[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by dgatterdam, Richard Burger and Gady Epstein, Adrienne Mong. Adrienne Mong said: RT @gadyepstein: RT @ThePekingDuck: Chinese water torture: Xinjiang Internet opens up – very, very, very slowly. http://tinyurl.com/ye6gl3c […]

February 8, 2010 @ 12:46 pm | Pingback

This is not “opening up”, no matter what Xinhua says. This is a censorship white list, far more restrictive than the usual black list. Let’s hope it isn’t a national precedent.

February 9, 2010 @ 10:20 am | Comment

“Let’s hope it isn’t a national precedent.”

I suspect that’s exactly the idea – a pilot scheme for a national-level enclosed network.

February 9, 2010 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

Comic really 🙂 If it isn’t CCP hagiography, it doesn’t make the grade 😉
Same with everything else – I wonder what the CCP has to hide?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10quake.html?ref=world

February 10, 2010 @ 4:11 am | Comment

One theory for censorship – which would make this case a test bed, perhaps…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704842604574641620942668590.html

February 10, 2010 @ 8:14 am | Comment

I’m appalled at the comments. Some people even seem to think that this sets a precedent for the ban to become nationwide!! What a ridiculous notion. Neither the article nor the commenters seem to address or even mention in passing the real cause of the ban – the riots.
The Chinese government thinks that the internet can fuel further rumors – whether that is right or wrong is another matter.

I’m damn sure that there will come a day where the internet will be completely restored in Xinjiang (atleast upto the censored level of the rest of China) in a few weeks or months. After all, the internet was restored in Tibet after the 2008 unrest.

Maitreya Bhakal
India’s China Blog – http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com

February 11, 2010 @ 1:24 am | Comment

Maitreya – the west have also had riots. Brixton, LA, Paris…the list goes on and on. Tell me, though…were communication networks shut down in those times?
I take it India has riots too – ethnic ones. Does this shut down communications?

Only other country I can think of in the news at the mo that’s used silence to persecute (ooh, soory, contentious word!) people for the actions of a few is…ummm…Iran. A fine bedfellow, don’t you agree?

As for Tibet – as I recall, China wanted to host a sporting event or something right after those riots…. I recall being open was one of the conditions….

February 11, 2010 @ 5:01 am | Comment

I’m appalled at the comments. Some people even seem to think that this sets a precedent for the ban to become nationwide!! What a ridiculous notion.

Maitreya, a bit hysterical, no? The closest thing anyone said to this was “Let’s hope it isn’t a national precedent.”

The Internet can fuel rumors. No doubt about that. And any government that’s worth its salt can withstand rumors without silencing its people.

February 11, 2010 @ 6:10 am | Comment

To Maitreya:
“The Chinese government thinks that the internet can fuel further rumors – whether that is right or wrong is another matter”
— agreed. However, when the CHinese government starts making censorship decisions based on those beliefs, then the veracity of those beliefs becomes very relevant.

As a parallel, as I’m sure you’re aware, the Chinese government spares no opportunity to shut people and things down owing to the concern that resultant activities might “affect social stability”. Now, if the government was controlling information in a legitimate attempt to thwart a riot or a revolution, that might be justifiable to some degree. But is CHinese society so inherently unstable as to fall into anarchy if given the access to a little information. Or is it just more expedient for the CCP to neuter any potential challenge to her authority, real or imagined?

February 12, 2010 @ 9:01 am | Comment

@Mike GoldThorpe
I don’t know whether communication networks were shut down in western riots. However, what I do know that in India, the very cause of some riots was communication and mass media. However, the Chinese government is very different form other governments.

I think America banned Al-jazeera for a while.

@Richard

I agree the closest thing that anyone said was that it might become a national precedent; and I’ve mentioned this in my comment, and not anything more. I think that those people are the ones who are ‘hysterical’.

However, this ‘closest thing’ is in itself farthest. Can anyone actually even remotely contemplate that (even)the Chinese government can ‘shutdown’ the internet in the whole of China? And that too because riots have taken place in one city?

@BOTH OF THE ABOVE

You seem to think that I ENDORSE the fact that the Chinese government shutdown the internet. Whether I do or whether I don’t, the point is that all I said was that “The Chinese government thinks that the internet can fuel further rumors – whether that is right or wrong is another matter”

While I was only addressing the reason that the government did so. The post didn’t seem to do that at all.
This is just like complaining about something without knowing and understanding the reasons for it – whether those reasons are JUSTIFIED OR NOT is another matter altogether.
I think it was your own prejudice which made you twist my words in that context and see something which is not there.

@S.K.Cheung
No one can predict exactly how unstable Chinese society is right now with any level of accuracy. However, I think that your second alternative is more accurate – about the neutering any opposition being more expedient fo the government.

February 13, 2010 @ 3:30 am | Comment

This post was about sites that are becoming available on Xinjiang’s Internet. It is not about Uighurs or riots or history. It is one of a series of posts about blocked sites in Xinjiang. Most of my readers know only too well the history behind this development. Your loopy reasoning would dictate that if I wrote about someone meeting with the Dalai Lama this week I’d have to give the context of what happened in Tibet in 1951. This site presumes readers are up on their current events and not living in a vacuum.

February 13, 2010 @ 3:36 am | Comment

@stuart

I was talking about the comments. YOU never said in your post that this might become a national precedent, some commenters did. THAT IS WHY I said that they don’t understand why the internet was blocked. If “most of your readers know only too well the history behind this development”, the comments certainly didn’t seem to indicate so.

BTW, I do like your site’s commenting mechanism, of live previews. Hardly seen it anywhere.

Maitreya

February 13, 2010 @ 4:17 am | Comment

Your own words: While I was only addressing the reason that the government did so. The post didn’t seem to do that at all.

So I’m explaining to you “why the post didn’t seem to do that at all.”

I’m Richard, by the way.

February 13, 2010 @ 4:24 am | Comment

@stuart

I never said that YOU said in your post that this might become a national precedent, some commenters did. I was talking about the comments. THAT IS WHY I said that they don’t understand why the internet was blocked. I agree with you that “most of your readers know only too well the history behind this development”, but the comments certainly didn’t seem to indicate so.

On a separate but not altogether different note on censorship, there was a very interesting phenomenon which happened in India recently. The government decided to ban all pre paid mobile phone numbers due to security reasons in Kashmir. Now this threatened millions of people who had prepaid connections, so someone approached the Supreme Court. Well, it so happened that the Supreme court overturned the ban, and the government had to lift it. Just imagine how that would have worked out in China! I’ve blogged about this here: http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/2010/02/difference-in-indian-and-chinese.html

BTW, I do like your site’s commenting mechanism, of live previews. Hardly seen it anywhere else!

PS: the emailing of follow up comments didn’t work when I tried.

Maitreya

February 13, 2010 @ 4:29 am | Comment

posted that twice. must’ve been a glitch.

Anyway, I only wanted to clear that my remarks may have led some prejudiced people to believe that I SUPPORTED the internet ban, which I didn’t. The PRC censors the net anyway, they could have censored MORE stuff in Xinjiang, that’s all,

February 13, 2010 @ 4:45 am | Comment

The PRC censors the net anyway, they could have censored MORE stuff in Xinjiang, that’s all,

Oh, brother.

February 13, 2010 @ 5:40 am | Comment

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Richard. From what I hear, the censorship is not just limited to the Internet. Up until this past week citizens in Xinjiang could only send 20 text messages per day. Because of CNY, this limit has now increased to 50 messages. I am curious to see how long this gradual “re-opening” will take until communication channels are finally back to normal.

February 13, 2010 @ 1:22 pm | Comment

The Chinese government thinks that the internet can fuel further rumors – whether that is right or wrong is another matter.

Sorry to sound rude.. but i don’t see any value in you telling us this obvious thing. If i need to be toldabout this, i would have tune in to CCTV, Xinhua or read the People’s Daily. We don’t really need you to repeat that line from the official script to us. What DOES add value is whether you think such justification is valid in itself and the reason why or why not.

February 13, 2010 @ 2:45 pm | Comment

From your link: http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/2010/02/difference-in-indian-and-chinese.html

Most Chinese have so far been largely happy with this tradeoff between better standards of living and Human Rights.

How do you know? You have unrestricted journalist access to the poorest region of China??? Have you interviewed any of those peasants whose lands were seized by local party cadres for “development”? Did this “better standards of living” trickle down to those at the bottom? Do you know that Chinese cities are the most polluted ones now? Do you call it “development”? Some of the poorest lot are living in “cancer villages” where their homes are just beside hazardous factories. Is there “development” for these lot then? What price are they paying for the “development”? Did economic growth benefit Tibetans more or the Han Chinese more?

Hence, while the Chinese government prefers development over human rights (like freedom of religion and speech), the Indian government, while guaranteeing these rights, neglects development – it would not be an over exaggeration to say that it in fact uses these rights as an excuse to neglect its performance.

Again the classic false dilemma between development and human rights. Cape Verde and Botswana are functioning democracies yet they are very same developing countries which has amazing developmental results. How do you explain that? And if public discourse is absent on the issue of development as in the case of non-democratic regimes, how do you arrive at the conclusion that development is beneficial? In what sense? Or did it benefit only a small elite group? Without public discourse, “development” becomes very subjective. Those who gain would say there is development, but how about those who loses out? In China, the voices of the latter is often muzzled and drown out.

February 13, 2010 @ 3:02 pm | Comment

From Maitreya ‘s blog,

Whoever might have been guilty of masterminding the riots and uprisings in China, the fact remains that none of the accused parties can claim that there is a lack of Economic Development in the minority regions.

I am not sure whether “development” has been meaningful if one’s Tibetan and Uighur culture has been undermined by waves of Han Chinese transmigration. Urumqi has largely become a Han majority city and Uighurs has become the minority instead in Urumqi. Is this really “development”? Is it meaningful? What i do know is that development is more complicated than just numbers and statistics.

February 13, 2010 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

Richard,

I realized that my comments are delayed.. can it be resolved? Thanks.

February 13, 2010 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

SP, it’s an issue with your IP address. It should be okay now – if not, I’ll work on it. Thanks for the excellent comments. I found Maitreya’s comments facile in their effort to justify the censorship while claiming she/he isn’t trying to justify it.

February 14, 2010 @ 1:17 am | Comment

@ Matty (hope you don’t mind I call you Matty :-))
“I don’t know whether communication networks were shut down in western riots. However, what I do know that in India, the very cause of some riots was communication and mass media. However, the Chinese government is very different form other governments.”
I do not think the cause of rioting is communication. The cause is something else (poverty, corruption, corruption or corruption…and no, it’s not a typo). Communication facilitated the organisation of the rioting. There’s a difference. Get rid of the cause and you’ll get rid of popular insurrection. Not allowing people to talk merely acts as a band aid – look at Iran. Do you think the Greens are happy now they can’t talk and organise riots? Do you think this will end this Green “nonsense” once and for all? My money’s on “no”…
The Chinese government is different, yes. The American government is different from the British government and both are different from the New Zealand government. What’s your point?

“I think America banned Al-jazeera for a while.”
I dare say it was freely available online.

February 14, 2010 @ 9:06 am | Comment

Now this is getting childish. OK, I’m going to repeat myself for one last time.
I have NEVER said that the ban was justified. I only explained the reasons that the government thinks that it is. Does that make me a supporter of the ban?
While it is true that readers of a popular blog like this one know the reasons behind the ban, many comments certainly didn’t seem to indicate so. That’s why I said that I’m appalled at them. If someone can think that the ban can become a precedent for a nationwide one, then clearly they have not understood the reasons behind the ban in the first place. Now this fact was wrongly taken to mean that I justify the ban.

@Richard.

The PRC censors sensitive topics in the rest of China. Well, it could just have censored more in Xinjiang after the riots. For example, what’s the point of blocking a physics website which has no relation to these issues? Maybe they just didn’t want to make the extra effort.

And that’s my last word on this issue. I don’t see how I could have made it any MORE simpler.

@sp

Thanks for your comments on my post.

The point of the post was to COMPARE Indian and Chinese approaches. It was never to justify one approach over another.

I said that the Chinese people have been ‘largely’ happy, not completely happy. No nationality is completely happy with their government. However, they are MORE happy than their Indian counterparts. There are many protests (upto 10,000 according to some sources) in China every year. However, in China, many people can afford to protest because they enjoy a better standards of living (compared to Indians). In India, people struggle to feed themselves three times a day, hence there are less protests than China. Its a bit ironical – The PRC cracks down on protesters, while India doesn’t. Yet there are more protests in China than in India. Why do you think that is?

The thing is – the first priority of government (though by no means the only one)is to provide its citizens basic food, shelter and clothing. Everything else comes later. Would you care about Human rights if you sleep hungry every night and don’t have a roof over your head? Aren’t those counted as human rights?
Of course there are poor people in China. The pollution in China is an inevitable outcome of development. The PRC is making significant investments in Green technology and plans to build 10 digital cities in 2010. It already leads the US in applying green technology by a factor of 4:1. Every fourth Friedman article is about how China is going ti become a Green giant.

It is debatable whether the fruits of development trickle down to the poorest. However, in comparison to India, the situation is at least 10 times better. Poor people exist in every country. But there are much more in India than in China. (India has the largest no.of poor people in the world btw).

Regarding Tibetans and Han Chinese, I think we are going off topic here. I intend to discuss minorities in a future post.

Frankly, I don’t think that Cape Verde and Botswana can be compared to India or China. They don’t have huge population problems, for one.
Again, I have never said that more emphasis on development (or human rights) only is beneficial per se. The point is just to compare in which country is it MORE beneficial. And that’s why the title of my post mentions that these two countries can learn form each other.

“did it benefit a small elite group?” Well, I don’t think it did. Chinese development helped more people than in India. As for the price of development, the price in China is human rights. (But again, isn’t better standards of living also a human right? ).In India, the price of Human rights is development and standards of living.

As for the muzzling out which you talked about, I’ve explained it above in this comment.

@sp

Again you talk about minorities and go off topic. This is a valid question, and I intend to discuss it in a future post. However, let me just give a very short answer here:

How does Uyghur or Tibetan culture become undermined by Han migration? Nobody is stopping them from following their culture. As for migration, the PRC develops the minority regions; and hence people go their in search of jobs. What do you want them to do, not develop the region at all?

let me give you an excellent comparison point: The Uyghur practice of having multiple wives is banned according to PRC law. Does it mean that the PRC discriminates against minorities? In India on the other hand, there are SEPARATE laws for Muslims, allowing them to have multiple wives. Some people in fact change their religion in order to have multiple wives!

The problem of migration is very complex and exists in India too. Some political parties have even made it an election issue.

I am not discussing further about it now since that is not the topic. I will publish a post some time in the future giving my take on it (including the Kashgar issue).

@Mike Goldthorpe

Thanks for your comments.

The main cause of the riots in India was NOT poverty or corruption. These problems exist in many countries; but I don’t see them having riots on the scale that India has.

Allow me to explain to you how Indian riots happen in a few words:

In 1984, one Sikh assassinated the Indian PM Indira Gandhi, due to reasons which I need not go into here. The result: 3000 innocent Sikhs killed in the riots that followed.

Now coming to the Hindu-Muslim riots. Politicians exploit the sensitivities of both and help cause the riots by making inflammatory speeches. Due to (mis)communication, these things (speeches) spread throughout the country. This incites people in other parts of the country. Now, for example, if the speeches were not broadcast, at least the rest of the country would have remained peaceful.

Of course the reality is more complex, but I am just giving it to you in a nutshell.

I said that the PRC government is different form other governments in the sense that it doesn’t allow any other voices to come up. The Indian government in contrast, does.

I hope that my replies have been useful to you.

February 14, 2010 @ 2:51 pm | Comment

@Maitreya Bhakal

The point of the post was to COMPARE Indian and Chinese approaches. It was never to justify one approach over another.

One doesn’t have to explicitly to show favoritism to practice favoritism. Notice the tone you used in your blog. One example,“(the Indian government) uses these rights as an excuse to neglect its performance”. If you are truly fair and balanced, why don’t you also mentioned that the Chinese government uses political rhetoric like “stability” and “order” to persecute genuine demands for political reforms? Words like “excuse” and “neglect”, in case you are no aware of, already carries underlying normative value judgment on one’s part.

I said that the Chinese people have been ‘largely’ happy, not completely happy. No nationality is completely happy with their government. However, they are MORE happy than their Indian counterparts.

Once again, i asked you: On what basis can you conclude that the Chinese people have been ‘largely’ happy and that they are MORE happy than their Indian counterparts? Did you carry out any academic field studies? Unrestricted interviews? Or is it just your own perception? Even a PhD holder would hesitate making such bold and unsubstantiated statements without some empirical results.

The PRC cracks down on protesters, while India doesn’t. Yet there are more protests in China than in India. Why do you think that is?

You claim that “Most Chinese have so far been largely happy with this tradeoff between better standards of living and Human Rights” in your blog and now you claimed that because “in China, many people can afford to protest because they enjoy a better standards of living (compared to Indians).” Isn’t this even more bewildering and ironical or does it imply that “development” in the Chinese model need to be re-examined?

The thing is – the first priority of government (though by no means the only one)is to provide its citizens basic food, shelter and clothing. Everything else comes later.

Citizens do work for their food, shelter and clothing, its not something a “messianic” government bestow on them. Unless you are disabled, aged and seriously ill, not even the most generous welfare state in this world would dish out these things free for any of its citizens for a prolonged period. The poor have been working hard to provide themselves with these basic things. Waiting for the government to act can be akin to waiting for the cows to come home.

The pollution in China is an inevitable outcome of development.

Have you wondered why? Because in the drive for development, there is no public discourse and participative element in the entire development process. That’s why political and civil rights are important in this case: to ensure a public discourse on issues like poverty, development and weighing pros and cons etc.

The PRC is making significant investments in Green technology and plans to build 10 digital cities in 2010. It already leads the US in applying green technology by a factor of 4:1.

Have you visited Shanghai or Beijing before? Looks like you should and tell us about the quality of air there. Part of the reason why China is attractive as an investment destination is the lax labour and environmental regulations, allowing corporations to engage in regulatory arbitrage. Don’t think the local party bosses in the various provinces are enthusiastic about going Green any time soon. They have vested interests not to since their political report cards depends on the raw economic and investment numbers. Who gives a damn about going “green” given such political reality?

Frankly, I don’t think that Cape Verde and Botswana can be compared to India or China. They don’t have huge population problems, for one.

Are huge populations necessarily problems? One could argue that precisely because of the sheer population size of India and China, they have more bargaining power in the global market place. For instance, China can resist demands for revaluation of its currency but i doubt Cape Verde can do that if it was in China’s situation. Countries like Cape Verde and Botswana will have to be largely subjected to the dictates of market forces of the global economy.

And the thing is despite being democracies, you have not explained why these two countries did not have a “trade-off” in human rights vis-a-vis development.

“did it benefit a small elite group?” Well, I don’t think it did.

China’s Gini coefficient has been climbing steadily since the reforms in 1978 and even CCP leaders are concerned about the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots, the rural and the coastal regions. I am surprised you are not concerned. The PLA has their own enterprises while children of senior party officials have been earning dubious bucks due to personal connections. Just look at former premier Li Peng’s children. Do they resemble any of those peasants whose lands were seized by local party cadres to build production plants? Some weren’t even compensated. Some were intimidated when they tried to go all the way to Beijing to petition their grievances. China has a system”black jails” to “with the sole purpose of detaining without trial Chinese petitioners, who have the traditional right of individual citizens to petition the country’s high officials to solve their grievances which were unsolvable at the lower level.” What a nice picture of development. Development without rights? Is it even “development” at all from these down-trodden and oppressed people’s perspective?

the price of Human rights is development and standards of living.

Again, the classic false dilemma between rights and development. If a whistle-blower on the SARS outbreak or activists who are helping the underprivileged in society are persecuted, what sort of “development” or “standard of living” can one genuinely talk about? Read about Jiang Yanyong and Gao Yaojie below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Yanyong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gao_Yaojie

February 14, 2010 @ 4:19 pm | Comment

Maitreya, let ne repeat the sentence right out of your mouth that reveals the facile game you seem to be playing:

The PRC censors the net anyway, they could have censored MORE stuff in Xinjiang, that’s all

You seem to be making the same kinds of arguments Merp and Math make, but cloaking them in the robes of erudition, and couched in language that allows you to say, “I’m not justifying it,” when in fact that is what you’re doing, only very facilely.

As to all your other points, what SP said.
(SP, I am not sure why your comments are still getting caught in my spam filter. Apologies.)

February 14, 2010 @ 4:31 pm | Comment

How does Uyghur or Tibetan culture become undermined by Han migration? Nobody is stopping them from following their culture. As for migration, the PRC develops the minority regions; and hence people go their in search of jobs. What do you want them to do, not develop the region at all?

With development comes commercialization. Han migrants come in huge numbers to look for commercial opportunities, otherwise none have them would have the incentive to come. Without proper and sensitive deliberation and democratic participation on the part of the local native group, commercialization can wreck havoc on cultural heritage. Remember the controversy over the opening of a Starbucks outlet within the ground of the Imperial Forbidden City in Beijing? That’s what we are talking about here. Do Starbucks provide jobs? Yes. But would the Han Chinese themselves tolerate such commercialization of an important heritage site of theirs? Obviously not. In Urumqi, where the Uighurs have become the minority and the Han the overwhelming majority, do you sincerely think that a Uighur with little knowledge of Mandarin Chinese can have better opportunities than a Han Chinese immigrant?

February 14, 2010 @ 4:33 pm | Comment

I only explained the reasons that the government thinks that it is.

Like i have said, sorry for being rude, but we don’t need you to do that because i can always listen to the CCTV or the PRC government spokesperson for that official jargon. in fact, for official line of thinking, they are more accurate sources than you. If you keep doing that, you are making yourself look rather redundant.

February 14, 2010 @ 5:14 pm | Comment

@sp, @Richard

(@sp – Don’t worry you are not rude.)
Explain to me where I have said that I JUSTIFY the ban? I agree with you that everyone knows the reason behind the ban. But some commenters didn’t seem to know it. When someone thinks that the ban could become a precedent for a nationwide one (as some comments said), then clearly they don’t know the reasons behind the ban. That’s why I repeated the official line.
Now, YOU know the reason for the ban, but those commenters didn’t, and my comment (that I’m “appalled at the comments”) was directed at them.

Explain to me how my sentence (The PRC censors the net anyway, they could have censored MORE stuff in Xinjiang, that’s all) indicate that I SUPPORT the ban? In any way, even facilely.

Now, the PRC government thinks that banning the internet will bring stability. Now, given that framework (which I don’t agree with), there is no reason to ban websites which have nothing to do with riots or politics, like health or physics or web designing websites. Also there is no reason to even THINK of a nationwide ban.

No wonder I sound redundant to you. That’s because you don’t read my comments properly and then make your own false interpretations. I’ve said the above things a thousand times. But I’m damn sure that you’ll make me say it again tomorrow.

February 15, 2010 @ 1:44 am | Comment

Hitler could have killed a lot MORE Jews. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of Hitler killing Jews. I’m just saying….

I think we’ve beaten this horse to death. The “it could have been a lot worse” argument is pretty lame.

SP, I don’t seem to be able to fix the problem with your comments, even after clearing out the filters. I suggest you try a different user name, like SP2 and a different email address. This has never happened before and I don’t understand it. WordPress is determined to mark you as a spammer.

Maitreya, as I said, we’ve talked about this enough. If you want to comment on something else please feel free. Thanks.

February 15, 2010 @ 1:59 am | Comment

(NOTE:COMMENTS ARE GETTING HUGELY DELAYED)

@sp

Regarding favoritism:

I made that that remark about the Indian government using these rights as an excuse due to the remark of the Home Minister that the people in Naxal infected areas can throw out the government if they are not satisfied with it. Conveniently ignoring the fact that successive governments have failed to solve the problem since 1967. Hence, bringing in new governments will not necessarily solve this problem if there is no political will.

If I am not (explicitly) showing favoritism (as you yourself say), how can you say that I practice it?

Your parallel about the rhetoric of the PRC is not an exact parallel. A more suitable parallel would be that the PRC may use development as an excuse to restrict freedom of speech etc. However, it is just my own opinion. But in India it is well known that the government, once elected, doesn’t deliver on its promises.

******************
Regarding the ‘largely happy’ issue:

Chinese people can protest because they do not have to worry about things like food, shelter and clothing. Most Indian people do. Hence, in my opinion, while the Chinese people are happy that the government has provided them with all these things; they now want more, which is a completely justified demand. However, the sad fact is that the Chinese government doesn’t give them those other ‘rights’. Hence, the Chinese people are happy that they get basic human necessities; but want more human rights too.
By contrast, the Indian government gives people the right to protest, but it ignores development demands despite their being many protests.

In other words, Indian people are happy that they enjoy many human rights, but are not happy with their standards of living.
For example, people have protested against rising inflation and food prices in India; but still the government has not done anything to reduce the prices of basic food items; but gives people the right to protest against it.

Hence the Chinese people are happy with development but not happy with their other human rights. The Indian people are happy with their human rights such as freedom of speech etc. but not happy with their country’s development.

In conclusion, both these extreme approaches are wrong in my opinion. If a government would COMBINE these two approaches,then maybe the situation would be different.

Hence, in answer to your question,
“Isn’t this even more bewildering and ironical or does it imply that “development” in the Chinese model need to be re-examined?”

I agree that the Chinese model needs to be reexamined, which is the conclusion of my blogpost. So does the Indian model.

But I agree that my original statement could have lent itself to misinterpretation. And I hope that I’ve cleared your (perfectly justified)
concerns.

*********************
Regarding the “Government providing food, shelter and clothing” :

You Said “Citizens do work for their food, shelter and clothing, its not something a “messianic” government bestow on them. Unless you are disabled, aged and seriously ill, not even the most generous welfare state in this world would dish out these things free for any of its citizens for a prolonged period. The poor have been working hard to provide themselves with these basic things. Waiting for the government to act can be akin to waiting for the cows to come home.”

You are right in saying that the people work hard for it. However, Indian people work equally hard, but they get less. I’ve never implied that the government acts as a “messiah ” and just gives them these things for free.
According to you, China’s rise is solely due to the people. I say that it is due to the people as well as the government.

*****************
Regarding the “small elite group”:

The gini coefficient of China is appalling – I wholeheartedly agree. However, on an absolute as well as relative scale, there are much more poor people in India than in China. Despite China’s population being more, I might add.

Hence, the “small elite group” which you refer to is smaller in India than in China.
Also, a PEW research foundation report rated India as one of the most socially hostile countries in the world. China had performed much better than India. Which means that the protests in China do not necessarily cause social instability.

But again, that was not the point of the post.

******************
Regarding Pollution and Environment:

You said “Don’t think the local party bosses in the various provinces are enthusiastic about going Green any time soon. They have vested interests not to since their political report cards depends on the raw economic and investment numbers. Who gives a damn about going “green” given such political reality?”

First – How do you know that? Second – Many media reports prove that they ARE enthusiastic. Also there is a race of sorts among local party bosses for going green too. You might be true that it is only for political gains that regional governments are outsmarting each other in using green technology. However, whether it is or whether it isn’t, the outcome is what matters. Also, in India – politics has a much larger role to play than in China (the PRC doesn’t have to fight elections every five years), but despite this (or maybe because of it) there are no results.

I guess people like Thomas Friedman are damn fools to say such things!! – You are the expert!

Also, no one can deny that pollution is an inevitable result of development. For example, if China had not used so much coal, the growth rate would not have risen so fast. India would have done the same, because they care even less about environment than China. Its just that they are not as developed and hence pollution is not a serious issue (yet).

But again, that was not the point of my post per se. It was about the tradeoff between human rights and development.

************
Then you said: “If a whistle-blower on the SARS outbreak or activists who are helping the underprivileged in society are persecuted, what sort of “development” or “standard of living” can one genuinely talk about?”
However, again here I am only interested in a comparison with India. If SARS had broken out in India, you can imagine the result. China did mistakes in handling that epidemic, but then learnt from it and then handled the Swine Flu scare much better. Much better than India I daresay. They even had a vaccine ready while India was still deciding its approach.

********************
Regarding Minorities :

I don’t understand why you keep bringing the issue of minorities here. Its a valid issue, but I’ve already said that this is not the place to discuss it and you are going off-topic. As I said earlier, I am planning to publish a separate post on it. But let me just give you a brief idea –

Regarding “migration”:

Regarding migration, it is inevitable that if Tibet or Xinjiang is developed, people will migrate there in search of jobs. Then what is the government is supposed to do – not develop them at all? You have conveniently forgotten that nobody is stopping Tibetans to migrate to Beijing or Shanghai. The language issue is always there; and as I understand it, there is bilingual education in schools in both territories.

Indians are happy to learn more than one language, why not Chinese?

Tibet’s first rail link with inland China, opened in 2006, is blamed by many Tibetans for a surge of migration to Tibet by ethnic Han Chinese,an influx that helped trigger the unrest two years ago. So I guess ,according to you, the solution is that the Government should not build any infrastructure at all!! (Then you will accuse the government of ignoring minority regions!)
If the government enacts a law restricting Han migration into Tibet, then it will be accused of violating “Human Rights”!

Consider the state of exiled Tibetans in India. For fear of losing Tibetan ‘culture’, the Tibetan government discourages them to intermarry with non-tibetans. Many don’t know English or Hindi and can’t get jobs or an education.

(http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1884187,00.html)

Also, higher education is very difficult to administer in a regional language. eg. lack of availability of textbooks,teachers, manuals etc. It is simply not feasible to have an Institute of Engineering in Tibetan/Uyghur. Same thing in India.

*****
The Starbucks issue: As I understand it, the government had given permission to build it in the palace, but it was removed due to public opinion, which is a very good thing.

China has done much for its minorities – much more than what can be said for Red Indians in America or Aborigines in Australia; or the tribals in India’s Naxal Belt.

However, the Uyghur culture is certainly not being destroyed by Han migration. No construction has taken place which threatens the many world heritage sites in Xinjiang. You comparision is therefore invalid. Also there are many reports of many Han cultural sites being destroyed due to development. This is a very serious problem for both cultures.

There is one point about KASHGAR though:

As you know, The PRC has kept Kashgar off the list of proposed world heritage sites in its submission to UNESCO.

First of all, as some others have also pointed out, to say that Uyghur culture lies in bricks and mortar in a city is insulting it.
It lies in people’s hearts and minds and way of life.

In 2007 there was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake just 100 miles away from Kashgar. In 1902, there was an 8.0 earthquake, one of the 20th century’s biggest, which killed 667 people. Clearly, this is a highly earthquake prone area.
Yet, I feel that what the western media would rather that when an earthquake strikes, Kashgar’s citizens would die beneath those old and crumbling houses. (At least they will die preserving their own ‘culture’!) If that happens, the same western media will say that – look – the Chinese government has not developed the minority regions!! Therefore, it discriminates against minorities!

The government gives more importance to saving people’s lives (the memories of the Sichuan earthquake are still fresh in their minds), than to preserving some old and crumbling piece of Muslim architecture. If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

God or Religion is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

You asked for sources. I’ll give you one source – here is what the China Journal of Social Work has to say:
“Compared with the minority rights approach in Europe, which focuses on non-discrimination, the intention of China’s approach is not only to protect minorities from negative treatment, but promote a broad scope of POSITIVE RIGHTS, even privileges. Some policies conferring benefits on minorities are preferential treatment, so much so that they have generated public concern that the MAJORITY is being discriminated against” (my emphasis) – which might as well have been the cause of the rioting.

Just Some of the policies which favour minorities are:
1. The relaxation of the one child policy.
2. Reservations for minorities in educational institutions.
3. The Constitution requires that the state cadres in the autonomous regions be selected from the local dominant ethnic minority.

I will discuss all this in a future post.

********
Regarding Cape Verde and Botswana:

Many countries, including these two have both Human rights and development. What’s your point?
The point of my post is to compare India and China – no other country comes into the picture.

I’ve never said that these two things are mutually exclusive. Its just that the Chinese government provides one and the Indian government the other. If these two approaches are combined, then the outcome would certainly be better for both countries.

In conclusion, I think that you are simply asking more questions without answering mine.
For example, Would you care about Human rights if you sleep hungry every night and don’t have a roof over your head? Aren’t those counted as human rights?

I certainly appreciate and respect your concerns. But I think that you
a) Keep asking more and more questions without answering mine (While I answer all of yours)
b) make many statements without giving evidence and
c) go off topic often (So much so that it seems that you only want to display your knowledge and not have a healthy discussion).

Thanks again for your interest.

(NOTE: THE COMMENTS ARE GETTING HUGELY DELAYED)

February 15, 2010 @ 2:26 am | Comment

I agree with you.

Also, the comments seem to be overlapping and not in the order in which they were written.

February 15, 2010 @ 2:31 am | Comment

Maitreya, as I said, we have discussed this to death. One of the joys of owning your own blog is that you can set the parameters as you choose. Blogs are all about the freedom of speech: you have the freedom to run your blog exactly as you choose, and I have that same freedom. Some blogs have no comments, some have moderated comments, some are a free for all. This blog has moderated comments, and usually there’s no moderation at all. I make exceptions when I think a commenter is diverting/hijacking threads, seizing on some irrelevant notion and then spamming the thread about it, Thanks for your understanding.

Richard

February 15, 2010 @ 2:39 am | Comment

I see that there is some confusion regarding ascertaining my gender form my name, which is quite understandable, mainly for non-Indians.

You could have just seen my blogger profile.

I’m a MALE; and MAITREYA is a Sanskrit/Prakrit name.

🙂 🙂

– Maitreya

February 15, 2010 @ 2:47 am | Comment

I’ve never said that these two things are mutually exclusive. Its just that the Chinese government provides one and the Indian government the other.

Didn’t you just contradicted yourself without you realizing??

February 15, 2010 @ 2:47 am | Comment

Maitreya, sometimes I hold comments until I review them to keep out spam and trolls.

February 15, 2010 @ 2:47 am | Comment

You claimed that i have “make many statements without giving evidence”.

Examples?

But you have been the one making statements like this and beating around the bush without saying what evidence you have:

I said that the Chinese people have been ‘largely’ happy, not completely happy. No nationality is completely happy with their government. However, they are MORE happy than their Indian counterparts.

What’s your evidence of “MORE happy than their Indian counterparts”? I am all ears.

February 15, 2010 @ 2:51 am | Comment

OK.
But sometimes I saw that comment A should appear after comment B, but actually appeared before it.

February 15, 2010 @ 2:52 am | Comment

Which means that the protests in China do not necessarily cause social instability.

Then why are Chinese authorities so uptight especially when it is near June 4th every year?

February 15, 2010 @ 2:54 am | Comment

sp, did you see my comment up above about your comments not showing up? I want to resolve the issue.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:01 am | Comment

First – How do you know that?

The CCP’s obssession with the annual target of 9% GDP growth is well known to the whole world. That 9% growth is GDP growth, environmental externalities is not part of the GDP equation. Perhaps you happen to be the few who are not aware.

Also, in India – politics has a much larger role to play than in China (the PRC doesn’t have to fight elections every five years), but despite this (or maybe because of it) there are no results.

Haha. It is laughable to think that politics have a lesser role in China. As a local party cadre, you don’t fight elections, you fight for endorsements, favours and patronage from the party superiors. Top Chinese leaders like Hu used to be local provincial party officials. If they can’t showcase their success as local party bosses, you can kiss your dream to rise up the party hierarchy goodbye. That’s why it has the potential of creating a phenomenon of “development at all costs”. You dish out impressive lists of economic and investment data to your party superiors to get promotions, nobody ask you how “green” you are. I talked to a Dongguan party before. He gets recognised everytime he managed to get foreign investments into his county. That’s is his main Key Performance Indicator as a party cadre. Thomas Friedman may not even have the privilege of talking to a party cadre in a Chinese county.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:07 am | Comment

If SARS had broken out in India, you can imagine the result. China did mistakes in handling that epidemic, but then learnt from it and then handled the Swine Flu scare much better. Much better than India I daresay. They even had a vaccine ready while India was still deciding its approach.

My point is, an authoritarian state can never tolerate whistle-blowers, activists from civil society and NGOs because they are basically autonomous and are potential threats to the regime. The vaccine is not the point here, the point is the persecution of a group of people whose work could mean life and death for the underprivileged. China even attempted to cover up the actual death toll. It is more deadly than not having a vaccine.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:12 am | Comment

SP, your comments are still being blocked even though there is no direction from me to block them. WordPress is doing it automatically, and it has to be based on your IP address.

If you send me an email I might be able to propose a solution. I’m sorry for this inconvenience.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:16 am | Comment

The government gives more importance to saving people’s lives (the memories of the Sichuan earthquake are still fresh in their minds),

Haha, and you have the cheek to mention Sichuan earthquake. Parents of schoolchildren who died in collapsed school buildings have been warned and intimidated not to pursue responsibilities against officials who may have to do with the poor structures of the schools.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:17 am | Comment

The Starbucks issue: As I understand it, the government had given permission to build it in the palace, but it was removed due to public opinion, which is a very good thing.

But do Tibetans or Uighurs have such rights to openly express their public opinion in a similar fashion?

February 15, 2010 @ 3:20 am | Comment

Indians are happy to learn more than one language, why not Chinese?

Didn’t you remember the controversy that was ignited by attempting to make Hindi the national language? They planned to drop English by 1965 but they couldn’t in face of fierce resistance in places like Tamil Nadu. Many Indians only know Tamil and Malayalam plus English. They don’t know Hindi at all and cant be bothered with it. English is deemed as a “neutral” language because it was not associated with a particular region of India.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:29 am | Comment

You have conveniently forgotten that nobody is stopping Tibetans to migrate to Beijing or Shanghai.

If a Uighur or Tibet already faces difficulty in Lhasa or Urumqi in terms of getting opportunities, how high are their chances in Beijing or Shanghai?

February 15, 2010 @ 3:33 am | Comment

I’ve never said that these two things are mutually exclusive.

So what about your statement “As for the price of development, the price in China is human rights.”

Paying a price means a “trade-off” i.e. you can’t have one without compromising the other.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:38 am | Comment

However, the Uyghur culture is certainly not being destroyed by Han migration. No construction has taken place which threatens the many world heritage sites in Xinjiang.

It is not just about construction. As i have told you, commercialization can be very damaging if not managed properly. It could destroy ways of living for example. These indigenous people may not withstand the onslaught of such commercial intrusion whether it is intentional or otherwise. And the thing is they were never consulted on the impact of Han migration at all throughout the process. It was always about what the CCP think is “right” and “beneficial”, without any meaningful local involvement in decisions which affected them most.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:44 am | Comment

wow, looks like it’s fixed, SP.

There’s a great piece in the Economist this week (last week?) about all the development going on in Tibet, the huge subsidies the CCP is bestowing on Tibetans out of whack with every other part of the country – and why it’s not working, mainly for the reasons SP is citing. You can’t impose happiness on a group that sees you as occupiers and infringers.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:47 am | Comment

China has done much for its minorities – much more than what can be said for Red Indians in America or Aborigines in Australia; or the tribals in India’s Naxal Belt.

Did you conduct a referendum in Tibet or Xinjiang? If not, how did you come to such conclusions? China may think it has done much for the minorities, but have the minorities been given a chance to say if that is what they want? Do they have the power to decide what is best for them? Is it always problematic when someone claims that he/she has done some good for another person without giving the right for that particular person to say freely if that is indeed the case.

February 15, 2010 @ 3:48 am | Comment

I think that you are simply asking more questions without answering mine.

Simple.Your answers are smacks oversimplification and sweeping generalizations such that they raises more questions than answers.

go off topic often

For instance? Notice when you first accused me of going off topic by saying in post 24 by saying,”Regarding Tibetans and Han Chinese, I think we are going off topic here. I intend to discuss minorities in a future post.”

But in post 5, you link us to your blog post which is titled “The difference in the Indian and Chinese approach towards Separatism & Development & what they can learn from each other”.

Who is off topic first if talking about minorities in your definition is off topic??

February 15, 2010 @ 3:58 am | Comment

What do you want them to do, not develop the region at all?

I want them to have a more bottom-up, democratic and participative model of development where the locals are fully represented and consulted.

For example, Would you care about Human rights if you sleep hungry every night and don’t have a roof over your head? Aren’t those counted as human rights?

I see human rights and development as a package. Without things like freedom of speech, association and political participation, how do you defend yourself against hunger and social injustice? In China, if your land was seized by local officials but you are intimidated into not petitioning your grievances. Your deprivation and hunger (as a result of losing your land) in this case was due to the fact that you are been deprived of your political and civil rights such that you are totally defenseless. Factory owners can make you work in appalling conditions because you guys will be arrested for forming independent trade unions.

During Mao’s rule, millions of people died from hunger as a result of his disastrous “Great Leap Forward” campaign. Without a free press, an opposition party and checks and balances, nobody was able to stop this gigantic man-made catastrophe from occurring and continuing until the massive human losses cannot be ignored. Hunger and political rights goes hand in hand.

Similarly, during the Tangshan Earthquake in 1976, the Chinese government refused to accept international aid from the United Nations, and insisted on self reliance. Any democratically-elected government will be committing political suicide for doing that. Sometimes, political and civil rights can be a matter of life and death for the masses.

February 15, 2010 @ 4:18 am | Comment

Matty
“Politicians exploit the sensitivities of both and help cause the riots by making inflammatory speeches.”
Exploit for….? NZ$20 says corruption is a root cause (after all, one doesn’t become a politician for the love of the people..in any country).

🙂

Richard
“There’s a great piece in the Economist this week (last week?) about all the development going on in Tibet, the huge subsidies the CCP is bestowing on Tibetans out of whack with every other part of the country – and why it’s not working, mainly for the reasons SP is citing. You can’t impose happiness on a group that sees you as occupiers and infringers.”
Yep – ask any Iraqi…

February 15, 2010 @ 5:57 am | Comment

“Haha, and you have the cheek to mention Sichuan earthquake. Parents of schoolchildren who died in collapsed school buildings have been warned and intimidated not to pursue responsibilities against officials who may have to do with the poor structures of the schools.”

That fact is neither here nor there. It is true that the party silenced parents etc. However, that does NOT mean that the CCP will let it happen again in Kashgar. In India, those parents would have had the right to protest, but the Indian government wouldn’t have done anything.

“”I’ve never said that these two things are mutually exclusive. Its just that the Chinese government provides one and the Indian government the other.””

Didn’t you just contradicted yourself without you realizing??”

Explain to me how. These things ARE NOT mutually exclusive; but these two governments CHOOSE to emphasize one over the other. If they want, they CAN have both, SINCE THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

“The CCP’s obssession with the annual target of 9% GDP growth is well known to the whole world. That 9% growth is GDP growth, environmental externalities is not part of the GDP equation. Perhaps you happen to be the few who are not aware.”

“The CCP’s obssession with the annual target of 9% GDP growth is well known to the whole world. That 9% growth is GDP growth, environmental externalities is not part of the GDP equation. Perhaps you happen to be the few who are not aware.

The CCP’s green drive is ALSO well known to the whole world. SO your conclusion is : Friedman is a fool.
Also, How do you know that the party doesn’t judge performance on the basis of application of green technology. Because it does.

Regarding Indian LAnguages:

It’s only a few people exploited by political parties who protested. The MAJORITY have NO PROBLEM knowing three languages or more. Whether English is the national language or not is irrelavant; but PEOPLE LEARN IT. That was my point. Every parent wants to send their children to an English medium school – Why do you think that is?

February 15, 2010 @ 9:00 pm | Comment

“That fact is neither here nor there. It is true that the party silenced parents etc. However, that does NOT mean that the CCP will let it happen again in Kashgar.”
And arrested the lawyers and…
In a way, the CCP has allowed an earthquake to happen in Kashgar. Only this time they thought the earth wasn’t shaking enough so they sent in bulldozers…

February 16, 2010 @ 4:21 am | Comment

@Maitreya
Explain to me how…

If you bother to read my post 48 and your own words: “As for the price of development, the price in China is human rights.” And from your blog “Most Chinese have so far been largely happy with this tradeoff between better standards of living and Human Rights.”

Both these words carries the idea of having more of A by giving up B. Is that mutually exclusive? Man, why am i teaching English here??

Also, How do you know that the party doesn’t judge performance on the basis of application of green technology. Because it does.

Because the smog and soot one breathes in Chinese cities tells us so. In the meantime, mayors and party secretaries of these cities still getting their promotions without much hindrance.

SO your conclusion is : Friedman is a fool.

Don’t put words in my mouth. Quote where i say this outrightly in bold. But then, why can’t i have contradictory conclusions from Friedman? Unless you think he is infallible. Isn’t academia about constant questioning?

It’s only a few people exploited by political parties who protested. The MAJORITY have NO PROBLEM knowing three languages or more. Whether English is the national language or not is irrelavant; but PEOPLE LEARN IT. That was my point. Every parent wants to send their children to an English medium school – Why do you think that is?

You missed the entire point. The controversy was over the adoption of Hindi as the sole national language after 1965 by dropping English from its official language status. The controversy wasn’t over English, it was over Hindi. People from non-Hindi speaking provinces resisted the push for Hindi to be the sole national language of India. The attempt to drop English as the one of the two official languages so that Hindi can become the sole official language was the sore point.

From Wiki “The anti-Hindi agitations ensured the passage of Official Languages Act of 1963 and its amendment in 1967, thus ensuring the continued use of English as an official language of India. They effectively brought about the “virtual indefinite policy of bilingualism” of the Indian Republic.”

In India’s case, Hindi was perceived to be bias because it was perceived to be bias towards the Hindi-speaking Indians. English has served as a “neutral” working language because it wasn’t associated with any particular region of the country.

I wonder if you have carefully studied India’s history.

February 16, 2010 @ 12:48 pm | Comment

Off-topic question:

Is the site freekorea.us (One Free Korea) viewable in China without a proxy? It was blocked once, and I’m curious to know if it still is.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

February 16, 2010 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

@sp or sp2

“You missed the entire point. The controversy was over the adoption of Hindi as the sole national language after 1965 by dropping English from its official language status. The controversy wasn’t over English, it was over Hindi. People from non-Hindi speaking provinces resisted the push for Hindi to be the sole national language of India. The attempt to drop English as the one of the two official languages so that Hindi can become the sole official language was the sore point.”

Your statement that “Many Indians only know Tamil and Malayalam plus English” reveals how ignorant you are about India. Malayalam is spoken in only one state of India, and Tamil in another; and of course by the migrants of those states in other cities. This covers less than 8.5 % of the Indian population. Would you call that “many”?

“Explain to me how…

Both these words carries the idea of having more of A by giving up B. Is that mutually exclusive? Man, why am i teaching English here??”

Again the same thing. Read my earlier comment more carefully and peacefully.

The price in China is human rights, but I never said that ALL Chinese are happy with it.” Also Read below.

“Isn’t academia about constant questioning?”
Ok. So when you question Friedman, then its ok. But when I question you, then its not.

“If they can’t showcase their success as local party bosses, you can kiss your dream to rise up the party hierarchy goodbye. That’s why it has the potential of creating a phenomenon of “development at all costs”. You dish out impressive lists of economic and investment data to your party superiors to get promotions, nobody ask you how “green” you are”

What’s wrong with a little healthy competition? Also, how do you know that promotions are not being dished out for going green?
Here’s more evidence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html?ref=global-home

“What’s your evidence of “MORE happy than their Indian counterparts”? I am all ears..
Well, here it is –

What I said was “However, they are MORE happy than their Indian counterparts.”

First of all, Happiness is a very difficult thing to measure directly. Hence we have to use indirect sources.

Well, as a start, here are two pieces of evidence,
1. Global Peace Index 2009:
Scores: China – 1.98, India – 2.53
(http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2007/)

2. I mentioned it earlier too – A PEW research Center report on Social hostility.
India is ranked no. 2 in the world, While China is in the bottom 60%.
(http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/restrictions/restrictionsfullreport.pdf)

Now, this means that it seems China is a)more peaceful and b)much less socially hostile than India. Now, based on the above information (and the above information ONLY), choose the correct option from the choices given below.

a) Chinese are happier than Indians
b) Indians are happier than Chinese
c) Both are equally happy
d) I am right and all others are wrong! – To hell with Friedman and these stupid researches!!

Earlier I said that China has more protests than India. Well, Now the Global Peace Index is saying that China is more peaceful than India. That’s not a contradiction since a) Protests can be peaceful and b) they need not necessarily destroy the social fabric of a country.

“Are huge populations necessarily problems? One could argue that precisely because of the sheer population size of India and China, they have more bargaining power in the global market place.”

Tell me one country which has a population even near to that of India and China and have performed better or have more bargaining power? (Hint: That’s a trick question)

“Did you conduct a referendum in Tibet or Xinjiang? If not, how did you come to such conclusions? China may think it has done much for the minorities, but have the minorities been given a chance to say if that is what they want? Do they have the power to decide what is best for them? Is it always problematic when someone claims that he/she has done some good for another person without giving the right for that particular person to say freely if that is indeed the case.”

First – Did YOU conduct a referendum?
Second – My statement does not indicate that the PRC has done GOOD for minorities; it just says the it has done BETTER than those other countries, including India. Much more needs to be done.

I want them to have a more bottom-up, democratic and participative model of development where the locals are fully represented and consulted.
“I see human rights and development as a package. Without things like freedom of speech, association and political participation, how do you defend yourself against hunger and social injustice?”

So you want China to be democratic. Well, many people want that. However, that alone may not guarantee success, as we have seen in India. India is democratic; and the results are there for everyone to see.
I repeat – In effect what you are saying is that China should have more democratic values (like India). Well, that was the main point of my blogpost! So you reiterated MY point of view without even realizing it. I never said that what the PRC is doing in minority regions is enough, its just that it is MORE than what India is doing in its minority regions.

I agree with you that forced evictions are wrong (which is why I keep saying that China should adopt some of India’s examples – Like Nandigram – see wikipedia on Nandigram), and China has already started the process of outlawing it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487252.stm

Of course the entire process will take time. But its a start.

Your examples about Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Tangshan Earthquake are largely irrelevant since the PRC has already discarded many of Mao’s ideals. It took foreign aid after the Sichuan earthquake. And about owning up to the great leap forward, read this : I do hope you know that.

Regarding Swine flu:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/world/asia/12chinaflu.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a1

Desperate situations call for desperate measures. China may not have admitted it, but it learnt something from the SARS disaster.

That’s another differnece between India and China. China may not publicly admit its mistakes, but later takes many steps to solve it. India, on the other hands admits its mistake (“I hang my head in shame” the Indian PM said referring to the 1984 riots) but the court cases are still dragging on after 25 years and it is still being discussed in Parliament. Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years – a conviction rate of less than 1%. Hence, it doesn’t learn from them for the most part.

“Your answers are smacks oversimplification and sweeping generalizations such that they raises more questions than answers.” (and you’re talking about teaching me English)

OK. So if you are not satisfied with an answer, then its an ‘oversimplification’! I think that people like you over-complicate things.
Now see – If the Chinese government gave people more freedom of speech and similar human rights and if the Indian government gave more attention to economic development, then both countries could benefit (By thus adopting each others ideals).
How is that an oversimplification?

I have just attempted to simplify a topic the discussion of which is filled with cliches nowadays in the western media. Although my blogpost is the one of the first that I have come across which discusses this topic, the idea is nothing new.

So now you have your evidence. Care to give any supporting you statements?

Also, you have not answered the following questions which I raised: (Now you can just say YES or NO – that would suffice):
1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
3. Would you say that the PRC pays more attention to development than (other) human rights ?
4. Would you say that the Indian government pays more attention to Human rights and democratic values than economic development?
5. Are you going to give ANY evidence supporting your statements?
6. Are you an stubborn person who doesn’t know how to have a healthy debate?

YOU HAVE NOT YET GIVEN A SHRED OF PROOF OR HAVE NOT CITED A SINGLE ARTICLE OR STUDY SUPPORTING YOUR REMARKS. ALL OF THEM SEEM TO BE DRAWN OUT OF THIN AIR.
I AM HENCEFORTH NOT GOING TO REPLY UNLESS YOU BACK UP YOU REMARKS WITH THE APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE.

– Maitreya Bhakal

February 16, 2010 @ 11:14 pm | Comment

@sp
I made a mistake in the html tags. The first para of my previous comment is your quote hence it is in italics. The 2 paras below are my responses and shouldn’t be in italic.

February 16, 2010 @ 11:28 pm | Comment

@sp

Another optimistic article about pollution:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/keeping-china-relatively-green/

February 17, 2010 @ 12:27 am | Comment

@Maitreya

It’s really useless to continue like this with you throwing in red herring arguments.

Some examples of you throwing in strawman and red herring arguments
First – Did YOU conduct a referendum?Second – My statement does not indicate that the PRC has done GOOD for minorities; it just says the it has done BETTER than those other countries, including India.

First of all, Happiness is a very difficult thing to measure directly. Hence we have to use indirect sources

You already say Happiness is “difficult” to measure? First, have you defined what constitutes “happiness”? Then you use Global Peace Index and PEW as measurements. But what justifies them as valid “happiness” measurements? Why not use “gross national happiness (GNH)” instead? Even the GNH has its own criticisms. “Indirect”? That means you aren’t even sure if these sources really measure what you claim they measure: happiness. And you didn’t even define “happiness” and use it so loosely.

Your examples about Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the Tangshan Earthquake are largely irrelevant since the PRC has already discarded many of Mao’s ideals. It took foreign aid after the Sichuan earthquake. And about owning up to the great leap forward, read this : I do hope you know that.

Again you missed the point here. As long as it is a dictatorship, man-made policy disasters like GLF and Tangshan can still occur, maybe not at the similar scale. SARS coverup, tainted milkpowder, cancer villages, harassing of NGOs and social activists helping the poor and underprivileged are just some the legacies of those tragedies in the past and they are all man-made ones. They are possible because no one dared to stop and expose the mistakes of a dictatorship until the human costs were too high to be ignored. Mao maybe long dead, but the one-party dictatorship he constructed is still running the show in China. Amartya Sen already said that “man-made” famines do not occur in democracies in his “Development as Freedom”. If you read this book, you will realize that all your arguments are just a recycled version of what Sen called the “Lee(Kuan Yew)Thesis” which he used a whole chapter to analyze and rebut.

To me development is only as good as those who are at the receiving end of it to regard it as “good”. A top-down view of “development” without any democratic elements, public discourse and consultation is only as good as “the White Man’s burden”. Development to you maybe about modernization, railways, roads, infrastructure, economic growth but for me, development is only the means to an end. The end is to allow people to ultimately develop capabilities to choose how they want to live their lives, i.e. Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach to development. That’s where we departed and i stand by my beliefs.

I can reply to all other points but i realised there is no point (and no time) because there is no meeting of minds. After i read from your blog that states “Misconceptions and Bias (mainly about China) in the media”, i realised we have nothing to talk about. If you are so displeased with the state India is in, feel free to get the application papers from the Chinese embassy and take up Chinese citizenship under the great development presided by the Chinese Communist Party.

Oh, about the Tamil and Malayalam point, i meant to say that “most indians i know only speak Tamil or Malayalam” and my point is that these Indians do not desire to learn any Hindi at all because it is alien to them. You can say the same for Tibetans and Uighurs with regards to Mandarin Chinese.

February 17, 2010 @ 3:39 am | Comment

1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
ANS: What’s the basis of comparison? Only the minorities should and could that question because they are the affected parties. Who am i to say when i HAVE NEVER SPENT a single day in Tibet, Xinjiang or the tribal areas in India?? I will be presumptuous to say YES or NO.

2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
ANS: Ask the locals. Who am i to say “justified” when Kashgar is not my land? That’s the problem with your approach and that of the CCP: Deciding for someone else what’s good for them without hearing what they themselves have to say.

3. Would you say that the PRC pays more attention to development than (other) human rights ?

Ans: Development, as i have said in the previous comment, is not an end in itself. That’s how Sen and i saw it. It is a means to “freedom” (including human rights, female emancipation etc): having the right to choices for oneself on how he/she wants to live.

4. Would you say that the Indian government pays more attention to Human rights and democratic values than economic development?

Ans: See my answer to 3.

5. Are you going to give ANY evidence supporting your statements?

Cite where i have not.

6. Are you an stubborn person who doesn’t know how to have a healthy debate?

That’s what you think. But at least i was not as dishonest as putting words into other’s mouth by claiming that “SO your conclusion is : Friedman is a fool.” I have never conclude that he was a fool even though i dispute his observations.
Maybe others can lecture me about “healthy debates” but obviously you don’t qualify as one of them.

February 17, 2010 @ 3:55 am | Comment

Why not use “gross national happiness (GNH)” instead?

I would guess that he believes it’s too abstract- but China outscores India on the Happy Planet Index, Satisfaction with Life Index, and HDI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

As long as it is a dictatorship, man-made policy disasters like GLF and Tangshan can still occur, maybe not at the similar scale.

You act like the mob is a flawless, logical creature. It most certainly is not. Adolf Hitler was essentially voted in.

Amartya Sen already said that “man-made” famines do not occur in democracies in his “Development as Freedom”.

That’s because they’ve already been “nature made” by incompetence and negligence, which defeats the point of creating them in the first place. India is in a state of perpetual starvation, with lifelong consequences for a huge portion of their populace.

A top-down view of “development” without any democratic elements, public discourse and consultation is only as good as “the White Man’s burden”

A top-down view of “development” without any democratic elements is basically the rule of humanity. There are no great powers or even regional powers that are an exception.

America, Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico, India. None of these are exceptions to that rule.

What you are suggesting is to destabilize China with an implementation of Western grade school fantasies of what reality and development should look like. This seems like a collective mental illness, more than anything else, probably born from some mixture of guilt and insanity.

my point is that these Indians do not desire to learn any Hindi at all because it is alien to them. You can say the same for Tibetans and Uighurs with regards to Mandarin Chinese.

Plenty of Tibetans do not speak Mandarin. Then of course come the whining about how they’re shut out of the market blah blah blah from the West- I’m sure your Tamil and Malayalam speaking Indians are going to be very successful in the non-existent Indian job market.

February 17, 2010 @ 4:01 am | Comment

I didn’t mention Uighur because lumping them together with Tibetans shows blatant media conditioning by the West.

The Uighur and the Tibetans are fundamentally different. The Tibetans are native to Tibet, the Uighur are not actually the Uighur but random wanderers from the West that adopted some aspects of true Uighur culture.

The Tibetans are generally less expansionist and warlike and have not committed atrocities against Manchus, Mongols and Chinese. The same can’t be said for the so-called “Uighur” of today.

Lastly, they traditionally despise each other.

February 17, 2010 @ 4:05 am | Comment

Aborigines in Australia

Oh,just a sidenote. Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities, they think their approach was “good” for the Aboriginals and they are too ignorant to know what’s “good” for them. These Aboriginal children instead of becoming the beneficiaries of this “mission of civilization” ended up as the emotionally scarred “stolen generation” which Kevin Rudd had apologised on behalf of the Aussie govt. Such tragedies happened because the whole development process was paternalistic: I force onto you what i think is “good” for you. Whether you think it is “good” doesn’t matter.

February 17, 2010 @ 4:07 am | Comment

sp2
And Canadian treatment of aboriginal children – mirrors the Oz treatment, with the same results. England tried it in Ireland for centuries and in Wales. All European countries had a spell of integrating and suppressing minorities to make a homogenous population….and still the minorities seem to pop up when the suppression stops. Turkey isn’t have great success in Turkifying the Kurds and it only managed to de-Grecify by expelling the Greeks (and de-Armenifying by slaughtering 1.5 million [est] of them).
Were these good? Depends how far the cultural genocide went. If you leave just one or two, it’s successful. If there’s a lot still left hanging around then you’ve bred a generation of discontented people who’ll remember for years…

February 17, 2010 @ 4:22 am | Comment

Matty
“Earlier I said that China has more protests than India. Well, Now the Global Peace Index is saying that China is more peaceful than India. That’s not a contradiction since a) Protests can be peaceful and b) they need not necessarily destroy the social fabric of a country.”
Also depends on the statistics available to the gathering body, the truthfulness of these statistics and the interpretation. All protests can be peaceful, but if they are brutally suppressed (as in the case of Iran) one can also state that they are peaceful – one side didn’t trun up, as it were. Can’t get more peaceful than that.
And, of course, if you’re constantly watched and you know your actions will have repercussions…
http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news10230.html
Need I say more?

February 17, 2010 @ 4:27 am | Comment

Oh,just a sidenote. Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities

I’m assuming this is some kind of lapse into a alcohol or drug induced stupor. Chinese people are not trying to “civilize” other ethnic groups. They never have. They are helping to bring the horrors of low-cost labor, solar water heaters, central heating and other modern evils to the Tibetan plateau.

They are also committing an atrocity against the traditional Tibetan diet by making the cultivation of more fruits and vegetables possible.

This isn’t a result of cultural triumphalism or racism, but geographic realities- like the fact that Tibet is too cold, high and dry to grow much of anything on save from a few fertile river valleys. In order to sustain a reasonable population without immense misery, Tibet needs advanced technology as well as food from the outside.

These Aboriginal children instead of becoming the beneficiaries of this “mission of civilization” ended up as the emotionally scarred “stolen generation”

China doesn’t have a policy of forcing minorities into “Han” homes, failed analogy. We can see from a wide variety of indicators (HDI, longevity) that the Tibetans of the TAR have exceeded Australian Aborigines in life expectancy. The Sichuanese and Yunnanese “Tibetans” (many of which are at odds with the Gelugpas) are even better off, as their homelands are more suitable for agriculture.

February 17, 2010 @ 4:32 am | Comment

and SP, so-called “pro-Tibet” agitators are making the mistake of presuming Tibetans (or whatever ethnic group du jour they act like they are defending) “asked for their help” or have some kind of special, esoteric needs that other humans do not.

China presumes Tibetans face pressures from the same things that other human beings do, like a need to eat, have access to energy, and working infrastructure.

God forbid they don’t serve the kindergarten ideal of spirituality-above-all-else asceticism that the Western media has grafted onto Tibetans.

Compare this single-minded pigeonholing of a diverse people to the common sense that is development.

February 17, 2010 @ 4:39 am | Comment

Comments 69/70

Aaaah, the Yellow Man’s burden. We Brits did the same….never get a word of thanks for it…

February 17, 2010 @ 6:05 am | Comment

We Brits did the same

No you didn’t. You killed for profit. Tibet has been a drain on China’s economy so far- in exchange they hold the line against India’s ridiculous ambitions.

February 17, 2010 @ 6:21 am | Comment

Aside from that, “the Chinese” aren’t “yellow”. And Tibetans are the same “color” as the Chinese.

February 17, 2010 @ 6:22 am | Comment

Personal opinions, merp, personal opinions. And not a shred of backing evidence.
Personally, as a “white” man, I can tell you I am not white….more a lightly tanned pink. And my Chinese wife is pretty much the same colour as me…so I guess that makes us Tibetan too 😉

February 17, 2010 @ 8:14 am | Comment

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/magazines/fortune/lustgarten_china.fortune/index.htm
But this is CNN…so obviously is biased, eh? 😉
But…what’s this??
http://chinatibet.people.com.cn/6551438.html
“Being one of China’s biggest forest areas, Tibet maintains primeval forest intactness with a total forest area of 126,583 square kilometers. Forest accumulation stands at 2.08 billion cubic meters, ranking second in the country, and forest coverage stands at 9.8%.

Tibet has plentiful mineral resources, 94 mineral resources have been discovered, 30 reserves proven, and 11 mineral reserves including chromium, iron, lithium, copper and boron rank first-fifth in China.

Tibet has abundant water resources, total surface water resources amount to 448.2 billion cubic meters, and underground water resources amount to 110.7 billion cubic meters.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903053.html
Funnily enough, the same seems to be heard in Turkestan…money’s there but the sharing is…iffy.

February 17, 2010 @ 8:42 am | Comment

like the fact that Tibet is too cold, high and dry to grow much of anything on save from a few fertile river valleys. In order to sustain a reasonable population without immense misery, Tibet needs advanced technology as well as food from the outside.

Let the PLA overrun Bhutan tomorrow! Charge!

February 17, 2010 @ 11:05 am | Comment

I would guess that he believes it’s too abstract- but China outscores India on the Happy Planet Index, Satisfaction with Life Index, and HDI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

My point is, if you bother to think, that any measures suffer from “validity” problems: are they really measuring what they set out to measure? Matty couldn’t even define happiness himself. If you ever read your own links above, please scroll and read the section on “criticism” and tell us what’s there. But obviously, you don’t read the links; you just happily throw them in for your purpose.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:10 am | Comment

India is in a state of perpetual starvation, with lifelong consequences for a huge portion of their populace.

The difference between Kim Jong Il and the Indian government is that the former intentionally starve his own people for his own political grandeur.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:15 am | Comment

they hold the line against India’s ridiculous ambitions.

What about the US arming Taiwan to hold the line against China’s “ridiculous” ambitions?

February 17, 2010 @ 11:17 am | Comment

China presumes Tibetans face pressures from the same things that other human beings do, like a need to eat, have access to energy, and working infrastructure.

Do they also presume that mass waves of transmigration into the region can have deleterious side effects on the Tibetans too???

February 17, 2010 @ 11:21 am | Comment

so-called “pro-Tibet” agitators are making the mistake of presuming Tibetans.

Last check, it is Zhang Qingli, Secretary of the CCP Tibet Committee who is calling the shots and implementing policies in Tibet. Even if some “pro-Tibet” agitators “presumes”, they are not in a position to coerce. The CCP is.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:26 am | Comment

“China doesn’t have a policy of forcing minorities into “Han” homes, failed analogy. ”

But the attitude is the same: these indigenous people must be brought out of “darkness” of their “backwardness”.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:27 am | Comment

“Chinese people are not trying to “civilize” other ethnic groups.”

One wonders what’s with the criticism of Tibet’s “slavery” system and the worship of DL as a divine being.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:32 am | Comment

“They are helping to bring the horrors of low-cost labor, solar water heaters, central heating and other modern evils to the Tibetan plateau.

They are also committing an atrocity against the traditional Tibetan diet by making the cultivation of more fruits and vegetables possible.”

If you are so altruistic, why not parachute PLA troops to all over Africa, made all the underdeveloped African areas “Autonomous Regions” of the PRC and bring all these “horrors” to the deprived Africans there? Why only Tibetans if you are doing some missionary-style good work?

February 17, 2010 @ 11:36 am | Comment

“A top-down view of “development” without any democratic elements is basically the rule of humanity. There are no great powers or even regional powers that are an exception.”

I wonder why we want to sweep away colonialism if the reasoning behind the “white man’s burden” is “basically the rule of humanity”.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:39 am | Comment

“Plenty of Tibetans do not speak Mandarin. Then of course come the whining about how they’re shut out of the market blah blah blah from the West”

If positions were reversed and Tibetans are the majority in China with the Han being the minority, i am sure you as a Han Chinese won’t whine about having to learn Tibetan language to survive in the country.

February 17, 2010 @ 11:42 am | Comment

“China presumes Tibetans face pressures…”

As the CCP are responsible for applying these pressures (cultural, psychological etc.), it is entirely reasonable to expect that they are aware of them.

Now, if only they gave a damn…

February 17, 2010 @ 1:59 pm | Comment

@merp
“they traditionally despise each other.”
You’re damn right. And there is very little that the government can do about that.
Same thing in India.
Your GNH point is correct and largely relevant.

@sp

“Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities”

What’s your evidence for this statement?
Speaking of evidence, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE FOR MOST OF YOUR STATEMENTS.

“1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
ANS: What’s the basis of comparison? Only the minorities should and could that question because they are the affected parties. Who am i to say when i HAVE NEVER SPENT a single day in Tibet, Xinjiang or the tribal areas in India?? I will be presumptuous to say YES or NO.”

The minorities in India are some of the poorest in the world. While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans. In the same way that the Hindu-Muslim riots in India were due to some fanatics.
The Indian Naxal insurgents on the other hand, count into thousands. There are 50,000 regular cadres and 20,000 armed ones, active in about 40% of India’s land area. Check wikipedia.They are effectively a parallel army.

China, on the other hand has witnesses much less rioting than India, which is reflected in the Global Peace and Social Hostility Indices.

However, what the PRC is doing is certainly not enough.

“2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
ANS: Ask the locals. Who am i to say “justified” when Kashgar is not my land? That’s the problem with your approach and that of the CCP: Deciding for someone else what’s good for them without hearing what they themselves have to say.”

If the PRC had asked the citizens of Kashgar (I don’t know whether they did or whether they didn’t), what do you think they would have answered?
Let’s assume that some would have stayed and some would have gone. Well, since this is a very high earthquake risk zone (In 2007 there was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake just 100 miles away from Kashgar. In 1902, there was an 8.0 earthquake, one of the 20th century’s biggest, which killed 667 people.), even a minor earthquake would have brought those 500 year old buildings crumbling down and the people would have died beneath them ( but preserving their own ‘culture’, I might add!!). The PRC remembers what happened in Sichuan with shoddy construction; and is certainly not going to let that happen again.

If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Remember this – God or Religion or culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

What about the Uyghur ‘culture’ of having multiple wives? This is banned according to PRC law. Is this a blow to Uyghur culture? In India, on the other hand, there are separate laws for Muslims enabling them to have multiple wives.

What about the US arming Taiwan to hold the line against China’s “ridiculous” ambitions?
I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.

“Oh, about the Tamil and Malayalam point, i meant to say that “most indians i know only speak Tamil or Malayalam” and my point is that these Indians do not desire to learn any Hindi at all because it is alien to them. You can say the same for Tibetans and Uighurs with regards to Mandarin Chinese.

How do I know what you meant to say? Well, now that you’ve cleared what you meant, I agree that it is conceivable that Tibetans and Uyghurs may think of Mandarin as ‘alien’.
It seems that the paradox in India is, however, that Hindi is considered to be alien and not English.

Here is what Lord Macaulay said to the British Parliament in 1835:

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.“ (my emphasis)

(http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html)
(http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/how-british-destroyed-india)
An email about this is currently circulating in the Indian internet.

However, from what I can gather, there is bilingual education in schools in Chinese minority regions. Only higher education and business is done ONLY in Mandarin. In some Indian states however, Hindi is not seen even in schools.

Allow me to present two quotes from the China Journal of Social Work (Vol 1, No. 3) again:

“The Party stresses, in different settings, that ‘Marxist and Maoist theories on nationalities are the guiding light for solving nationality problems in China’. The communist ideology views nationality as a historical concept and believed it would disappear concomitantly with the increasing level of socialism and communism and with the eventual disappearance of classes. As implied by this ideological viewpoint, the Chinese government does not actively pursue the elimination of ethnic minorities, but allows them to develop for a long period until the economies and cultures of all nationalities become amalgamated and indistinguishable, which is the time when the phenomenon of nationality naturally disappears. Additionally, Marxist theories on nationality consider all nationalities to be equal, whether the nationality is a majority or a minority. Every ethnic minority is believed to have made its contribution to human wealth, history, and civilization. This ideology encourages all nationalities to unite based on complete equality for their common good and opposes ethnic discrimination and oppression in any form.

This was essentially Soviet policy too.

“Compared with the minority rights approach in Europe, which focuses on non-discrimination, the intention of China’s approach is not only to protect minorities from negative treatment, but promote a broad scope of POSITIVE RIGHTS, even privileges. Some policies conferring benefits on minorities are preferential treatment, so much so that they have generated public concern that the MAJORITY is being discriminated against..”
(my emphasis)
Same thing in India.

Also, you have still not explained to me how Uyghur culture is getting destroyed by Han migration. If your neighbour is from a different culture, does it undermine yours?
People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.(Can developing that area be considered as a policy of ‘encouraging Han migration’?).
And why do you think that the government has relaxed the one child policy for minorities? If they wanted to wipe them out, why relax this policy?
I also gather that there are reservations for minorities in local institutions.

“If you are so displeased with the state India is in, feel free to get the application papers from the Chinese embassy and take up Chinese citizenship under the great development presided by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Oh really?!! So now I have to take permission from you if I want to change my citizenship? I am proud of my country and proud to be a citizen of it; just as Chinese citizens are proud of theirs.
I think that you should focus more on the debate than throw around such immature personal remarks.

You logic would indicate that if anyone is displeased with their country, the solution – Don’t try to improve it, but take the citizenship of another country!! Great!

Also, I completely agree with some people here that the geographical conditions in minority regions do slow development; as in India’s Northeastern states, all seven of whom have active (armed) insurgencies.

“The difference between Kim Jong Il and the Indian government is that the former intentionally starve his own people for his own political grandeur.’

Seconded. Or maybe Kin Jong Il is incompetent or simply doesn’t care.

This proves my very point which I wrote in my blogpost.

“If you read this book, you will realize that all your arguments are just a recycled version of what Sen called the “Lee(Kuan Yew)Thesis” which he used a whole chapter to analyze and rebut.”

I have not read the book (yet). These are my own thoughts and arguments.

“After i read from your blog that states “Misconceptions and Bias (mainly about China) in the media”, i realised we have nothing to talk about.”

The western and Indian media IS largely biased about China; and I am going to give examples and prove it in my future posts which I am working on.
However, I do partly agree with you that we do not have many things to talk about.

“I can reply to all other points but i realised there is no point (and no time) because there is no meeting of minds.”

Same here.

IN CONCLUSION: China has MAJOR problems, so does India. But the priorities of these two countries are somewhat different.

It appears that you and I agree in spirit if not the letter.
This has been a quite stimulating discussion and I’ve enjoyed it thoroughly.

– Maitreya

February 17, 2010 @ 2:26 pm | Comment

Heheheheh! Merp, truly you believe in the Yellow Man’s burden. Aaaah….plus ca change 😉

February 17, 2010 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

Adolf Hitler was essentially voted in.

Not forgetting the use of violence by Hitler’s SA to intimidate political opponents, plotted the Reichstag fire, using his militants to surround the temporary Reichstag building so that deputies “voluntarily” voted for the infamous Enabling Act to give him dictatorial power and end Weimar democracy.

Plus Weimar democracy was doomed because it was associated with the humiliation at the Treaty of Versailles.

Time to read merp.

February 17, 2010 @ 3:03 pm | Comment

@merp
“they traditionally despise each other.”
You’re damn right. And there is very little that the government can do about that.
Same thing in India.
Your GNH point is correct and largely relevant.

@sp

“Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities”

What’s your evidence for this statement?
Speaking of evidence, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE FOR MOST OF YOUR STATEMENTS.

“1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
ANS: What’s the basis of comparison? Only the minorities should and could that question because they are the affected parties. Who am i to say when i HAVE NEVER SPENT a single day in Tibet, Xinjiang or the tribal areas in India?? I will be presumptuous to say YES or NO.”

The minorities in India are some of the poorest in the world. While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans. In the same way that the Hindu-Muslim riots in India were due to some fanatics.
The Indian Naxal insurgents on the other hand, count into thousands. There are 50,000 regular cadres and 20,000 armed ones, active in about 40% of India’s land area. Check wikipedia.They are effectively a parallel army.

China, on the other hand has witnesses much less rioting than India, which is reflected in the Global Peace and Social Hostility Indices.

However, what the PRC is doing is certainly not enough.

“2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
ANS: Ask the locals. Who am i to say “justified” when Kashgar is not my land? That’s the problem with your approach and that of the CCP: Deciding for someone else what’s good for them without hearing what they themselves have to say.”

If the PRC had asked the citizens of Kashgar (I don’t know whether they did or whether they didn’t), what do you think they would have answered?
Let’s assume that some would have stayed and some would have gone. Well, since this is a very high earthquake risk zone (In 2007 there was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake just 100 miles away from Kashgar. In 1902, there was an 8.0 earthquake, one of the 20th century’s biggest, which killed 667 people.), even a minor earthquake would have brought those 500 year old buildings crumbling down and the people would have died beneath them ( but preserving their own ‘culture’, I might add!!). The PRC remembers what happened in Sichuan with shoddy construction; and is certainly not going to let that happen again.

If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Remember this – God or Religion or culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

What about the Uyghur ‘culture’ of having multiple wives? This is banned according to PRC law. Is this a blow to Uyghur culture? In India, on the other hand, there are separate laws for Muslims enabling them to have multiple wives.

What about the US arming Taiwan to hold the line against China’s “ridiculous” ambitions?
I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.

“Oh, about the Tamil and Malayalam point, i meant to say that “most indians i know only speak Tamil or Malayalam” and my point is that these Indians do not desire to learn any Hindi at all because it is alien to them. You can say the same for Tibetans and Uighurs with regards to Mandarin Chinese.

How do I know what you meant to say? Well, now that you’ve cleared what you meant, I agree that it is conceivable that Tibetans and Uyghurs may think of Mandarin as ‘alien’.
It seems that the paradox in India is, however, that Hindi is considered to be alien and not English.

Here is what Lord Macaulay said to the British Parliament in 1835:

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.“ (my emphasis)

(http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html)
(http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/how-british-destroyed-india)
An email about this is currently circulating in the Indian internet.

However, from what I can gather, there is bilingual education in schools in Chinese minority regions. Only higher education and business is done ONLY in Mandarin. In some Indian states however, Hindi is not seen even in schools.

Allow me to present two quotes from the China Journal of Social Work (Vol 1, No. 3) again:

“The Party stresses, in different settings, that ‘Marxist and Maoist theories on nationalities are the guiding light for solving nationality problems in China’. The communist ideology views nationality as a historical concept and believed it would disappear concomitantly with the increasing level of socialism and communism and with the eventual disappearance of classes. As implied by this ideological viewpoint, the Chinese government does not actively pursue the elimination of ethnic minorities, but allows them to develop for a long period until the economies and cultures of all nationalities become amalgamated and indistinguishable, which is the time when the phenomenon of nationality naturally disappears. Additionally, Marxist theories on nationality consider all nationalities to be equal, whether the nationality is a majority or a minority. Every ethnic minority is believed to have made its contribution to human wealth, history, and civilization. This ideology encourages all nationalities to unite based on complete equality for their common good and opposes ethnic discrimination and oppression in any form.

This was essentially Soviet policy too.

“Compared with the minority rights approach in Europe, which focuses on non-discrimination, the intention of China’s approach is not only to protect minorities from negative treatment, but promote a broad scope of POSITIVE RIGHTS, even privileges. Some policies conferring benefits on minorities are preferential treatment, so much so that they have generated public concern that the MAJORITY is being discriminated against..”
(my emphasis)
Same thing in India.

Also, you have still not explained to me how Uyghur culture is getting destroyed by Han migration. If your neighbour is from a different culture, does it undermine yours?
People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.(Can developing that area be considered as a policy of ‘encouraging Han migration’?).
And why do you think that the government has relaxed the one child policy for minorities? If they wanted to wipe them out, why relax this policy?
I also gather that there are reservations for minorities in local institutions.

“If you are so displeased with the state India is in, feel free to get the application papers from the Chinese embassy and take up Chinese citizenship under the great development presided by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Oh really?!! So now I have to take permission from you if I want to change my citizenship? I am proud of my country and proud to be a citizen of it; just as Chinese citizens are proud of theirs.
I think that you should focus more on the debate than throw around such immature personal remarks.

You logic would indicate that if anyone is displeased with their country, the solution – Don’t try to improve it, but take the citizenship of another country!! Great!

Also, I completely agree with some people here that the geographical conditions in minority regions do slow development; as in India’s Northeastern states, all seven of whom have active (armed) insurgencies.

“The difference between Kim Jong Il and the Indian government is that the former intentionally starve his own people for his own political grandeur.’

Seconded. Or maybe Kin Jong Il is incompetent or simply doesn’t care.

This proves my very point which I wrote in my blogpost.

“If you read this book, you will realize that all your arguments are just a recycled version of what Sen called the “Lee(Kuan Yew)Thesis” which he used a whole chapter to analyze and rebut.”

I have not read the book (yet). These are my own thoughts and arguments.

“After i read from your blog that states “Misconceptions and Bias (mainly about China) in the media”, i realised we have nothing to talk about.”

The western and Indian media IS largely biased about China; and I am going to give examples and prove it in my future posts which I am working on.
However, I do partly agree with you that we do not have many things to talk about.

“I can reply to all other points but i realised there is no point (and no time) because there is no meeting of minds.”

Same here.

IN CONCLUSION: China has MAJOR problems, so does India. But the priorities of these two countries are somewhat different.

It appears that you and I agree in spirit if not the letter.

This has been a quite stimulating discussion and I’ve enjoyed it thoroughly.

– Maitreya

February 17, 2010 @ 6:49 pm | Comment

@Mike Goldthorpe
trust me – Corruption was not the major cause of the riots, religious fanaticism and extremism was. See wikipedia if you don’t believe me.

@merp
“they traditionally despise each other.”
You’re damn right. And there is very little that the government can do about that.
Same thing in India.
Your GNH point is correct and largely relevant.

@sp

“Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities”

What’s your evidence for this statement?
Speaking of evidence, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE FOR MOST OF YOUR STATEMENTS.

“1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
ANS: What’s the basis of comparison? Only the minorities should and could that question because they are the affected parties. Who am i to say when i HAVE NEVER SPENT a single day in Tibet, Xinjiang or the tribal areas in India?? I will be presumptuous to say YES or NO.”

The minorities in India are some of the poorest in the world. While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans. In the same way that the Hindu-Muslim riots in India were due to some fanatics.
The Indian Naxal insurgents on the other hand, count into thousands. There are 50,000 regular cadres and 20,000 armed ones, active in about 40% of India’s land area. Check wikipedia.They are effectively a parallel army.

China, on the other hand has witnesses much less rioting than India, which is reflected in the Global Peace and Social Hostility Indices.

However, what the PRC is doing is certainly not enough.

“2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
ANS: Ask the locals. Who am i to say “justified” when Kashgar is not my land? That’s the problem with your approach and that of the CCP: Deciding for someone else what’s good for them without hearing what they themselves have to say.”

If the PRC had asked the citizens of Kashgar (I don’t know whether they did or whether they didn’t), what do you think they would have answered?
Let’s assume that some would have stayed and some would have gone. Well, since this is a very high earthquake risk zone (In 2007 there was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake just 100 miles away from Kashgar. In 1902, there was an 8.0 earthquake, one of the 20th century’s biggest, which killed 667 people.), even a minor earthquake would have brought those 500 year old buildings crumbling down and the people would have died beneath them ( but preserving their own ‘culture’, I might add!!). The PRC remembers what happened in Sichuan with shoddy construction; and is certainly not going to let that happen again.

If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Remember this – God or Religion or culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

What about the Uyghur ‘culture’ of having multiple wives? This is banned according to PRC law. Is this a blow to Uyghur culture? In India, on the other hand, there are separate laws for Muslims enabling them to have multiple wives.

What about the US arming Taiwan to hold the line against China’s “ridiculous” ambitions?
I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.

“Oh, about the Tamil and Malayalam point, i meant to say that “most indians i know only speak Tamil or Malayalam” and my point is that these Indians do not desire to learn any Hindi at all because it is alien to them. You can say the same for Tibetans and Uighurs with regards to Mandarin Chinese.

How do I know what you meant to say? Well, now that you’ve cleared what you meant, I agree that it is conceivable that Tibetans and Uyghurs may think of Mandarin as ‘alien’.
It seems that the paradox in India is, however, that Hindi is considered to be alien and not English.

Here is what Lord Macaulay said to the British Parliament in 1835:

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.“ (my emphasis)

(http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html)
(http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/how-british-destroyed-india)
An email about this is currently circulating in the Indian internet.

However, from what I can gather, there is bilingual education in schools in Chinese minority regions. Only higher education and business is done ONLY in Mandarin. In some Indian states however, Hindi is not seen even in schools.

Allow me to present two quotes from the China Journal of Social Work (Vol 1, No. 3) again:

“The Party stresses, in different settings, that ‘Marxist and Maoist theories on nationalities are the guiding light for solving nationality problems in China’. The communist ideology views nationality as a historical concept and believed it would disappear concomitantly with the increasing level of socialism and communism and with the eventual disappearance of classes. As implied by this ideological viewpoint, the Chinese government does not actively pursue the elimination of ethnic minorities, but allows them to develop for a long period until the economies and cultures of all nationalities become amalgamated and indistinguishable, which is the time when the phenomenon of nationality naturally disappears. Additionally, Marxist theories on nationality consider all nationalities to be equal, whether the nationality is a majority or a minority. Every ethnic minority is believed to have made its contribution to human wealth, history, and civilization. This ideology encourages all nationalities to unite based on complete equality for their common good and opposes ethnic discrimination and oppression in any form.

This was essentially Soviet policy too.

“Compared with the minority rights approach in Europe, which focuses on non-discrimination, the intention of China’s approach is not only to protect minorities from negative treatment, but promote a broad scope of POSITIVE RIGHTS, even privileges. Some policies conferring benefits on minorities are preferential treatment, so much so that they have generated public concern that the MAJORITY is being discriminated against..”
(my emphasis)
Same thing in India.

Also, you have still not explained to me how Uyghur culture is getting destroyed by Han migration. If your neighbour is from a different culture, does it undermine yours?
People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.(Can developing that area be considered as a policy of ‘encouraging Han migration’?).
And why do you think that the government has relaxed the one child policy for minorities? If they wanted to wipe them out, why relax this policy?
I also gather that there are reservations for minorities in local institutions.

“If you are so displeased with the state India is in, feel free to get the application papers from the Chinese embassy and take up Chinese citizenship under the great development presided by the Chinese Communist Party.”

Oh really?!! So now I have to take permission from you if I want to change my citizenship? I am proud of my country and proud to be a citizen of it; just as Chinese citizens are proud of theirs.
I think that you should focus more on the debate than throw around such immature personal remarks.

You logic would indicate that if anyone is displeased with their country, the solution – Don’t try to improve it, but take the citizenship of another country!! Great!

Also, I completely agree with some people here that the geographical conditions in minority regions do slow development; as in India’s Northeastern states, all seven of whom have active (armed) insurgencies.

“The difference between Kim Jong Il and the Indian government is that the former intentionally starve his own people for his own political grandeur.’

Seconded. Or maybe Kin Jong Il is incompetent or simply doesn’t care.

This proves my very point which I wrote in my blogpost.

“If you read this book, you will realize that all your arguments are just a recycled version of what Sen called the “Lee(Kuan Yew)Thesis” which he used a whole chapter to analyze and rebut.”

I have not read the book (yet). These are my own thoughts and arguments.

“After i read from your blog that states “Misconceptions and Bias (mainly about China) in the media”, i realised we have nothing to talk about.”

The western and Indian media IS largely biased about China; and I am going to give examples and prove it in my future posts which I am working on.
However, I do partly agree with you that we do not have many things to talk about.

“I can reply to all other points but i realised there is no point (and no time) because there is no meeting of minds.”

Same here.

IN CONCLUSION: China has MAJOR problems, so does India. But the priorities of these two countries are somewhat different.

It appears that you and I agree in spirit if not the letter.
This has been a quite stimulating discussion and I’ve enjoyed it thoroughly.

– Maitreya

February 17, 2010 @ 9:04 pm | Comment

“1. Is China doing more for its minorities than India?
ANS: What’s the basis of comparison? Only the minorities should and could that question because they are the affected parties. Who am i to say when i HAVE NEVER SPENT a single day in Tibet, Xinjiang or the tribal areas in India?? I will be presumptuous to say YES or NO.”

The minorities in India are some of the poorest in the world. While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans. In the same way that the Hindu-Muslim riots in India were due to some fanatics.
The Indian Naxal insurgents on the other hand, count into thousands. There are 50,000 regular cadres and 20,000 armed ones, active in about 40% of India’s land area. Check wikipedia.They are effectively a parallel army.

China, on the other hand has witnesses much less rioting than India, which is reflected in the Global Peace and Social Hostility Indices.

However, what the PRC is doing is certainly not enough.

“2. Was the demolition of Kashgar justified?
ANS: Ask the locals. Who am i to say “justified” when Kashgar is not my land? That’s the problem with your approach and that of the CCP: Deciding for someone else what’s good for them without hearing what they themselves have to say.”

If the PRC had asked the citizens of Kashgar (I don’t know whether they did or whether they didn’t), what do you think they would have answered?
Let’s assume that some would have stayed and some would have gone. Well, since this is a very high earthquake risk zone (In 2007 there was a 6.8 magnitude earthquake just 100 miles away from Kashgar. In 1902, there was an 8.0 earthquake, one of the 20th century’s biggest, which killed 667 people.), even a minor earthquake would have brought those 500 year old buildings crumbling down and the people would have died beneath them ( but preserving their own ‘culture’, I might add!!). The PRC remembers what happened in Sichuan with shoddy construction; and is certainly not going to let that happen again.

If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Remember this – God or Religion or culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

What about the Uyghur ‘culture’ of having multiple wives? This is banned according to PRC law. Is this a blow to Uyghur culture? In India, on the other hand, there are separate laws for Muslims enabling them to have multiple wives.

What about the US arming Taiwan to hold the line against China’s “ridiculous” ambitions?
I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.

February 17, 2010 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

@Maitreya

“What’s your evidence for this statement?
Speaking of evidence, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE FOR MOST OF YOUR STATEMENTS.”

“emancipating” the Tibetans from their “backward” culture is one justification for China’s approach to Tibet Read the following statement from the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“This year marks the 50th anniversary of the democratic reform in Tibet. In the past 5 decades, Tibet has witnessed ground-shaking changes and achieved historical progress in its social system. The emancipation of serfs in Tibet, just like the abolition of slavery in the US and some countries in Europe, was a major milestone of great historical importance in the world history of human rights. Tibet has made remarkable achievements in political, economic, cultural and other fields since 50 years ago….

“I don’t know how the serf owners of the old times, who used to trample on the dignity and human rights of the Tibetan people under the theocratic feudal serfdom, suddenly transform themselves into human rights defenders.”

From: http://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/2511/t536966.htm

That’s the kind of cavalier ethnocentric attitude i am referring to.

Again, please cite where i have not given evidence. I have talked to Dongguan party cadre before and he is my distant relative. Have you?

Your GNH point is correct and largely relevant.

When you didn’t even define what your mean by “happiness”, you claimed that your cited measures measure “happiness”. How do you measure something when it is some hard to define? That’s where the problem lies: You cheery-pick the measures to measure that something which you didn’t even bother to define.

While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans.

How do you know? Only the minorities themselves are qualified to judge whether something is better or not. I may think a pair of Levis jeans means a better standard of living for me but a indigenous native may or may not think so. You and i, as very much as those outside their community, ARE IN no damn position to judge for these people what’s “better standard of living” for them. All we should or can do is make the choices available to them but let them decide for themselves. Some may really want to go the cities, get material goods, have modern education, that’s a better lief for them, so let them go. Others may just want to live and die in their traditional mode of life, let them be. Who are the hell are we to make decisions for someone else’s life?

Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans.

China literally uses the barrel of the gun to control Tibet. They fought almost a three year war from 1959-1962 to crush Tibetan resistance. After that, they effectively sealed off Tibet from the outside world. Up till today, you need a Tibet Travel Permit to enter Tibet and that’s a separate traveling document from a visa to visit China, which alone does not allow you to go Tibet. Don’t think the Indian government do that.

China, on the other hand has witnesses much less rioting than India, which is reflected in the Global Peace and Social Hostility Indices.

I am not sure if this happens in India too. But i do know this is definitely not “peace”.

Read this from BBC: “China ‘executes dam protester’ ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6217148.stm

I don’t think comparison with India give us any consolation.. Even if we accept India is truly “worse” and doing very badly compare to China, what do you get out of it? Feel more console? Then what next? After all, i can compare China with Somalia, Afghanistan, The Democratic Republic of Congo and feel equally “consoling” too.

However, what the PRC is doing is certainly not enough.

Like? You have given us tonnes of argument of how China is “better” than India but you have not been telling us much about the above.

If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Engage the locals in the process. Tell them that there is a high risk for them. Offer compensation and alternative ways for them to be resettled. Get independent surveyors to churn a report on the vulnerability of the architecture, no some govt ones which people may suspect to be bias. Let them have a big say in where they want to resettle. Persuade them,not bulldoze them to your reasoning. Tell them that you may demolish the place, but say have a museum to preserve as many relics as possible. You may have the best intentions in the world, but if you lack tact and sensitivities in your delivery, you will fail. There are many ways to get things done without bulldozing your way through even if you meant well.

What about the Uyghur ‘culture’ of having multiple wives? This is banned according to PRC law. Is this a blow to Uyghur culture? In India, on the other hand, there are separate laws for Muslims enabling them to have multiple wives.

As experiences in other countries have shown, the Muslim community is a group which you have to deal with extreme sensitivity. Islamic law in general does allow a man to have more than one wife. India is not alone in letting Muslims to come under Shariah laws which is different from the civil law or common law system. Singapore, Aceh in Indonesia, the Southern part of the Phillipines are some examples of that. I may personally disagree with the taking of multiple wives but these governments realize that if they do not make room for Sharia laws, the likely alternative is violent resistance and resentment from the Muslim community and this may be the best option to placate the community. Which lesser evil do you choose then?

I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.

The People’s Republic of China government have make it very clear that should Taiwan ever change its current official name “Republic of China” to another name, it is tantamount to declaring Taiwanese independence and we will have no doubt where PLA missiles will land should Taiwan officially give up its claims to all of China. Ironically, Taiwan needed to uphold that claim to avoid an invasion from the mainland.

If you read Chinese:
陈水扁改”国号”谋”台独”阴谋不可能得逞>> Chen Shui Bian’s separatist plot to change Taiwan’s “official name” will not succeed.

http://tw.people.com.cn/GB/14811/14869/2769881.html

You may know alot about Indian affairs but don’t try to masquerade like an expert on Cross-Straits affairs. You think you have a tongue-in-cheek but it actually ended up as an embarrassment.

This was essentially Soviet policy too.

Heard of the word “Russfication” if you have read Soviet history? Heard of the brutal deportation of the Chechens by Stalin?

You logic would indicate that if anyone is displeased with their country, the solution – Don’t try to improve it, but take the citizenship of another country!! Great!

My logic is simple: Put your money where your mouth is. For your info, i have been critical of my own country and have plans to emigrate to the “West” although i may not go to the extent to renouncing my citizenship. You don’t have to renounce your Indian citizenship to go to China. Go and work and live there for about 10 years and come back to tell us about it. After all, you think China’s system is so much better than India’s, why don’t you personally experience it and substantiate your claim by making your own experience as your argument? I am planning to put my money where mu mouth is, what about you?

“The western and Indian media IS largely biased about China”

The media is an unpredictable beast.But it doesn’t help if you don’t allow journalist access to certain areas for reporting and even beat up some of them. Mind you, they beat up Hong Kong reporters, not Western or Indian reporters.

“China’s press freedom condemned”
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_436288.html

Instead of clearing things up by being more open, China is doing the opposite with all these self-defeating things that just reinforces whatever bias and misconceptions.

February 18, 2010 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

Also, you have still not explained to me how Uyghur culture is getting destroyed by Han migration. If your neighbour is from a different culture, does it undermine yours?
People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.(Can developing that area be considered as a policy of ‘encouraging Han migration’?).
And why do you think that the government has relaxed the one child policy for minorities? If they wanted to wipe them out, why relax this policy?

If all my district used to be all Uighurs and now it becomes a Han-majority district, will it really be all the same? Heard of cultural shock? Not funny when you have been reduced to a minority group when you used to be the majority.

I have already mentioned the commercialization that comes with the massive Han migration can be damaging and the locals may not withstand the onslaught of commercialization in post 27 but i think you choose to ignore it.

On the other hand, more on government incentives to encourage Han migration.

From NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/asia/06tibet.html

“The riot involved Tibetans attacking Han Chinese living and working in Lhasa, a high-altitude city on a desert plateau that has drawn many Han settlers in recent years because of financial incentives put in place by Chinese officials.

The Chinese government has actively encouraged Han migration to ethnic minority regions in western China, particularly Tibet and Xinjiang, and that in turn has led to rising tensions between locals and the Han settlers who come seeking jobs and business opportunities.

From Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903053.html

“The Chinese portray all that has happened in Tibet as progress, attributing the whopping 12 to 15 percent growth in gross domestic product in recent years to an almost philanthropic commitment to Tibetan culture. But their policies seem to have been aimed at something quite different.

China has consistently pursued a policy of “taming” its far-flung western regions through economic and ethnic assimilation. It has crafted tax incentives to encourage Han business owners to move west from eastern cities and has loosened migration rules. “Go West, Young Han” is the clarion call of the times. Chinese state-run firms have staffed large construction projects such as the railway and even local road building with Han Chinese contractors and crews, who send their earnings home. ”

From Human Rights in China: http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision_id=2080&item_id=2079

“The large-scale influx of Han Chinese has turned some ethnic groups into marginalized ethnic minorities in their own homelands. This form of “internal colonialism” can be seen in the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (PCC), a huge state-owned organization established in the early 1950s, which is administered largely independently from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region government. The PCC has its own police force, courts, agricultural and industrial enterprises, as well as its own large network of labor camps and prisons. It exemplifies the PRC government’s dual purpose of developing the region economically and curtailing Uyghur separatism.

Both an administrative organ and a large development corporation, the PCC’s 2.4 million employees are 97 percent Han. Although allegedly profitable, the PCC receives a higher level of direct central government subsidy than does the province as a whole. In 1994, the PCC’s 13.5 percent of the population of the province received a subsidy of around 1 billion yuan, while the provincial government, which has to address the livelihood of the remaining 86.5 percent, received only 4.24 billion yuan.

The PCC is just one dimension of a long-term strategy of encouraging Han immigration into Xinjiang and other autonomous areas. Although Beijing no longer directly organizes such migration, there is ample evidence that the PRC government’s economic policies in these regions have such an effect.”

From the German publication Speigel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,634791,00.html

“Massive immigration of Han Chinese, encouraged into the area by financial incentives, mean that slowly but surely the Uighurs are becoming a minority in their own land.

China is notorious for not being understanding of other cultures. Ethnic minorities have equal rights here but only on paper. Many Han Chinese treat their Uighur brethren with thinly disguised contempt and racist arrogance.”

From Foreign Affairs “The Unsettled West”: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59942/joshua-kurlantzick/the-unsettled-west?page=show

“During the postwar period, the CCP also began a campaign to change the demographics of Xinjiang while also exploiting its natural resources to feed eastern China’s growing cities. Beijing forced birth control on the Uighurs and simultaneously encouraged massive Han migration into the region, using economic incentives or simply forcing Chinese to move west. The results of these policies were devastating: whereas in 1941 Uighurs made up more than 80 percent of Xinjiang’s population, by 1998, they made up less than 50 percent. Urumqi, Xinjiang’s largest city, is now a Han metropolis, with the few Uighurs confined to small ghetto-like areas where they pose for pictures and desperately hawk cheap carpets to visitors.”

From the Jakarta Globe, Indonesia’s English Daily:
http://thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/a-communications-blackout-isnt-fixing-things-in-xinjiang/335778
“A Communications Blackout Isn’t Fixing Things in Xinjiang”

“Over the past six decades a large influx of Han immigrants enticed with incentives such as easy access to land, better education for their children and subsidized housing have driven many Uighurs from jobs. In 1949 about 6 percent of Xinjiang’s population was Han Chinese compared with over 40 percent today. Tellingly the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, or Bingtuan, a government-run organization used to first establish infrastructure in the region in the 1950s, counts 88 percent of its more than 2.5 million workers as Han Chinese.

Though the Bingtuan is part of a long-term Sinicization campaign to drown out Uighur culture and by extension in CCP-think “separatism,” very little actual integration has occurred. It is a cultural ignorance in potent combination with joblessness and draconian restrictions on Uighur cultural practices that has stoked tensions in Xinjiang for so long.”

You want evidence? There is so much of evidence out there that you can literally drown in it. Get real, Maitreya.

February 18, 2010 @ 9:18 pm | Comment

“don’t think comparison with India give us any consolation”

I never said that that is an end in itself.

“You may know alot about Indian affairs but don’t try to masquerade like an expert on Cross-Straits affairs. You think you have a tongue-in-cheek but it actually ended up as an embarrassment.”

That’s what you think. When have I ever said that I am an expert on cross strait relations? And certainly, if the Chinese claim on Taiwan is ‘ridiculous’, then what about Taiwan’s claim to all of China? You’ve still not answered my question.

“When you didn’t even define what your mean by “happiness”

I said that happiness is a difficult thing to measure directly. That’s why we have to make the best use of the (sometimes indirect) data available.

You said earlier that “Australia, with all its intent, tried to “develop”,”modernize” and “civilize” the aboriginals by taking aboriginal children away from their parents and communities to be adopted in white Australian families. Very much like China in its current approach to its minorities”

Its the evidence of THIS statement that I was asking. Your statement about the PRC official jargon about improving standards in Tibet is neither here nor there.

“I have already mentioned the commercialization that comes with the massive Han migration can be damaging and the locals may not withstand the onslaught of commercialization in post 27 but i think you choose to ignore it.”

Comment 27 was certainly a less than satisfactory answer.

“Engage the locals in the process. Tell them that there is a high risk for them. Offer compensation and alternative ways for them to be resettled. Get independent surveyors to churn a report on the vulnerability of the architecture, no some govt ones which people may suspect to be bias. Let them have a big say in where they want to resettle. Persuade them,not bulldoze them to your reasoning. Tell them that you may demolish the place, but say have a museum to preserve as many relics as possible. You may have the best intentions in the world, but if you lack tact and sensitivities in your delivery, you will fail. There are many ways to get things done without bulldozing your way through even if you meant well.”

Now you are effectively dodging the question. What if some residents do not listen to your persuasion and ‘tact’? – is the point that I had raised earlier. You are not reading carefully. Do they still have the right to stay in their shoddy houses in a earthquake high risk zone? If an earthquake occurs and they die – what happens then?
BTW, as for the museum idea, a small part (15%) of Kashgar is being preserved for tourism purposes etc.

Again you have not answered my question – If the government wanted to wipe all such architecture out, there are many other historical places in Xinjiang that it could have destroyed – Why choose Kashgar?

Remember this – God or Religion or Culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

Also – If the PRC wanted to wipe minorities out, a very simple and easy way could have been to impose the one child policy on them too. Then why don’t they do it?

“While Chinese minorities enjoy a much better standard of living. Also, the ethnic riots and uprisings were the work of only a few people who may have hated Hans.”

How do you know? Only the minorities themselves are qualified to judge whether something is better or not

OK. So are you telling me that you DON’T know that the standard of living in China (among minorities) is better than Indian minorities?

“I may personally disagree with the taking of multiple wives but these governments realize that if they do not make room for Sharia laws, the likely alternative is violent resistance and resentment from the Muslim community and this may be the best option to placate the community. Which lesser evil do you choose then?”
“draconian restrictions on Uighur cultural practices that has stoked tensions in Xinjiang for so long”

What about Women’s rights then? Even France is debating on banning the burqa.
Are Islamic or Sharia laws more important than women’s rights, for one?
Until recently, women in Saudi Arabia were not allowed to drive. Is that justified? Was the lesser of two evils chosen?
You logic indicates that the PRC simply chooses the lesser of two evils by censoring the internet so that people don’t come to know about Tianenmen etc. and revolt!

“Only the minorities themselves are qualified to judge whether something is better or not”
“Others may just want to live and die in their traditional mode of life, let them be

OK. So you want the Tibetan nomads to be nomads all there lives.

An example: suppose a Tibetan father is a nomad, and he wants his son also to become one. Now, the son wants to study and become an engineer, scientist etc. What happens then? If the government provides incentives, funds the son’s education etc. will the father accuse it of destroying Tibetan culture?

“I may think a pair of Levis jeans means a better standard of living for me but a indigenous native may or may not think so”

Let me give you another example/case study: If an indigenous person gets a disease and insists on being treated by tibetan traditional medicines, which are not able to get rid of the disease. Then, does treating him with modern medicine amount to suppressing his culture.?

How about serfs? If someone wants to remain a serf, should the government allow him/her?

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT A LINE NEEDS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN RELIGION/CULTURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS. THESE TWO NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS WOULD GO AWAY SIMPLY IF THE PRC EASED UP ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES, LIKE INDIA.

“You want evidence? There is so much of evidence out there that you can literally drown in it. Get real, Maitreya.”

There is evidence on both sides out there. You will agree that it is in no way inappropriate to ask for evidence of any statements which you make.

““I can reply to all other points but i realised there is no point (and no time) because there is no meeting of minds.”

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY

IN CONCLUSION, I THINK THAT, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE ARE ON FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT ON MANY ISSUES AND AGREE IN SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER.

February 19, 2010 @ 3:17 am | Comment

Matty
“even a minor earthquake would have brought those 500 year old buildings crumbling down and the people would have died beneath them”

Now, you had said earlier that these houses were in an earthquale zone. How old were these houses? As I read, some were centuries old. Surely then, they would have felt a few “minor earhtquakes” in their life. And, as can be seen, they withstood them.

Your sentence therefore doesn’t stack up to reality and this, I am afraid, throws a lot of your posts into doubt.

February 19, 2010 @ 4:00 am | Comment

“I might add that China’s Taiwan claims are certainly not more ridiculous than Taiwan’s claim to all of China.”

Terminology issue. Both China and Taiwan are China. If you mean the CCP has a claim over Taiwan when you say China, then you’ll have to back that up with facts. As it is, the Republic of China ruled both, the Communist Party of China has only ever ruled the mainland – this suggests to me that the ROC has a stronger claim to all of China than the CCP.

But hey, why let facts and history get in the way, eh?

February 19, 2010 @ 4:04 am | Comment

@Mike
“Both China and Taiwan are China.”

That means…. that China has actually a bipartisan political system!

February 19, 2010 @ 5:45 am | Comment

@Eco
Errr, yeah 🙂 Or maybe it’s on the European model…like pre-Bismark Germany or pre-Garibaldi Italy 😀
I did notice a wee mistake on my last piece. I said the CCP never ruled Taiwan. I meant, of course, the PRC….but as the PRC is the CCP, it’s an easy mistake to make.
Anyway, ROC has a greater claim to One China than the PRC….Matty is wrong.

I think perhaps this thread should move to the Travelling thread?

February 19, 2010 @ 7:32 am | Comment

Talking of the Republic of China
http://www.changjiangunlimited.com/2010/10-0217-FdW.jpg

February 19, 2010 @ 7:35 am | Comment

@Maitreya

The PRC remembers what happened in Sichuan with shoddy construction; and is certainly not going to let that happen again.

Really? If they didn’t want the Sichuan tragedy to happen again, why did they do this?

“Fury at jail for quake activist”
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=13&art_id=94377&sid=27014966&con_type=3&d_str=20100210&sear_year=2010

“China detains teacher for earthquake photos”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/31/china.chinaearthquake

“China Presses Hush Money on Grieving Parents ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/world/asia/24quake.html?_r=1

I am sure your parents would have taught you from young that owning up to your mistakes or saying “sorry” is the courageous first step to rectifying them.

Instead, we see CCP officials launching violent reprisals against those who is trying to investigate the truth. Parents, who lost their only child, need to see justice done.

Any logical person will not be able to see how such despicable actions is a sign of “certainly not going to let that happen again.”

February 19, 2010 @ 10:39 am | Comment

@sp

“Really? If they didn’t want the Sichuan tragedy to happen again, why did they do this?”
“Any logical person will not be able to see how such despicable actions is a sign of “certainly not going to let that happen again.”

I see that you are making me repeat the same things over and over again. Read my previous post carefully, where I say,

“That’s another difference between India and China. China may not publicly admit its mistakes, but later takes many steps to solve it. India, on the other hands admits its mistake (”I hang my head in shame” the Indian PM said referring to the 1984 riots) but the court cases are still dragging on after 25 years and it is still being discussed in Parliament. Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years – a conviction rate of less than 1%. Hence, it doesn’t learn from them for the most part.”

@ Mike Goldthorpe

“Now, you had said earlier that these houses were in an earthquale zone. How old were these houses? As I read, some were centuries old. Surely then, they would have felt a few “minor earhtquakes” in their life. And, as can be seen, they withstood them.

Simply because they might have withstood those earthquakes earlier (I don’t know whether they did or didn’t), but that is no reason to let people live in them. Can you guarantee that they will withstand a new earthquake? I’ve already given you examples of other earthquakes in that area.

“Your sentence therefore doesn’t stack up to reality and this, I am afraid, throws a lot of your posts into doubt.”

First – That’s why you think. You are more than welcome to verify the accuracy of any of my statements. Try doing that instead of throwing such immature remarks around.

Second – When you made the ridiculous statement about the major cause of riots being corruption (and I corrected you), then what? Did I say that that ‘throws a lot of your posts into doubt’, instead of showing you the evidence for it?

I Repeat –
God or Religion or Culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

Also – If the PRC wanted to wipe minorities out, a very simple and easy way could have been to impose the one child policy on them too. Then why don’t they do it?

In any case, its not as i, as sp said, the PRC has abruptly bulldozed their way in. Timetables have been announced and people have been given time and compensation to leave.

“ROC has a greater claim to One China than the PRC….Matty is wrong”

First – Then I am afraid that all governments of this world (except 23) are wrong too; as well as the UN for not recognizing Taiwan as the sole representative of the whole of China. (If the PRC wasn’t communist, would the situation have been different?) Or are they simply afraid of the PRC?
Also, the nationalists LOST the civil war. And that’s a fact.

Second – Your argument that “the Republic of China ruled both, the Communist Party of China has only ever ruled the mainland”, is wrong. Because, for example the whole of India has never been under one administration until the British colonized it. Now, after the British left, would you say that the country should be divided into the same Kingdoms and Princely states that prevailed BEFORE the British arrived.

IN ANY CASE, THAT IS OFF-TOPIC. ALL I SAID ORIGINALLY WAS THAT IT WOULD BE WRONG TO CALL EITHER CLAIM RIDICULOUS , AS sp DID.

@sp

WE HAVE BEEN ARGUING NEEDLESSLY OVER MINOR TOPICS; AND AS I SAID EARLIER, we AGREE IN SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER.

As for the evidence, I have already said that there are arguments on both sides.
I think that a major part of the western media shows some biased tendencies, which I intend to explore on my blog.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CHINA IS DOING ENOUGH FOR ITS MINORITIES. I HAD ARGUED IN MY BLOGPOST WAS THAT CHINA IS MORE FOR ITS MINORITIES THAN INDIA IS.
MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE, AS I SAID EARLIER.

– Maitreya

February 19, 2010 @ 12:57 pm | Comment

@sp

“I am sure your parents would have taught you from young that owning up to your mistakes or saying “sorry” is the courageous first step to rectifying them.”

Yes, my parents have taught me that, and I don’t need your permission to say it. But we are talking about the CCP here, not me or you.
My parents have also taught me something else – being civil and respecting others’ right to have an opinion.
I see that you are not being quite civil in your comments and using aggressive phrases; often getting personal. Well, while I can do that too – I don’t want to stoop to your level. The fact remains that just because a reply is strongly worded doesn’t make it right . It just provides a false and misplaced sense of superiority. And if I am to have a sense of superiority, I would rather that it be right and correctly placed, unlike yours.

– Maitreya

February 19, 2010 @ 1:19 pm | Comment

@sp2
If all my district used to be all Uighurs and now it becomes a Han-majority district, will it really be all the same? Heard of cultural shock? Not funny when you have been reduced to a minority group when you used to be the majority.

Ah, a Han majority in Eastern Xinjiang. It’ll be like 200 BC again.

The “Uighur”, or so they call themselves, can go back to their ancestral homelands in Eastern Europe and Southern Siberia if they don’t like it.

February 19, 2010 @ 3:05 pm | Comment

“Massive immigration of Han Chinese, encouraged into the area by financial incentives, mean that slowly but surely the Uighurs are becoming a minority in their own land.

China is notorious for not being understanding of other cultures. Ethnic minorities have equal rights here but only on paper. Many Han Chinese treat their Uighur brethren with thinly disguised contempt and racist arrogance.”

And many Germans have been known to be off on their assessments of other races. The spirit of Goebbels live on.

China is far, far more understanding of other cultures than “the West”. They have thousands of years of experience. The problem is that they have too much experience, and thus negative but realistic assessments are possible for a select few.

February 19, 2010 @ 3:11 pm | Comment

Are you suggesting that the CCP WANTS or DOESN’T CARE if citizens die in an earthquake?

February 19, 2010 @ 3:24 pm | Comment

Its the evidence of THIS statement that I was asking. Your statement about the PRC official jargon about improving standards in Tibet is neither here nor there.

You choose to push the evidence aside. In what way does the MFA statement not reflect that kind of racialist, paternalistic attitude?

what about Taiwan’s claim to all of China? You’ve still not answered my question.

Oh gosh. If Taiwan gave up that “ridiculous” claim tomorrow, the 1000 missiles PLA aimed at Taiwan will be fired off. In other words, Taiwan is forced to uphold that claim, not because it was willing, but the PRC’s reunificationist stance forced it to maintain that “ridiculous” claim to all of China. Can you please pick up some books on cross-straits affairs? When pro-independence president Chen Shui Bian moved to cease the functions of the “National Reunification Council”, the PRC issued a stern warning to Taipei. Today’s Taiwan is no longer the same Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek. Taipei itself has no interest to maintain its claim to all of China, the PRC’s threat to invade forced to maintain such claim. Ignorance is such a annoying affair at times.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Unification_Council

I said that happiness is a difficult thing to measure directly. That’s why we have to make the best use of the (sometimes indirect) data available.

This is unsatisfactory answer. Measuring something you didn’t even define. That’s so laughable. Realize that if you can say others’ answers are “unsatisfactory”, others can do the same to you too.

Comment 27 was certainly a less than satisfactory answer.

Which part of it is unsatisfactory? Anyway, you are not my boss, why should i satisfy you?

Now you are effectively dodging the question. What if some residents do not listen to your persuasion and ‘tact’? – is the point that I had raised earlier. You are not reading carefully. Do they still have the right to stay in their shoddy houses in a earthquake high risk zone? If an earthquake occurs and they die – what happens then?

Dodge the question? If they refuse to move, then they have to bear the consequences for the choices they made. All we can do is to persuade them. You haven’t even try, how do you know? Unless you aren’t even interested in engaging the locals. I am confident and optimistic about trust-building with the locals and persuading them, i am not as pessimistic and cynical as you.

What about Women’s rights then?

I am all for women’s rights. But if you choose ignore that the Muslim community is one that has to be handled with extreme sensitivity, its your problem. Look at Salman Rushdie and the fatwa that was issued to kill him by Khomeini (it still stands ). If you want to stir shit onto yourself by messing with the community in the wrong way, please go ahead.

OK. So you want the Tibetan nomads to be nomads all there lives

My complete quote was “Some may really want to go the cities, get material goods, have modern education, that’s a better life for them, so let them go. Others may just want to live and die in their traditional mode of life, let them be.”

You deliberately drop the preceding statement in bold to build a strawman argument around it. If you are not being dishonest, deceitful and outright despicable, what are you really? Are you so desperate that you are resorting to such cheap tricks?

There is evidence on both sides out there. You will agree that it is in no way inappropriate to ask for evidence of any statements which you make.

Haha, you challenge me openly by saying “People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.” Now you are bombarded with it, you are trying to save your grace. “Evidence on both sides”? What’s your evidence that proves that the Chinese government DOES NOT encourage Han migration? We are all waiting for your reply.

By the way, where is the evidence for “This was essentially Soviet policy too.”?

Looks like your own demand for evidence is catching up on you.

IN CONCLUSION, I THINK THAT, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE ARE ON FUNDAMENTAL AGREEMENT ON MANY ISSUES AND AGREE IN SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER.

Oh please. It’s your own wishful thinking. How can i agree fundamentally with a a dishonest person who accused me of concluding Friedman a fool when i have not? I am still waiting for you to quote me where i conclude Friedman was a fool. If not, issue an apology. Otherwise, this will be my last post to you.

February 19, 2010 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

If the PRC wanted to wipe minorities out, a very simple and easy way could have been to impose the one child policy on them too. Then why don’t they do it?

When you already made Lhasa and Urumqi Han-majority cities with massive migration, why bother doing something that the “West” can use to accuse you of outright genocide? Why invite bad PR when you already attained your goals of Sinicization through assimilation?

February 19, 2010 @ 9:44 pm | Comment

“Now, the son wants to study and become an engineer, scientist etc. What happens then? ”

Now, if the son wants to stay with his father as a nomad, do you take him away with force in order to make him an engineer, scientist?

My way will be: tell the parents about the opportunities out there. Tell them the benefits of education. If after much efforts, they chose to ignore you, let them be. Heard of “you can bring the horse to the river but you can’t force it to drink’? My job is to bring the horse to the river, i won’t force it to drink. I can’t say the same about you.

February 19, 2010 @ 9:51 pm | Comment

You logic indicates that the PRC simply chooses the lesser of two evils by censoring the internet so that people don’t come to know about Tianenmen etc. and revolt!

Haha. That’s the only kind of counter-argument you are capable of? There is no “lesser” evil in the above, it is EVIL in its entirety because the government, which is a dictatorship that had ordered troops to fire on its own people, has a vested self-interest to whitewash its own atrocities and hope that its people will forget its crimes. Drawing such insensitive “analogy” is downright disrespectful to those who perished under the naked violence of the CCP.

February 19, 2010 @ 10:02 pm | Comment

@ Mike Goldthorpe

“Now, you had said earlier that these houses were in an earthquale zone. How old were these houses? As I read, some were centuries old. Surely then, they would have felt a few “minor earhtquakes” in their life. And, as can be seen, they withstood them.

Simply because they might have withstood those earthquakes earlier (I don’t know whether they did or didn’t), but that is no reason to let people live in them. Can you guarantee that they will withstand a new earthquake? I’ve already given you examples of other earthquakes in that area.

“Your sentence therefore doesn’t stack up to reality and this, I am afraid, throws a lot of your posts into doubt.”

First – That’s what you think. You are more than welcome to verify the accuracy of any of my statements. Try doing that instead of throwing such immature remarks around.

Second – When you made the ridiculous statement about the major cause of riots being corruption (and I corrected you), then what? Did I say that that ‘throws a lot of your posts into doubt’, instead of showing you the evidence for it?

I Repeat –
God or Religion or Culture is not going to save the people when an earthquake strikes – the government is, and does.

In any case, its not as if the PRC has abruptly bulldozed their way in. Timetables have been announced and people have been given time and compensation to leave.

“ROC has a greater claim to One China than the PRC….Matty is wrong”

First – That’s your opinion. So you label anyone who doesn’t share your opinion as wrong!
Second – Then I am afraid that all governments of this world (except 23) are wrong too; as well as the UN for not recognizing Taiwan as the sole representative of the whole of China. (If the PRC wasn’t communist, would the situation have been different?) Or are they simply afraid of the PRC?
Also, the nationalists LOST the civil war and fled to Taiwan. That’s a fact.

Third – Your argument that “the Republic of China ruled both, the Communist Party of China has only ever ruled the mainland”, is wrong. Because, for example the whole of India has never been under one administration until the British colonized it. Now, after the British left, would you say that the country should be divided into the same Kingdoms and Princely states that prevailed BEFORE the British arrived?

“But hey, why let facts and history get in the way, eh?”
Again the same thing. So what you mean to say is that your opinions are facts.

IN ANY CASE, THAT IS OFF-TOPIC. ALL I SAID ORIGINALLY WAS THAT (SINCE THIS IS A
COMPLEX ISSUE) IT WOULD BE WRONG AND IMMATURE TO CALL EITHER CLAIM RIDICULOUS , AS sp DID.

@sp

WE HAVE BEEN ARGUING NEEDLESSLY OVER MINOR TOPICS; AND AS I SAID EARLIER, we AGREE IN SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER.

“Really? If they didn’t want the Sichuan tragedy to happen again, why did they do this?”
“Any logical person will not be able to see how such despicable actions is a sign of “certainly not going to let that happen again.”

I see that you are making me repeat the same things over and over again. Read my previous post carefully, where I say,

“That’s another difference between India and China. China may not publicly admit its mistakes, but later takes many steps to solve it. India, on the other hands admits its mistake (”I hang my head in shame” the Indian PM said referring to the 1984 riots) but the court cases are still dragging on after 25 years and it is still being discussed in Parliament. Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years – a conviction rate of less than 1%. Hence, it doesn’t learn from them for the most part.”

As for the evidence, I have already said that there are arguments on both sides and have already given mine. You will agree that it is in no way inappropriate for me to ask for evidence of any statements which you make. I’ve given evidence for all my statements.
I think that a major part of the western media shows some biased tendencies, which I intend to explore on my blog.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT CHINA IS DOING ENOUGH FOR ITS MINORITIES. WHAT I HAD ARGUED IN MY BLOGPOST WAS THAT CHINA IS MORE FOR ITS MINORITIES THAN INDIA IS.
MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE, AS I SAID EARLIER.

“Look at Salman Rushdie and the fatwa that was issued to kill him by Khomeini (it still stands ). If you want to stir shit onto yourself by messing with the community in the wrong way, please go ahead.”

Conclusion: You are a coward.

“For your info, i have been critical of my own country and have plans to emigrate to the “West” although i may not go to the extent to renouncing my citizenship”

So that’s your solution then – if someone is critical of one’s country – simply emigrate to the west!!
In case you didn’t notice, I have been critical of my country too. But I have no plans of leaving it anytime soon.

“Go and work and live there for about 10 years and come back to tell us about it”

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO GO? DID I EVER TELL YOU TO GO TO INDIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE? Stop behaving like a child.

“I am sure your parents would have taught you from young that owning up to your mistakes or saying “sorry” is the courageous first step to rectifying them.”

Yes, my parents have taught me that, and I don’t need your permission to say it. But we are talking about the CCP here, not me or you. The CCP rectifies them, but doesn’t own up to them. see #59 (the para I cited above)

My parents have also taught me something else – being civil and polite and respecting others’ right to have an opinion.

I see that you are not being quite immature in your comments and using aggressive/rude phrases; often getting personal. Well, while I can do that too – I don’t want to stoop to your level. Ican answer to each one of your arguments, but you will keep asking the same old questions again and again and over-complimenting things. You just embarrassed yourself.
The fact remains that just because a reply is strongly worded doesn’t make it right . It just provides a false and misplaced sense of superiority to those who are afraid. And if I am to have a sense of superiority, I would rather that it be right and correctly placed, unlike yours. Stop behaving like an obstinate child and GROW UP.

I refuse to participate in this debate further.

– Maitreya

February 19, 2010 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

I see that you are not being quite immature in your comments and using aggressive/rude phrases; often getting personal. Well, while I can do that too – I don’t want to stoop to your level. Ican answer to each one of your arguments, but you will keep asking the same old questions again and again and over-complimenting things. You just embarrassed yourself.
The fact remains that just because a reply is strongly worded doesn’t make it right . It just provides a false and misplaced sense of superiority to those who are afraid. And if I am to have a sense of superiority, I would rather that it be right and correctly placed, unlike yours. Stop behaving like an obstinate child and GROW UP.

I refuse to participate in this debate further.

– Maitreya

February 19, 2010 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

OK. So you want the Tibetan nomads to be nomads all there lives

You deliberately drop the preceding statement in bold to build a strawman argument around it. If you are not being dishonest, deceitful and outright despicable, what are you really? Are you so desperate that you are resorting to such cheap tricks?

Being despicable and cheap? Why don’t you just own up? I get personal with despicable, deceitful scumbags who used cheap tactics like the above like you.

I once again challenge you to quote me where i have concluded Friedman as a coward. This is the third time i am doing it. Someone who can’t even own up his dirty tricks is not fit to call others coward.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:27 am | Comment

“WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO GO? DID I EVER TELL YOU TO GO TO INDIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE? ”

The truth is, while you have been singing praises of the CCP in the comfort of your armchair, you aren’t prepare to put your money where your mouth is. That’s you, period.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:29 am | Comment

I’ve given evidence for all my statements.

“This was essentially Soviet policy too.”– evidence?

This is the second time i am asking for it.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:40 am | Comment

I see that you are making me repeat the same things over and over again.

Because like you, i can also find them “unsatisfactory” without giving any reasons why. A taste of your own medicine is always the best cure.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:43 am | Comment

“a major part of the western media shows some biased tendencies”

And as if beating up journalists is the way to clear up those “bias” views.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:45 am | Comment

The CCP rectifies them, but doesn’t own up to them. see #59 (the para I cited above)

Please don’t make us laugh. First, the shoddy construction of the schools in Sichuan was a result of corruption. If those investigating it are receiving violent reprisals and parents were threatened not to pursue matters, how do you rectify it? If Sichuan officials can get away scot-free in this matter and even initimidate victims, what kind of messages are you sending? The message is: You can embezzle the funds and build flimsy schools and get away with it. What a way to rectifying things! Your Kashghar example is therefore irrelevant in trying to explain things that happened in Sichuan.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:51 am | Comment

First – That’s what you think. You are more than welcome to verify the accuracy of any of my statements. Try doing that instead of throwing such immature remarks around.

How civil are you really? You can’t even stand the slightest criticism other commentators have on your comments. And Mike didn’t even get personal with you, you already call his remarks “immature”.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:57 am | Comment

When you already made Lhasa and Urumqi Han-majority cities with massive migration

You’re forgetting that Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese in Dzungaria, not “Uighur” Xinjiang. Wait, you never actually knew that. My mistake.

Urumqi has always been majority Han or Mongol. Ethnic cleansing of the real natives by the so-called “Uighur” in the 19th century changed that.

February 20, 2010 @ 2:30 am | Comment

Although Ürümqi is situated near the northern route of the Silk Road, it is a relatively young city. During the 22nd year of Emperor Taizong’s reign in the Tang Dynasty, AD 648, the Tang government set up the town of Luntai in the ancient town seat of Urabo,[3] 10 kilometers from the southern suburb of present-day Ürümqi. Ancient Luntai Town was a seat of local government, and collected taxes from the caravans along the northern route of the Silk Road.

Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi#History

Oh and put your money where your mouth is sp, move to India. America was not built on democracy either, but India will be once it’s developed.

So go move there or all your arguments mean nothing.

February 20, 2010 @ 2:31 am | Comment

Oh and put your money where your mouth is sp, move to India.

Cite where i have sing praises about India? By the way, is merp staying China now?

If he/she/it cant answer this, he/she/it is just some random noise.

You’re forgetting that Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese in Dzungaria, ….

Going on and on like a longwinded fart. Israel was first inhabited by the Jewish people way back to the time of the Roman Empire. Then they moved out and the Palestinians move in. Which side has more legitimate claim? If you cant answer, you can go home and sleep.

February 20, 2010 @ 11:29 am | Comment

You’re forgetting that Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese in Dzungaria, not “Uighur” Xinjiang. Wait, you never actually knew that. My mistake.

You are forgetting that The Tang Emperors are not your pure blood Han Chinese. Wait,
you never actually knew that. My mistake.

February 20, 2010 @ 11:39 am | Comment

Urumqi has always been majority Han or Mongol. Ethnic cleansing of the real natives by the so-called “Uighur” in the 19th century changed that.

What? You are saying that the CCP is so ignorant about history that they name the entire place “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region” instead of “Xinjiang Han/Mongol Autonomous Region”?

Haha, thanks for pointing out the CCP’s idiotic ignorance about history.

February 20, 2010 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Needless to say, Merp lives a cozy life here in America, while blasting it to hell from the comfort of his armchair.

February 20, 2010 @ 11:52 am | Comment

To Richard #126:
that’s just so typical. So many of those types around, on this blog and others, it seems. China under the CCP is the best thing since sliced bread…just don’t ask them to actually live there.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:19 pm | Comment

Are you suggesting that the CCP WANTS or DOESN’T CARE if citizens die in an earthquake?

By letting its corrupt officials get away scot-free and even intimidate the parents of the dead children, what else is there to suggest? It already happened and it will happen again as long as these officials are not brought to justice. You differ on this?

February 20, 2010 @ 1:58 pm | Comment

“I once again challenge you to quote me where i have concluded Friedman as a coward. ”

I mean “as a fool”.

February 20, 2010 @ 2:01 pm | Comment

As for the evidence, I have already said that there are arguments on both sides and have already given mine.

You openly challenge me with “People keep saying that the government ‘encourages Han migration’ into the region. Without citing any evidence for it or any government policy.” (Post 88)

I answered you with the evidence in post 95.

Then in in post 96, Maitreya said, “There is evidence on both sides out there. ”

I am still waiting for your evidence on the “other side” that contradicts the fact that the CCP has put in policies and incentives to encourage Han migration.

February 20, 2010 @ 2:08 pm | Comment

OK. So are you telling me that you DON’T know that the standard of living in China (among minorities) is better than Indian minorities?

You know what’s so funny about this statement? It’s like forcing a man like me to comment on whether X brand bra is more comfortable than Y brand bra. Am i in a position to comment when i don’t even wear one?

February 20, 2010 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

Guess what i have found? Our dear Maitreya Bhakal is so hardworking as a commentator that he simply cut and paste exactly most of what he had commented in other blogs in order to have “a healthy discussion” with us here.

http://www.farwestchina.com/2010/02/native-americans-vs-uyghurs-tibetans.html

And he is always in the habit of accusing others of being “childish” just because other commentators don’t agree with him.

“Erland said…

@Maitreya –

This is a good conversation to have, but we may have to agree to disagree on some of the topics. I’ll try to keep it short, and you can choose to respond if you’d like.

From what I understand, the regional Uyghur government is merely a pawn of Beijing, which was actually led by Wang Lequan (a Han) during the disputes in July. Mr. Lequan was the center of much Uyghur animosity and has since moved on. Your NYT article is correct and proves my point. They are “summoned to meetings at which eviction timetables and compensation sums are announced.” There is a big difference between being part of the conversation, and listening to the conversation.

My rights include more than food and water. You asked for examples, and I have many. Again, we can choose to disagree on this, but I want to give you a few. First, Islam is a certified religion in China, but it comes with restrictions in Xinjiang. Youth are not allowed to enter mosques under the age of 18, individuals are only allowed to use the state-approved version of the Holy Quran, any men working in the state sector cannot wear beards, and Imams are often searched and imprisoned. Speaking of prison, due process and a fair justice system is a right the Uyghurs do not enjoy. A good site to start with is Harry Wu’s Laogai Foundation (http://laogai.org/). I know you probably consider it Western-dribble, but one could also reference Human Rights Watch for more documented cases of many human rights violations. You can also view my blog and read about the Uyghurs illegally deported out of Cambodia who have since disappeared.

In regards to language, it would be good to see the difference between a bilingual education policy, and what is being taught in the schools. I have read concerns from Uyghur parents who are struggling to cope with the younger generation not speaking Uyghur. I understand that business is conducted in Chinese, and so there is an incentive to learn Chinese for the Uyghurs.

Xinhua and People’s Daily DO speak quite positively about Xinjiang, and all the “great things that are going on there.” There is a difference between what is going on in a region, and the people who exist in that region. During the July 5th riots, the Uyghurs were portrayed as terrorist and separatists. When I interview Chinese Nationalists living in the United States, they have a skewed view of who the Uyghurs really are because of the media. It didn’t cause the rioting, but it did not help it.

I want to be very clear that I am not a China hater. I don’t hold a grudge against the Chinese citizens, and I know that many in government are just doing what they are told. As an American, if there is any country that I want to partner with and build a relationship, it would be China. I think that they have made strides, but they have a long way to go. But what do I know? I am some young American blogger who obviously has too much time on his hands (our long comments are evidence of that).

-Erland

http://www.uyghurblog.com”

To which Maitreya replies:

“Maitreya Bhakal said…

@Erland

I think that the argument is getting childish here and off topic. For example, your main concern is against suppression of religion. However, we are discussing (NON) DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS MINORITIES – not FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The policy of children under 18 not being allowed inside places of worship and state employees having to shave beards – that are arguments against FRREDOM OF RELIGION, which is not what we are discussing here. These policies are not discriminatory against Uyghurs, since they are implemented even for Han Chinese (Muslims).
I find it appalling that some in the western media automatically think of minorities like Uyghurs in terms of their religion. I find this condescending. There are other things in Uyghur culture besides religion. Also, take the Uyghur practice of having multiple wives. This is not allowed according to PRC law. Will you say that this is discriminatory?

About access to a fair justice system – Well, the same laws apply to Han Chinese as well. You are again going off topic here. Your comments are suitable in a debate about LEGAL RIGHTS, not (NON) DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS MINORITIES.

About the summoning to meetings – what would you have the government do? ASK the Uyghur population to leave when it is convenient to them? Thus increasing the earthquake risk still further? The government has in fact offered incentives for those leaving early. Also, I would like to point out that the demolition of Kashgar was planned BEFORE the riots…

(Read the rest from the link i have provided)

February 20, 2010 @ 5:31 pm | Comment

In any case, its not as i, as sp said, the PRC has abruptly bulldozed their way in. Timetables have been announced and people have been given time and compensation to leave.

Look at this: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/culture/can-an-ancient-city-be-rebuilt/277769

“The city says the residents have been consulted at every step of planning. Residents mostly say they are summoned to meetings at which eviction timetables and compensation sums are announced.

The city offers displaced residents new homes on the sites of their old ones, but will not pay for the cost of rebuilding.

“My family built this house 500 years ago,” Hajji, 56, said as his wife served tea in their two-story Old City house.

“It was made of mud. It’s been improved over the years, but there has been no change to the rooms.”

The garage in Hajji’s home has been converted to a shop from which the family sells sweets and trinkets. With 16 rooms, the home has sprawled over the centuries into a mansion by Kashgar standards.

But Hajji and his wife lost their life’s savings caring for a sick child, and the city’s payment to demolish their home will not cover rebuilding it. Their option is to move to a distant apartment, forcing them to close their shop, their only source of income.”

What kind of compensation is this when it couldn’t even pay for rebuilding?

February 20, 2010 @ 5:50 pm | Comment

It seems merp has found his Nemesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(mythology)

February 20, 2010 @ 10:58 pm | Comment

Wrong link copy-paste. Better so.

http://tinyurl.com/24c2hj

February 20, 2010 @ 11:13 pm | Comment

@S.K. Cheung
Usual thing with leftist. Almost no one of them want to live in a “worker’s paradise”.

But they promote them nonetheless.

February 20, 2010 @ 11:37 pm | Comment

SP2, excellent detective work. I knew something was fishy with our new friend’s comments.

February 21, 2010 @ 1:11 am | Comment

Those are MY OWN comments which I have ‘copied and pasted’, not anyone else’s.
They are about similar issues; and hence my comments about those issues are also similar on different websites.

Also, on the farwestchina link which you have given, I didn’t call the commenter childish – I called the argument childish – there’s a difference.

In any case, as I’ve said earlier – I’m not going to participate in this debate any longer, due to sp’s immaturity and personal remarks. Only those who are afraid of being bitten bark the loudest.

– Maitreya

February 21, 2010 @ 1:21 am | Comment

In any case, as I’ve said earlier – I’m not going to participate in this debate any longer,

ROTFL – you’ve said it several times now!

No one said you plagiarized – but you are spamming, copying your own comments and pasting them on different sites. And now we all know. Take care, Maitreya – we wish you the best.

February 21, 2010 @ 1:43 am | Comment

To ecodelta:
I don’t know if China is a “worker’s paradise” any longer. Just as I’m not sure if Marx would recognize CCP’s China of today to represent his philosophies. I’m also not sure if “communism” requires “authoritarianism” at its core. Nonetheless, that’s what PRC citizens are left with under the CCP in China.

February 21, 2010 @ 2:48 am | Comment

Matty
““ROC has a greater claim to One China than the PRC….Matty is wrong”

First – That’s your opinion. So you label anyone who doesn’t share your opinion as wrong!”

So when did Taiwan ever belong to the PRC?

Here’s some interesting titbits
“The founding of the Republic of China began on 10 October 1911 as a result of the Wuchang Uprising, but was not formally established until 1 January 1912. The ROC had once encompassed mainland China and Outer Mongolia. At the end of World War II, with the surrender of Japan, the Republic of China took over the island groups of Taiwan and Penghu from the Japanese Empire. With the end of the world war, the government drafted the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was adopted on 25 December 1947. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT), the then leading party of the ROC, lost mainland China in the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949, the central government relocated to Taiwan, establishing Taipei as its provisional capital.[11] Despite being forced out of mainland China, Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader, declared that the ROC was still the legitimate government of China and Outer Mongolia.[12][neutrality is disputed] In mainland China, the victorious Communist party founded the People’s Republic of China. The Taiwan Area became the extent of the Republic of China’s jurisdiction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China

My personal opinion? And the fact that you didn’t agree with my “opinion” means I think you’re wrong? How does my opinion influence history, pray tell?

“Now, after the British left, would you say that the country should be divided into the same Kingdoms and Princely states that prevailed BEFORE the British arrived?”
Nah, mate – do it China style. India was and is a part of Britain 🙂

You’ve floundered on your earthquake story, I feel. As stated, the buildings in kashgar are centuries old. I admit that this does not mean they are earthquake-proof….but as the earthquake in Sichuan showed, new buildings are not the best during an earthquake either…

February 22, 2010 @ 5:38 am | Comment

It seems merp has found his Nemesis.

A nemesis would put up a good fight. sp just flails around, tries to string together incoherent thoughts, and panders to popular “thought” when he inevitably fails.

He’s almost an amusing opponent, but not quite.

February 22, 2010 @ 6:25 am | Comment

put up a good fight.

Pointing out to you that Tang emperors weren’t pure Hans is one instance of that “good fight”.

February 22, 2010 @ 10:23 am | Comment

Delusional again? You’re probably thinking of someone else, I know that some Tang Emperors had Xianbei mothers.

March 1, 2010 @ 8:06 am | Comment

Let’s revisit merp’s comments 121 and 122 (note the words in BOLD):

“You’re forgetting that Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese in Dzungaria…”

“Although Ürümqi is situated near the northern route of the Silk Road, it is a relatively young city. During the 22nd year of Emperor Taizong’s reign in the Tang Dynasty, AD 648, the Tang government set up the town of Luntai in the ancient town seat of Urabo..”

Merp’s condition is more than just erratic delusion. I am afraid it is advanced dementia that needs immediate medical attention and intervention.

March 1, 2010 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

Nice catch, SP.

This thread is a month old. Can’t believe it’s still active.

March 1, 2010 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

“Although Ürümqi is situated near the northern route of the Silk Road, it is a relatively young city. During the 22nd year of Emperor Taizong’s reign in the Tang Dynasty, AD 648, the Tang government set up the town of Luntai in the ancient town seat of Urabo..”

At least it isn’t mental retardation, or is this only historical revisionism?

Tang Taizong had a Xianbei mother. He was heavily acculturated to Northern China, worked for Chinese interests, indentified as Chinese, and sent Chinese people to found Urumqi. And note this:

the Tang government set up the town of Luntai

Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese.

Learn how to read.

March 2, 2010 @ 7:25 am | Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians

We wuz there fust!

March 2, 2010 @ 8:38 am | Comment

Tang Taizong had a Xianbei mother.
Urumqi was founded by Han Chinese.

Trolls not only find it hard to tell the truth; they have problem swallowing their pride when it comes to owning up to their factual blunders.

Haha, anyway, what’s so surprising? This horseshit comes from someone who claims that China put in place the yuan peg after the Asian financial crisis when in fact the peg was in place way before that:

“@Merp
Before you whine about the RMB, please remember that the peg was put in place to stabilize the region after Western speculators and the IMF destroyed the Thai Baht.

Factual error. The peg was already there way before the Asian Financial Crisis occurred in 1997. Since 1995, the exchange rate of the RMB against the USD was fixed at 8.28 yuan to one US$. ”

http://www.pekingduck.org/2009/12/chinas-domestic-consumption-a-myth/#comments

It’s hard to accept for merp to accept the fact that his long-held beliefs and “facts” always turn out to be worthless horseshit and hope that others will quickly overlook his blunders.

March 2, 2010 @ 9:46 am | Comment