DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Thunderzee** · 07-08-2009, 10:22 PM

(Yunnan province has several ethnic minority groups that have continued in their cultural traditions without friction with the Han - including the Naxi matriarchy, where the women live in such privilege that the men have formed a liberation front demanding equal rights. Far out.)

Yes but the native peoples of Yunnan have been living with the Chinese for more or less several thousand years and should be used to it by now. It is incomparable to Turkestan.

I consider it unlikely that the Chinese government has intentionally targeted Uighurs for negative treatment. I'm not familiar with the statutes on the books, but most of their de jure treatment of minority groups is intended to be favorable to them. The problem appears to be that the Chinese government's policies end up favoring Han Chinese moreso. Well perhaps, but as you acknowledge "jure" is one thing and "facto" another. I'm not very familiar with the everyday living situation for the Uyghurs (and the other minorities), but I hardly think it unlikely that for instance the government, police and courts be disproportionately staffed by Han Chinese. Add language proficiency and familiarity with the system, wealth disparities (whatever the reason for them) and corruption to the mix and the deck appears stacked whatever's on the books.

And let's consider historical reality here. The presently incorrigible root of the conflict is that China has about as much claim to rule Turkestan/Uyghuristan as they have to Vietnam, or which Russia has to Kazakhstan, etc. "Xinjiang" is a foreign country that was invaded by China in 1949. Yes, it had been intermittently subject to imperial Chinese (actually Manchu) rule since the 18th century, but never the level of integration with China as was seen after the communist invasion.

Even if the "minority" occupied population was treated in an exemplary fashion fact remains the Chinese are occupiers and don't belong in the country. Making the natives learn Chinese language, go to Chinese schools and be ruled by Chinese laws (including China's stupid one time zone for the whole country) is oppression by itself quite separate from the matter of China being a brutal dictatorship. The settling of ethnic Han Chinese parallels Stalin's policies of settling ethnic Russians in the Baltic states.

It is striking how comparatively "considerate" (I only use that word rhetorically) the (justly) vilified government of Iran was in facing much more massive and destabilizing anti-regime protests than these. Hundreds of thousands, millions on some days, of people shouted "death to the dictator" on the streets of Tehran daily for two weeks before the regime's incremental response finally smothered them. In Xinjiang 140+ people were killed after just a few(?) days of riots/protests by much smaller crowds.

I wonder if the difference in brutality may well not be because the Iranian police and paramilitaries thugs as they are still recognized the people protesting as their own people, perhaps sometimes their friends and family, and empathized with them whether agreeing or not, while in Urumqi and Kashgar, etc. where the personal bonds between the government apparatus and the people seem much looser or non-existent the repression becomes lethal much sooner. It definitely points to the completely different nature of the protests.

07-08-2009, 10:22 PM	#20
Thunderzee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 421 Senior Member	(Yunnan province has several ethnic minority groups that have continued in their cultural traditions without friction with the Han - including the Naxi matriarchy, where the women live in such privilege that the men have formed a liberation front demanding equal rights. Far out.) Yes but the native peoples of Yunnan have been living with the Chinese for more or less several thousand years and should be used to it by now. It is incomparable to Turkestan. I consider it unlikely that the Chinese government has intentionally targeted Uighurs for negative treatment. I'm not familiar with the statutes on the books, but most of their de jure treatment of minority groups is intended to be favorable to them. The problem appears to be that the Chinese government's policies end up favoring Han Chinese moreso. Well perhaps, but as you acknowledge "jure" is one thing and "facto" another. I'm not very familiar with the everyday living situation for the Uyghurs (and the other minorities), but I hardly think it unlikely that for instance the government, police and courts be disproportionately staffed by Han Chinese. Add language proficiency and familiarity with the system, wealth disparities (whatever the reason for them) and corruption to the mix and the deck appears stacked whatever's on the books. And let's consider historical reality here. The presently incorrigible root of the conflict is that China has about as much claim to rule Turkestan/Uyghuristan as they have to Vietnam, or which Russia has to Kazakhstan, etc. "Xinjiang" is a foreign country that was invaded by China in 1949. Yes, it had been intermittently subject to imperial Chinese (actually Manchu) rule since the 18th century, but never the level of integration with China as was seen after the communist invasion. Even if the "minority" occupied population was treated in an exemplary fashion fact remains the Chinese are occupiers and don't belong in the country. Making the natives learn Chinese language, go to Chinese schools and be ruled by Chinese laws (including China's stupid one time zone for the whole country) is oppression by itself quite separate from the matter of China being a brutal dictatorship. The settling of ethnic Han Chinese parallels Stalin's policies of settling ethnic Russians in the Baltic states. It is striking how comparatively "considerate" (I only use that word rhetorically) the (justly) vilified government of Iran was in facing much more massive and destabilizing anti-regime protests than these. Hundreds of thousands, millions on some days, of people shouted "death to the dictator" on the streets of Tehran daily for two weeks before the regime's incremental response finally smothered them. In Xinjiang 140+ people were killed after just a few(?) days of riots/protests by much smaller crowds. I wonder if the difference in brutality may well not be because the Iranian police and paramilitaries thugs as they are still recognized the people protesting as their own people, perhaps sometimes their friends and family, and empathized with them whether agreeing or not, while in Urumqi and Kashgar, etc. where the personal bonds between the government apparatus and the people seem much looser or non-existent the repression becomes lethal much sooner. It definitely points to the completely different nature of the protests.
	Quote