

Geez. I haven’t slept for more than an entire day so my typing is atrocious.

March 11, 2008 @ 2:40 am | Comment

Just as a reminder of how Xinjiang’s demographics changed in the 18th century:

“With this policy, the Qing succeeded in imposing a ‘final solution’ to China’s northwest frontier problems, which lasted for about a century. The Zunghars disappeared as a state and as a people, and the Zungahrian steppe was almost completely depopulated. Wei Yuan, who estimated the total population of the Zunghars at 600,00 people, stated, ‘Of several hundred thousands households, 40 percent died of smallpox, 20 percent fled to the Russians and Kazakhs, and 30 percent were killed by the Great Army. [The remaining] women and children were given as [servants] to others…For several thousand li there was not a single Zugharian tent.”

Perdue (2005), p. 285.

March 11, 2008 @ 2:41 am | Comment

“Jeb/Wei/Wayne/Subutai:

A few weeks ago, you left some of the most despicable and hateful comments to ever grace this board, which is saying something. Please respect our request that you not comment here. Thank you.?”

This is where my blood boils. Racial, religous or other mindless distinctions serve nothing but it seems we are all locked into some sort of ingrained prejudice. I know next to nothing about anything or anyone. However, this blog is about China, not the U.S. So, legitimately more critical of China while accepting parallels with the U.S. as the host is American.

March 11, 2008 @ 2:55 am | Comment

Amban:

What are you trying to argue? Spill it out. We shouldn’t have to guess what your argument is every step of the way.

March 11, 2008 @ 3:07 am | Comment

A friend of mine once mentioned that he believes Western liberals to be the most dangerous proponents of imperialism.

They’re not the most dangerous, they’re just one leg of the machine. They’re the cute, fat face of American/European cultural/economic imperialism. The right-wing is the muscle and the bad cop. Only moderates can mind their own business, it seems.

March 11, 2008 @ 3:28 am | Comment

Surely you don’t mean to say Xinjiang belongs to Uyghurs and Uyghurs only.

Yes. They mean to say that a sparsely populated nomadic tribe that settled in the mid 9th century has the right to carve out 1,600,000 km. sq worth out of your modern nation. It’s the same argument they use for Tibet and Israel. It’s the same argument they don’t use for Russia in Manchuria, and the same argument they don’t use against white Argentines, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders.

There’s so much flowery talk of “ethnic homelands” within other people’s countries, but I don’t see any of you packing your bags for Europe. The funny thing is, minorities are treated better in China than in the United States. Many Chinese minorities (including the impoverished Tibetans) have longer lifespans than blacks or Native Americans and are less likely to be victims of crime.

The worst thing about all this is that your horrible track record makes Chinese people think it’s okay to mistreat ethnic minorities as long as it doesn’t get as bad as it does in the West.

Regardless, the agenda is pretty clear, they want to weaken Chinese power to increase their own influence. The same holds true on issues pertaining to Africa. The rule is that only the existing powers have the right to colonies, none of these hippies have the balls to challenge the continued genocide of Southern Amerindians, sexual exploitation in Southeast Asia, partitioning of the Islamic world and South Asia, Communist divides in East Asia, the horrible conditions of Native Americans, etc.

I recently saw a plump teenager with a Free Tibet hat eating at a restaurant built over former Native real estate, it was funny and more or less sums up the American perspective.

March 11, 2008 @ 3:41 am | Comment

@Jinhan/CCT

My argument is that the demographics of Xinjiangs has been changed by what can be called genocide.

Besides, I have never argued that Xinjiang “belongs” to any single ethnic group, but the fact remains that Xinjiang has never had a majority Han population until now. Put yourself into the shoes of an Uighur, whose culture and language are rendered irrelevant by recent Han settlers. When I visited Urumqi some years ago, I was shocked how colonial the attitudes of many Han Chinese towards Uighurs were. Any information worth anything was in Chinese and the Uighur language was just something you’d find on street signs. It was easier to find a Italian-Chinese dictionary or a travelguide for South America than it was to find any literature on Uighur language and culture. But that was not the worst part. The worst part was the frowns and sneers I got from shop attendants when I inquired about books on Uighur culture.

March 11, 2008 @ 4:31 am | Comment

@Ferin
No offence man, but I think we all got it. You can’t defend ‘them’ (by which I assume you mean the traditional western European colonial powers, Britain, America, and Japan) while attacking China. European/British/American/Japanese governments have committed no end of atrocities and Red China, though not guiltless, has done nothing that exceeds them. Current Japanese/American/British/European criticism of China is motivated largely by the fear of their nations losing their position as the predominant world power and a desire to hamstring China’s growing power.
That argument is understood, and as its based on a perceived unity between the governments of those countries in the 19th century right up until the present, the governments of the new nations that resulted from the colonial era and are currently seen to be allied with the old powers (Canada, Isreal, Australia, South Korea, the ROC, etc.), and individual critics of China that come from those countries (our esteemed host, the plump teenager with the Free Tibet hat, etc.), it is irrefutable due to its subjective nature.
We understand where you’re coming from. What else have you got for us?

March 11, 2008 @ 4:34 am | Comment

@Amban
Define what you mean by ‘genocide’. The term has been used for everything from systematically rounding up and trying to exterminate an entire race within a geographic area to not providing government funding for classes in traditional weaving.

March 11, 2008 @ 4:39 am | Comment

[i]My argument is that the demographics of Xinjiangs has been changed by what can be called genocide.[/i]

Originally being foreign conquerors, the Manchu rulers of Qing were not exactly “friendly” to Han Chinese either, so it’s kind of hard to associate Qing atrocities with the Han Chinese or even the modern Chinese state.

[i]Put yourself into the shoes of an Uighur, whose culture and language are rendered irrelevant by recent Han settlers.[/i]

The same way Chinese “culture” was annulled by Western ideologies?

Been there, done that.

You know, it’s the one of the most important things that I have the West to thank for. Marxism, that is.

I’m *sure as hell glad* I don’t have to pray to my ancestors and I didn’t get beaten to death by my parents for being un-filial.

I’m pretty sure somewhere in Xinjiang, there’s a little boy just like me who hates reciting the Quran and flopping on his belly five times a day; or a young girl who’s thoroughly sick of being sold like a dog by his father to the highest bidder.

[i]It was easier to find a Italian-Chinese dictionary or a travelguide for South America than it was to find any literature on Uighur language and culture. But that was not the worst part. The worst part was the frowns and sneers I got from shop attendants when I inquired about books on Uighur culture.[/i]

Ethnic tension is what you get for having people living in segregated societies. Many on both sides despise each other’s culture, that’s no news.

One can speculate that more direct contact between them will result in a better understanding of each other.

After all, the Hui Muslims have lived among Hans and other ethnicities for hundreds of years.

March 11, 2008 @ 5:10 am | Comment

@Lime

I quote Rafael Lemkin:

“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”

March 11, 2008 @ 7:45 am | Comment

@Jinhan/CCT

Originally being foreign conquerors, the Manchu rulers of Qing were not exactly “friendly” to Han Chinese either, so it’s kind of hard to associate Qing atrocities with the Han Chinese or even the modern Chinese state.

I’m glad you can see that point. So if Xinjiang is only a product of Qing rule, why should it be part of Han-dominated PRC?

The same way Chinese “culture” was annulled by Western ideologies?

To extent that Chinese culture was annulled it was done by Chinese themselves. And it was not done at the expense of the Chinese language. If you dislike the feeling of Westerners “lecturing” you on human rights, imagine what it is not even being able to practice your own culture.

March 11, 2008 @ 7:51 am | Comment

Amban

———I’m glad you can see that point. So if Xinjiang is only a product of Qing rule, why should it be part of Han-dominated PRC?———-

When Man people first took over China, they were considered invading barbarians and there were a great deal of resistance and uprisings against them, but they adopted pretty much everything from Han Chinese, language, customs, political structure,etc. They were slowly accepted and Qing is considered a succession of Chinese dynasties.

—–Put yourself into the shoes of an Uighur, whose culture and language are rendered irrelevant by recent Han settlers. When I visited Urumqi some years ago, I was shocked how colonial the attitudes of many Han Chinese towards Uighurs were. Any information worth anything was in Chinese and the Uighur language was just something you’d find on street signs

——

Are you shocked when you visit Hawaii? Probablly no.

March 11, 2008 @ 8:06 am | Comment

Are you shocked when you visit Hawaii? Probablly no.

I have never been to Hawaii, but two wrongs doesn’t make one right. But I had no problems finding websites like this, hosted in the US:

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

Could you provide me with a single pro-independence Uighur site hosted in the PRC?

March 11, 2008 @ 8:18 am | Comment

“…but they adopted pretty much everything from Han Chinese…”

That was the old view, influenced in large part by the concerns of early 20th century Han nationalists, but more recent research– particularly that done by scholars integrating Manchu language archival materials with Chinese sources–has seriously problematized the “wholesale assimilation” argument as a working assumption. If you’re interested in this research, might I suggest Mark Elliot’s brilliant The Manchu Way, Pamela Crossley’s Orphan Warriors, and/or Edward J.M. Rhoads Manchus & Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861-1928.

March 11, 2008 @ 8:24 am | Comment

@Jeremiah

Hear, hear!

March 11, 2008 @ 8:29 am | Comment

There still are people arguing that Manchurians have not fully assimilated into the greater Chinese culture? Now, that’s funny 🙂

March 11, 2008 @ 11:29 am | Comment

We were discussing the Qing Dynasty and the early Republican period, obviously–not contemporary China. I do wish people would read before commenting.

March 11, 2008 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Just like the Manchurians of the past, slow and inevitable assimilation of all the people of Xinjiang and Tibet into the greater Chinese civilization is happening.

(And I am talking about the period of Qing Dynasty, the Republic era, and today :))

March 11, 2008 @ 12:23 pm | Comment

“And yes, just about every fenqing fanatic here screaming America is worse is living in America, or its 51st state.”

Now, the question is, did they recently moved there or have they, maybe, spent the better part of their lives there? Maybe they are even born there? Maybe they only know China from short visits to distant relatives?

March 11, 2008 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

[Geez. I haven’t slept for more than an entire day so my typing is atrocious.]

Posted by: Jinhan at March 11, 2008 02:40 AM

Your typing is OK, but lack of sleep certainly does have an effect on the content of your arguments.

[Amban:

What are you trying to argue? Spill it out. We shouldn’t have to guess what your argument is every step of the way.]

Posted by: Jinhan at March 11, 2008 03:07 AM

And he’s still not going to bed.

[I’m pretty sure somewhere in Xinjiang, there’s a little boy just like me who hates reciting the Quran and flopping on his belly five times a day; or a young girl who’s thoroughly sick of being sold like a dog by his father to the highest bidder.]

Posted by: Jinhan at March 11, 2008 05:10 AM

Now it’s high time to get some sleep.
I’m pretty sure it is this kind of prejudice that leads to ethnic tensions.

March 11, 2008 @ 7:22 pm | Comment

“I’m glad you can see that point. So if Xinjiang is only a product of Qing rule, why should it be part of Han-dominated PRC?”

Because it’s not a race-based regime.

But since you are a firm believer in the supposed relation between race and political rule, Han Chinese have traditionally been in that part of the world, from Han Dynasty to Tang Dynasty.

Now, time for you to explain why the Anglo-Saxon-dominated US is ruling over former Indian territory.

“If you dislike the feeling of Westerners “lecturing” you on human rights, imagine what it is not even being able to practice your own culture.”

Are you saying Uyghurs are forbidden to practice their own culture? Have you got any evidence for that?

As far as I know, many Ugyhurs wear their traditional caps even in other provinces of China and can speak their language freely.

Moreover, Uyghur has been given *official language status* in Xinjiang.

I don’t see Spanish having official status anywhere in the US.

You imply that Uyghurs will not be able to practice their culture because of the influx of Hans yet you give no evidence. Are the Jews and Muslims in the US prevented from practicing their culture just because they are minorities?

Like all arguments offered on this site, this one is unexceptionally incoherent and shabby.

March 11, 2008 @ 10:37 pm | Comment

You imply that Uyghurs will not be able to practice their culture because of the influx of Hans yet you give no evidence.

Access to higher education in your native language is one way of measuring the extent to which you are able to practice your culture. Here follows a list of all the universities and colleges in Xinjiang that I could find on the Internet:

http://www.xju.edu.cn/
http://www.cjc.net.cn/
http://www.kstc.edu.cn/
http://www.shzu.edu.cn/
http://www.taru.edu.cn/
http://www.xjau.edu.cn/
http://www.xjart.edu.cn/
http://www.xjmu.edu.cn/
http://www.ylsy.edu.cn/

According to official statistics, 45 per cent of the population of Xinjiang are Uighurs, 41 per cent are Han Chinese. Could you tell me how many of these sites have an Uighur language version? 87 per cent of the inhabitants of Kashgar are Uighur. Where is the Uighur language version of the website of Kashgar Normal University?

March 11, 2008 @ 11:33 pm | Comment

@Jinhan

As far as I know, many Ugyhurs wear their traditional caps even in other provinces of China and can speak their language freely.

Moreover, Uyghur has been given *official language status* in Xinjiang.

You imply that Uyghurs will not be able to practice their culture because of the influx of Hans yet you give no evidence.

Access to higher education in your native language is one way of measuring the extent to which you are able to practice your culture. It is also a good indicator of what the status of an official language means in practice. Here follows a list of all the universities and colleges in Xinjiang that I could find on the Internet:

* Changji College (昌吉学院)
* Kashi Teachers’ College (喀什师范学院)
* Shihezi University (石河子大学)
* Tarim University (塔里木大学)
* Xinjiang Agricultural University (新疆农业大学)
* Xinjiang Arts Institute (新疆艺术学院)
* Xinjiang University (新疆大学)
* Xinjiang Medical University (新疆医科大学)
* Xinjiang University of Finance & Economics (新疆财经大学)
* Yili Normal College (伊犁师范学院)

According to official statistics, 45 per cent of the population of Xinjiang are Uighurs, 41 per cent are Han Chinese. Could you tell me how many of these sites have an Uighur language version? 87 per cent of the inhabitants of Kashgar are Uighur. Where is the Uighur language version of the website of Kashi Teachers’ College?

PS. I tried to post the URLs of the above colleges, but for some reason the site blocks me from doing that.

March 12, 2008 @ 12:42 am | Comment

We understand where you’re coming from. What else have you got for us?

You missed a *crucial* part of it. European colonization never ended. Southern Amerind phenotypes are being wiped out by sexual selection. Read up on “white supremacy”, pigmentation bias, etc in Latin America. It’s considered a status symbol to have a white wife or white husband.

Take a look at Phuket and Bangkok. There recently was a controversy about a British and Australian (iirc) pair creating a site and publication that included thousands of pictures of white men having sex with Thai boys and men. Canada, the United States, Luxembourg etc are in the top 10 for viewing of child porn per capita (I can’t remember the other 7, but they were all European nations). Research the infamous Filipino inferiority complex.

Look at skin lightening products in India and at times East Asia. Research the whole “English teacher” thing in East Asia; i.e multimillion welfare for dropout playboys.

Starbucks, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Hollywood etc are muscling their way into foreign markets. Europe and Europeans put out 40% of the world’s pollution. Dangerous, dirty, and polluting activities are outsourced to foreign countries.

It’s not specifically a race thing either; a lot of mail-order brides, prostitutes, and sex slaves come from Russia and other Eastern European countries.

So what are their plans for Tibet? I’m guessing there will be half-assed attempts by cause-of-the-day celebrities to “revive” Tibetan culture (they’ll just conventiently erase serfdom and warmongering out of Tibetan history), while turning it into a playground for Australian sex tourists who want underage Tibetan girls (Thailand might get too expensive or the ‘exoticness’ might wear off), manipulating their natural resources, and of course holding China’s water supply hostage.

March 12, 2008 @ 4:21 am | Comment

The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups

Sounds exactly like what America is doing to its minority and immigrant groups.

More on Australia:

In 1996-2001, the life expectancy of an Indigenous Australian was 59.4 years for males and, in 2004-05, 65.0 years for females, approximately 17 years lower than the Australian average.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=11797&article=A+Look+at+Quality+of+Life+in+Tibet&t=1&c=1

If we look at life expectancy, the TAR has the lowest ranking with the expectancy being 65.81. Qinghai has 68.78.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-11-life-expectancy_x.htm

The longest living group, “America One,” consists of 10.4 million Asians, with an average life expectancy of 85, says the study in the journal PloS Medicine. That’s 27 years longer than the average 58-year life expectancy of Native Americans in South Dakota.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502778.html

officers took four hours to reach the village of Nunam Iqua, during which time a barricaded suspect raped a 13-year-old girl in front of her siblings.

One in three Native American women will be raped at some point in their lives

More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white

The thing about Hawaiian Independence is that it will never happen; the white majority would just vote it down. That, and Hawaii was settled for about a thousand years exclusively by the Natives; Xinjiang was settled by the Tocharians who were pushed out by the Xiongnu. The Uighurs appeared in the mid 9th century, AFTER Tang China was already WELL-ESTABLISHED there. They are a mixture of Chinese, Mongolic tribes, and people from Central Asia.

March 12, 2008 @ 4:43 am | Comment

Tibetans have a longer lifespans than many Native Americans. The Aborigine lifespan is 59.2 for males; in Tibet it is 62 iirc.

34% of Native American women are raped in their lifetimes; 86% of the perpetrators are white or black.

March 12, 2008 @ 4:44 am | Comment

“As far as I know, many Ugyhurs wear their traditional caps even in other provinces of China”
This is part of the problem with the Chinese approach to so-called “ethnic minorities.” It is as if the sole dimension of these “minorities'” identities is their wearing a cap, a belief which stems from the objectified representations of these people in Chinese popular culture. Give me a break.

March 12, 2008 @ 6:20 am | Comment

You must be joking. A white American man with a Chinese wife talking about objectification?

There is a pretty shallow and stupid understanding of race and ethnicity in China. Foreigners are even more guilty of this. I’ve said this 10 million times, but the Northern Han and Tibetans are more closely related than they are to the Southern Han.

The “Han” ethnicity is essentially an agglomeration of Sinicized and conquering groups. Often times the only difference between Han and a minority is self-identification. Please don’t pretend you understand the dynamics of race and intra-Chinese discrimination more than me because I’m the product of one “Han” grandfather and three minority grandparents.

Furthermore, a “cap” isn’t insiginificant. It means they can show off their identity without fear of persecution or derision unlike Asians, Muslims or homosexuals in the West.

In Eastern Europe from Russia to East Germany you can get your head smashed open for being dark skinned or the wrong type of Caucasian. Russia is even exporting their neo-Nazi garbage to America; one even beat a homosexual Indian American man to death. He then promptly fled back to his Russia.

The hypocrisy is ridiculous. It’s normal for people to not care about things that don’t affect them, but a pro-American agenda disguised as humanitarianism far exceeds that. I almost feel dumber every second reading such BS propaganda.

March 12, 2008 @ 6:33 am | Comment

Furthermore, a “cap” isn’t insiginificant. It means they can show off their identity without fear of persecution or derision unlike Asians, Muslims or homosexuals in the West.

Let’s talk about something else than “race” for a moment. Take a look at the list of schools and colleges I gave above> I Googled every school and did not find a single site with a Uighur language version. Not even the college in Kashgar – where 85 per cent of the population is Uighur – has bothered to out up a site in Uighur. This fact alone speaks volumes about the discrimination of Uighurs and their culture.

March 12, 2008 @ 9:56 am | Comment

Uh is there even Uighur script coded yet for computer programs? What percentage of Uighurs have computers AND internet access? Very few people in China do. China already gives Uighurs preferential treatment when it comes to college applications and even childbirth. Now you want them to give special attention to Uighur netizens (when many of them can read Chinese) who are maybe 200,000-500,000 out of the 200 million Chinese netizens. Okay.

If you want Uighur script for minor websites, why don’t you program it and send it to them.

It’s mind boggling how you stick to such a weak argument after I put up tons of statistics showing that Uighurs and Tibetans have longer lifespans than American Indians and Australian Aborigines, face less violence and crime, and are not significantly bullied and hated by the majority.

Really, you should follow your own strict standard instead of trying to set a higher one for China. No one gave a damn about China’s minorities until China became more powerful, I wonder why.

March 12, 2008 @ 10:42 am | Comment

Uh is there even Uighur script coded yet for computer programs?

This comment itself shows how prejudiced you are towards Uighurs and their language. Yes, there is such as thing as Uighur script on the Internet. Here is one of the very few I did find:

http://61.138.232.50//1$001/1.jsp

And it is simply astounding to see you argue that access to higher education in Uighurs is a minor issue. Simply astounding.

March 12, 2008 @ 11:13 am | Comment

…I meant “access to higher education in the Uighur language”…

March 12, 2008 @ 11:14 am | Comment

Well, it’s secondary to raising Uighur lifespans and improving Uighur healthcare, but it’s right up there. Especially considering those universities were probably built and funded by the CCP, find out if they actually teach courses in the Uighur language.

Too bad America does none of this for blacks and American Indians. How come there are no American Indian universities with sites transliterated in their languages?

Why do you keep trying to wiggle your way out of the argument with manipulation and falsehoods?

March 12, 2008 @ 11:31 am | Comment

This comment itself shows how prejudiced you are towards Uighurs and their language.

And this. This is total kneejerk, bullshit arguments. Everyone who doesn’t agree with the idiotic, paternalistic, hypocritical, sanctimonious American worldview is automatically a terrorist or communist sympathizer.

I’ve never actually met a Uighur person, so I obviously don’t hate them. The perception of serious “discrimination” against Uighurs is just America projecting her own idiotic concept of race and nationalism onto the Chinese, as shown in this example.

March 12, 2008 @ 11:34 am | Comment

“Access to higher education in your native language is one way of measuring the extent to which you are able to practice your culture. It is also a good indicator of what the status of an official language means in practice.”

I do not know for sure if the ones you mentioned have courses in Uyghur…and I don’t really have the time to check. And if you do, please educate me.

But I do recall that a Uyghur girl who was my father’s student who indicated that they do conduct course in Uyghur. At least in her university, that is. She was a transfer student from Xingjiang Shifan Univerisy, and barely spoke any Mandarin.

In any case, the next time I’m in Xinjiang, I’ll be sure to check it out.

But here’s an Ethnologue report on the Uyghur language:
“Official regional language. Widely used in print media in Kashgar. Vigorous. All domains. All ages. Positive language attitude. Young people and intellectuals can also speak Chinese, a few can also speak English, Japanese, or Russian.”

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=uig

“It is as if the sole dimension of these “minorities'” identities is their wearing a cap, a belief which stems from the objectified representations of these people in Chinese popular culture. Give me a break.”

I’m “objectifying” (whatever that means) minority identity just because I mentioned that some of them wear their traditional caps?

Are you *THAT* desperate to “get me”?

March 12, 2008 @ 11:46 am | Comment

@Ferin

I have never said that health care or increased lifespans are secondary, but your argument that Uighurs should be grateful to PRC rule is nothing but a colonial argument.

And why is it that your argument always defaults to a statement about the US?

March 12, 2008 @ 11:50 am | Comment

They just hurl every buzzword at you instead of using real argumentation.

March 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am | Comment

I have never said that health care or increased lifespans are secondary, but your argument that Uighurs should be grateful to PRC rule is nothing but a colonial argument.

No, they shouldn’t be. They should be grateful, and everyone should be really, that they aren’t the Native Americans, Siberians, South Amerinds, Africans, Maori, Hawaiian Natives, Inuit or Australian Aborigines. But the Uighur have no right to exclusive control of Xinjiang, especially considering the Chinese predate them in that area. There is also no reason to discriminate against them, but the reason their living standards are below par is not because of “racism” but because they are far away from the coast. Even Han Chinese in the interior are poorer than coastal populations.

And why is it that your argument always defaults to a statement about the US?

Because the U.S is a) the source of a ton of these Western liberal arguments you bring up and b) the primary anti-Chinese propagandist/hypocrite.

March 12, 2008 @ 11:56 am | Comment

“anti-Chinese propagandist/hypocrite.”

I know this has come up before, but I’ve never seen it adequately answered: Does criticizing a policy of the PRC government or the CCP make one anti-Chinese? Does asking questions about the political status of Uighurs under PRC rule qualify?

I wouldn’t think that arguing the US health care system is in a deplorable state, acknowledging the terrible plight of the North American First Peoples, or to say the invasion of Iraq was a truly horrible decision makes one anti-American, or does it?

What’s the standard here?

March 12, 2008 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

It does when people fabricate instances of “Han racism”, because that slanders the entire 1.2 billion people listed under that BS demographic.

Don’t be coy, you know that the conditions and rhetoric behind it all are different. What is being done is Americans and Europeans to a lesser extent trying to twist China’s arm until they’re given unfair concessions as competitors in a global system.

March 12, 2008 @ 12:13 pm | Comment

I’m neither being coy nor disingenous, but I see this charge of ‘anti-Chinese’ levelled pretty much willy-nilly around this site and others, and so I asked my question with the sincere hope that somebody can answer it for me and shed some real insight.

I would gently suggest that not all people think alike, and that somebody might criticize CCP policies for reasons other than what you suggest.

For example, Hugo Chavez, Immanuel Wallerstein, Barrack Obama, Michael Moore, Osama bin-Laden, Alexandre del Valle, and Juan Cole might all be critical of Bush administration policies, and in some of the cases above it wouldn’t be unfair to call their views anti-American or to question how they construct their arguments, but only the wingnuts on Fox News and the far-right blogosphere would link them together in some sort of grand conspiracy against the American people.

Does it work differently for China? And if so, how?

March 12, 2008 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

Because people do not specify between the CCP, the Chinese people in general and the Han ethnicity. They are conflating their own shallow, idiotic conceptions of race and projecting it onto China.

Second, they are guilty of seeing the CCP as a monolithic group, and lastly they are misinformed not only about the status of Uighur and Tibetans but are horribly ignorant about the plight of native peoples in other colonies and the history of the peopling and geography of these areas.

Anyway, each argument is riddled with ignorance and pure bs so you’d have to be more specific about the arguments you’re talking about.

March 12, 2008 @ 12:30 pm | Comment

Yes, Ferin, this is a white American with a Chinese wife talking about the objectification of minorities in China: “look at their colorful outfits at the NPC! We let them keep their identities.” My wife laughed at your comment: typical fenqing (粪青, that is) who couldn’t get laid no matter how much RMB his corrupt official daddy wired to him in the US.

I am a bit gentler, and would just kindly recommend that you get outside and try interacting with real people… you’ve never met a Uighur? Something tells me this white American has spent a bit more time in the transcendent motherland than you have.

So, what exactly was your point in making this sad attempt at argumentation? That you’re a sexually-frustrated misanthrope who hates interracial relationships?

March 12, 2008 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

No, they shouldn’t be. They should be grateful, and everyone should be really, that they aren’t the Native Americans, Siberians, South Amerinds, Africans, Maori, Hawaiian Natives, Inuit or Australian Aborigines.

Why stop here? Obviously to the extent that Chinese have benefited from foreign rule, according to you logic, they should also be grateful to their colonizers. Right?

But the Uighur have no right to exclusive control of Xinjiang, especially considering the Chinese predate them in that area.

Really? Could you tell me at what point in time Xinjiang has had a majority Han population prior to 1949?

March 12, 2008 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

@Amban

“And why is it that your argument always defaults to a statement about the US?”

Because poor ferin badly wants to go back to his beloved motherland, but the evil FBI forces him to stay in the USA. He can only leave after he has memorized all of their statistics starting from 1993.

March 12, 2008 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

“I’m neither being coy nor disingenous, but I see this charge of ‘anti-Chinese’ levelled pretty much willy-nilly around this site and others, and so I asked my question with the sincere hope that somebody can answer it for me and shed some real insight. ”

It’s a futile effort to deny that the Western propaganda machine has been on an anti-red/anti-China campaign for the past 60 years or so.

You turn on the dummyvision or the BBC homepage, there’s simply nothing positive you can find about China. The West, despite its dismal records of human rights, is not treated to the same standard. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there is no prejudice against China, and I do not subscribe to such naivety.

I think most intellectual dissidents in China will agree with me on this, that criticising against the Chinese government is a MUST. But a clarification must be made: “we” oppose Western imperialism just as much, if not more.

Western imperialism (i.e, the US criminal regime) does not “sympathize” with us…They just want us to switch rulers (to them) and subscribe to their sham “democracy” and an illusion of freedom—in other words, eternal slavery.

So anyone criticising China *WHILE* condoning, overlooking or submitting to Western imperialism simply *will not be taken seriously*. Arguing from the perspective of a Western liberal/conservative simply does NOT earn you any audience, because we all know they are both in favour of imperialism. I’m surprised that that not many people realize this.

On the other hand, if you decide to cast aside patriotism, empire worshipping and all that bullshit in favour of real liberation, I’d be happy to call you a comrade.

Then perhaps we’ll have a friendly competition over who gets to topple our own oppressors first.

March 12, 2008 @ 11:35 pm | Comment

“It’s a futile effort to deny that the Western propaganda machine has been on an anti-red/anti-China campaign for the past 60 years or so.”

Interesting statement! Is Jinhan talking about two parallel campaigns or is anti-red automatically the same as anti-China? Does that mean that the KMT was / is anti-China?

“You turn on the dummyvision or the BBC homepage, there’s simply nothing positive you can find about China. The West, despite its dismal records of human rights, is not treated to the same standard. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there is no prejudice against China, and I do not subscribe to such naivety.”

Jinhan must be a very negative person, if he can’t find anything positive about China in the media, no matter which “Western” country we are talking about right now.

“I think most intellectual dissidents in China will agree with me on this, that criticising against the Chinese government is a MUST. But a clarification must be made: “we” oppose Western imperialism just as much, if not more.”

Jinhan is opposing “Western imperialism” from his cozy home in Canada.

“Western imperialism (i.e, the US criminal regime) does not “sympathize” with us…They just want us to switch rulers (to them) and subscribe to their sham “democracy” and an illusion of freedom—in other words, eternal slavery.”

Just a reminder: It was the CCP that turned China into the world’s sweatshop and companies from all over the world happily accepted the invitation.

“So anyone criticising China *WHILE* condoning, overlooking or submitting to Western imperialism simply *will not be taken seriously*. Arguing from the perspective of a Western liberal/conservative simply does NOT earn you any audience, because we all know they are both in favour of imperialism. I’m surprised that that not many people realize this.”

I guess most people, no matter if liberal or conservative, just don’t care if a clown like Jinhan takes them seriously.

“On the other hand, if you decide to cast aside patriotism, empire worshipping and all that bullshit in favour of real liberation, I’d be happy to call you a comrade.”

Who wants to be Jinhan’s comrade?

“Then perhaps we’ll have a friendly competition over who gets to topple our own oppressors first. ”

Are those evil Canadians oppressing Jinhan?

March 13, 2008 @ 12:25 am | Comment

@Jinhan
Though I will bite on the negative bias towards Red China, I can’t say I share your view of democracy and western ‘imperialism’, but for the sake of argument, comrade, what is this ‘liberation’ you’re talking about? Be specific, please.

March 13, 2008 @ 1:17 am | Comment

Really? Could you tell me at what point in time Xinjiang has had a majority Han population prior to 1949?

At some point during the Tang there were more Han than Uighur, though the other tribes (that the Xiongnu and Uighur pushed out) outnumbered them both. They have as much an exclusive right to Xinjiang as the Avars have to Germany.

Yes, Ferin, this is a white American with a Chinese wife talking about the objectification of minorities in China: “look at their colorful outfits at the NPC! We let them keep their identities.” My wife laughed at your comment: typical fenqing (·àÇà, that is) who couldn’t get laid no matter how much RMB his corrupt official daddy wired to him in the US

“Look how cheap this oriental geisha is; I give her the loving she needs!”. Anyone can get laid with enough money, apparently, so I don’t know what your wife is laughing about. Probably the fact that she’s being overpaid.

“That you’re a sexually-frustrated misanthrope who hates interracial relationships?”

Actually, that you’re an ignorant hypocrite that calls China out on things you do worse.

March 13, 2008 @ 6:47 am | Comment

Why stop here? Obviously to the extent that Chinese have benefited from foreign rule, according to you logic, they should also be grateful to their colonizers. Right?

China’s presence stopped the British and Russians from pouring into either region; so yes, it’s probably the best of all the bad things that could have happened to them. As I said, not only the Tibetans and Uighurs should be grateful they are not the Amerinds but so should every other ethnic group on the planet that was spared the plague of genocidal colonization by luck or other factors.

Because poor ferin badly wants to go back to his beloved motherland

Except, like I have said several times, I’m ethnically “Taiwanese” and I’m probably going to head back there after college.

Jinhan is opposing “Western imperialism” from his cozy home in Canada.

Just like how many of the people here oppose objectification, greed, and corruption in their CCP-supported brothels in China.

I guess most people, no matter if liberal or conservative, just don’t care if a clown like Jinhan takes them seriously.

Actually every single ethnic Chinese seems to disagree with you, except for a few who are the equivalent of China’s “pandalickers”.

Once again, China’s treatment of Uighurs is better than that of Aborigines and American Indians. Pretty pathetic considering America is 5-10 times richer.

March 13, 2008 @ 6:59 am | Comment

Dear Ferin,
I’m not sure what kind of a family life you had, which made you assume that wives get paid…. It seems that your mom had a unique occupation! I think we met once on Maoming Road. She says hi.
I guess that’s why you hate “whites” so much: they’re always banging your mom?
In the future, don’t try to divert attention from my points with personal attacks and your racist rhetoric. Thanks.

March 13, 2008 @ 7:28 am | Comment

Nice try there buddy. You’re the only one who resorted to personal attacks. I simply said objectification of minorities in China is nothing like it is in America.

Many women in poor countries marry first worlders for green cards and money. Not all of them, but many of them. The CCP lets their minorities wear their caps because they don’t care; not because it’s “objectifcation”. Kinda like how it’s possible you married your wife because you actually love her and not because she is a gold digger.

Hey, we can all be cynical.

March 13, 2008 @ 7:52 am | Comment

Besides, you’ve never had a single valid point posted here as long as I’ve been reading this blog.

You get backed into a corner and then you start stammering “w-w-well, my CHINESE WIFE says..”

Your point about objectification is purely idiotic projection. “Han” people wear “hanfu” and qipao too, and it looks just as silly (mostly because they look like cheap Halloween costumes). Do you accuse them of objectifying themselves? No, because you might not be that stupid or you just don’t care.

Tell me, how should a minority be treated? Should they take America’s cue and enslave them for 400 years? Or kill 98% of their population and then rape 1/3rd of the women?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502778.html

Please, tell me what your Chinese wife says.

high pitched voice

“O-o-o-oh! Ferin is a big bad fenqing! A fenqing that doesn’t hate Japanese people, doesn’t want forced Chinese reunification, doesn’t hate gays, is Taiwanese, and doesn’t hate Chinese minorities!”

March 13, 2008 @ 7:58 am | Comment

[Note from Richard: Ferin, your comment got stopped by my spam filter because of all the links. I am also deleting the first sentence or two, because I don’t want you taking nasty swipes at other commenters or their wives. Can you just please knock it off?]

Did your wife know she’d be looked at like this in America?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7RbNQlD8UNw

Or this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gwr5IUY1FYM

What do we get for ten dollars?
Ev-ry-ting you want!
Everything? Ev-ry-ting!
Me so hoeny! Me so hoeny!
Me so hoeny! Me love you long time!
Sucky sucky! Suck sucky sucky!
Me sucky sucky! Suck sucky sucky!
Me sucky sucky! Suck sucky sucky!
Me so hoeny! Me so so hoeny!
Me so hoeny! Me love you long time!
Sucky sucky! Suck sucky sucky!
Me sucky sucky! Suck sucky sucky!

China could learn a thing or two about objectification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_fetish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_blacks

What you’re basically saying is that China should be held to an even higher standard than developing countries. Okay. They already do treat their indigenous people better than the American Natives, objectify their minorities less, and have higher emissions standards.

March 13, 2008 @ 8:52 am | Comment

I never said anything bad about his wife. It’s just funny how neither he nor his wife know about how most Americans that look at her will think she’s a mail order bride because of racist stereotypes perpetuated in America’s media.

March 13, 2008 @ 10:04 am | Comment

Actually, Ferin, that’s not true. But please, continue your circus.

March 13, 2008 @ 10:56 am | Comment

Yes, because everyone in China objectifies minorities and makes them wear caps!

But please, don’t stop being ridiculously ignorant.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:08 am | Comment

ferin, you are really smart. Which makes me wonder why you are also such an a**hole. You can justify each of your comments, but the fact remains, you are trying to bait and ridicule others. Very last chance: if you don’t stick to issues as opposed to personal needling, you are banned for a long time. Please don’t respond to this comment, don’t defend yourself or try to rationalize how your comments are really a-okay. Just keep the personal outbursts to yourself and talk about the issues at hand. Thank you, and this is a serious warning. I can’t be nice to you anymore.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:41 am | Comment

@Jinhan

At some point during the Tang there were more Han than Uighur, though the other tribes (that the Xiongnu and Uighur pushed out) outnumbered them both. They have as much an exclusive right to Xinjiang as the Avars have to Germany.

What happened during the Tang dynasty has no bearing whatsoever as to whether the PRC has a legitimate claim over Xinjiang.

March 13, 2008 @ 11:44 am | Comment

What happened during the Tang dynasty has no bearing whatsoever as to whether the PRC has a legitimate claim over Xinjiang.

It does because China has had influence there for over a thousand years. That and they predate the Uighur, especially the modern Uighur, in that area. How else do you can you justify possession of any piece of land? Do you think you have to ethnically cleanse a place before you can call it yours or something?

Anyway, it’s speculated that the non-Chinese ancestors of the Uighur originated in Siberia, Mongolia, and Central Asia. As far as we know, the native peoples of Xinjiang are the Yuezhi or Tocharians, nomads who settled down and traded jade with the Shang.

The Xiongnu, Gokturks, Uighur, etc were a menace to both the Chinese and the Yuezhi. They eventually succeeded in driving the Yuezhi into Central Asia and India and displaced them. The Uighur then gradually settled into various bits of Xinjiang and remained there.

In both “Greater Tibet” and “East Turkestan” there are huge amounts of land never significantly settled claimed by both groups. Regardless, they are a colony now and there’s absolutely no chance of either Tibet or Xinjiang being released until others release their colonies first (U.S, Russia, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada). Otherwise, you’re just holding them to higher standards in hopes that they will give up a vital strategic area for absolutely nothing.

March 13, 2008 @ 12:53 pm | Comment

It does because China has had influence there for over a thousand years.

Influence? So did a lot of other empires as well. You’re not getting anywhere with that.

Do you think you have to ethnically cleanse a place before you can call it yours or something?

No. I don’t think so. I just think it is prudent to consider the wishes of the people who constitute the majority population in a territory before you forcibly create a new demographic reality.

Regardless, they are a colony now…

I’m happy that you are at least honest about what PRC rule over Xinjiang and Tibet is all about: colonialism. See, that wasn’t so difficult to admit at the end of the day, see?

there’s absolutely no chance of either Tibet or Xinjiang being released until others release their colonies first

That’s exactly how Japan justified its rule over Korea, Taiwan and Manchukuo back in the bad old days.

March 13, 2008 @ 3:09 pm | Comment

No. I don’t think so. I just think it is prudent to consider the wishes of the people who constitute the majority population in a territory before you forcibly create a new demographic reality.

Then pack your bags. Go back to Europe. That’s the final line. As for demographic realities, Xinjiang has never been majority Uighur for any significant period of time.

I’m happy that you are at least honest about what PRC rule over Xinjiang and Tibet is all about: colonialism. See, that wasn’t so difficult to admit at the end of the day, see?

I never said Xinjiang and Tibet were not colonies. Only, Xinjiang was at one point a colony of the Uighur. They pushed the Tang out, and the Chinese are only returning now. As for Tibet, it’s another story. The immorality of imperialism and deciding another nation’s fate is pretty much unquestionable. But China has more right to Tibet than non-Natives to America. They have also been Tibet’s suzerain since before the colonization of the Americas.

That’s exactly how Japan justified its rule over Korea, Taiwan and Manchukuo back in the bad old days.

Irrelevant. What China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang is nothing like what was done in Manchukuo, Korea and Taiwan. Likewise, the European powers asking Japan to release colonies when they had them themselves is just stupid.

Morally speaking, it’s wrong. But you, as someone living in a cushy first world home built over the corpses of Native Americans, sound ridiculous asking China to let go of a colony they manage MUCH more humanely than even Americans do theirs.

March 13, 2008 @ 4:45 pm | Comment

@Ferin

OK, I knew you are an irreparable cynic and that’s fine with me, but you just crossed the line.

But you, as someone living in a cushy first world home built over the corpses of Native Americans, sound ridiculous asking China to let go of a colony they manage MUCH more humanely than even Americans do theirs.

You have absolutely no right to speak to someone like that. This discussion is over.

March 14, 2008 @ 4:08 am | Comment

No one likes the truth when it’s not sugar coated.

March 14, 2008 @ 6:35 am | Comment

It’s ok, Amban. Ferin has established himself even more soundly as a total joke in this thread (and a racist at that). I wouldn’t even bother.

March 14, 2008 @ 7:44 am | Comment

Now you’re pulling the “racist” card, you must be China’s Jesse Jackson.

March 14, 2008 @ 8:56 am | Comment

@Richard

Don’t be so hard on Ferin! It’s not his fault that evil laowai like Kevin or me are provoking him all the time. The fact that we are married to Chinese women already is a provocation. I’ve wondered for a long time what Ferin’s problem with mixed marriages is. I guess his girlfriend left him for another guy and he happened to be Caucasian. Or he never had a girlfriend. And he keeps asking himself: “Why? Why don’t the girls like me? I’m charming, sensitive, witty, Richard even thinks I’m smart, and I even have enough money to live in the USA, what is it other guys have that I don’t have? Surely those girls are prejudiced against Chinese men.”

The result is what we see on the Peking Duck.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

“But you, as someone living in a cushy first world home built over the corpses of Native Americans”

Ferin just described himself.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

Wowi, all the things I learn about myself when I rebuke slander from China bloggers. Not only am I a CCP goon, I’m also a racist who is angry that people are “stealing Chinese women”.

For one, I have been in a relationship with a white guy before. I don’t have a problem with “interracial relationships” (like the ones that created me; technically my grandparents were of different races) when there are no politics involved. Talk about objectification! What’s funny is that both of your wives will be “objectified”.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:29 pm | Comment

Specifically, I’m most likely Yi, Huaxia, Kejia, Hoklo. But I slap my forehead whenever someone runs up to me and squeals “I’m 50% Irish, 25% Italian, 12.5% German, 6.25% Swedish, 3.125% Cherokee, 1.5625% Hopi and Zimbabwean!!!!111” so I don’t talk about.

March 14, 2008 @ 12:33 pm | Comment