Violence in Urumqi – Details still Sketchy
Filed under:Analysis, News, politics, video | Tags:ethnic relations in China, Uighurs, xinjiang
Add comments
Western press have also latched onto the story. Here is the latest report from the Wall Street Journal.
SHANGHAI — The official death toll in riots in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region rose sharply Monday, with the government saying that 140 had been killed in what appears to be one of the deadliest episodes of unrest in China in decades.
Police said at least 828 other people were injured in violence that began Sunday in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital. Witnesses said the conflicts pitted security forces against demonstrators, and members of the region’s Turkic-speaking Uighur ethnic group against members of the country’s Han Chinese majority. Many among the predominantly Muslim Uighurs have chafed at Chinese government rule.
The official tally of dead and injured increased Monday as more information came out of Urumqi through the state-run Xinhua news agency, although it appeared that most or all of the violence had ended by the early hours of Monday.
Xinhua quoted Liu Yaohua, a senior police official in Xinjiang, as saying that rioters had burned 261 vehicles, including 190 buses and two police cars, several of which were still ablaze as of Monday morning. Mr. Liu said the death toll of 140 “would still be climbing.”
As evening fell in Urumqi Monday, witnesses said that paramilitary troops of the People’s Armed Police, backed by armored personnel carriers, were patrolling largely calm city streets. Many businesses remained shuttered and gates of the city’s central bazaar, which was the scene of unrest Sunday night, were closed.
Police said they were still searching for dozens of people suspected of fanning the violence. Several hundred people have already been arrested in connection with the riot, police said, and the government said it was bringing “ethnic officials” from nearby areas to help with interrogations.
Uighur activists said hundreds of Uighurs, many of them students, had gathered Sunday to protest racial discrimination and call for government action against the perpetrators of an attack last month on Uighur migrant workers at a toy factory in southern China. In that incident, a group of Han Chinese broke into a factory dormitory housing Uighur workers. State media reported that two people were killed. Uighur groups say the death toll may have been higher.
The protests appear to have spun out of control late Sunday, with clashes between protestors and police as well as ethnic violence around the city. Xinhua’s report Monday said that 57 dead bodies had been “retrieved from Urumqi’s streets and lanes,” while the remaining fatalities were confirmed dead at hospitals.
An official in the nursing department of one of Urumqi’s largest hospitals, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region People’s Hospital, said the hospital received 291 people injured in the unrest. Seventeen of them died, and more than 20 others were in critical condition on Monday night.
The official said that 233 of the injured were Han Chinese, 39 were Uighurs and the rest belonged to other ethnic minority groups. Seven of the injured had gunshot wounds, she said.
Uighurs have long complained about restrictions on their civil liberties and religious practices imposed by a Chinese government fearful of political dissent in strategically important Xinjiang, which covers one-sixth of China’s territory and is also an important oil-and-gas-producing region.
Many Uighurs resent what they see as economic and social discrimination by the majority Han Chinese, who have migrated to Xinjiang in growing numbers. Some Uighurs, seeking independence from China, have waged sporadic and at times violent campaigns against the government.
Pictures said to be of the Sunday’s protests distributed by the Washington-based Uyghur American Association showed young Uighurs marching in Urumqi, in some cases carrying the Chinese flag. Pictures also showed phalanxes of helmeted police in riot gear, with shields and batons.
Demonstrators clashed with the police, witnesses said, and rioters smashed shops and attacked buses. “Most were young Uighurs. They were smashing everything on the street,” said one Han Chinese man who works as a driver.
Another Han Chinese man, who owns a shop in the city’s central bazaar, said he saw Uighurs “with big knives stabbing people” on the street. He said crowds of Hans and Uighurs were fleeing the violence. “They were targeting Han, mostly,” he added. “We need to hide inside for a few more days.”
The government blamed the unrest on a prominent exiled Uighur leader, Rebiya Kadeer, president of the World Uyghur Congress, an activist group. Sunday’s demonstration was “instigated and directed from abroad,” according to a government statement cited by Xinhua.
Alim Seytoff, vice president of the Uyghur American Association, dismissed the government’s claim, saying, “Every time something happens, they blame Ms. Kadeer.” He added: “It’s really the Chinese government’s heavy-handed policies that create such protests and unrest.”
Unrest in Xinjiang mounted last year, as some Uighurs sought to emulate widespread antigovernment demonstrations in Tibetan areas. There were several violent incidents around the time of last summer’s Beijing Olympics, including an attack on a border-police unit that left 16 dead. Ten militants died after another attack with improvised explosives in a Xinjiang city on the first weekend of the Games.
Originally I was waiting to post a blog entry until more information is available – and when I have something to say. But given wide international attention this seems to be attracting, I figure we should put in an entry for people to update each other on the latest. If there are any readers from Xinjiang – of if you are of Uyghur ethnicity (in or outside of Xinjiang) – we also welcome any insight you may have.
There are currently 27 comments highlighted: 41768, 41904, 42057, 42067, 42089, 42113, 42121, 42127, 42131, 42165, 42173, 42182, 42187, 42246, 42265, 42271, 42277, 42288, 42302, 42310, 42401, 42463, 42501, 42518, 42684, 42695, 42920.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
It’s a very sad business – I’m praying for the victims and their families.
Allen, by the way I think you made a typo – “Uyghur” not Uigure.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I just corrected it. Thanks Raj…
July 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
What I am surprised is the lack of ‘front page’ headlines unlike the riots in Lhasa last year, at least in the US media anyways. Even in Chinadaily, the main headline is about the ties between China and Italy. Now there’s an update of the number dead to 156.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
@ pug_ster: It’s front page on the global NY Times. I think it’s still breaking news so only the initial articles have appeared in most papers. I’m sure it’ll generate massive coverage by tomorrow.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@Steve, I guess I was looking at ABC, CBS and NBC and I didn’t see it as front page news.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
@ pug_ster: Network news? They still around? 😛
July 6th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
One thing I am surprised about the Western Media that they are portraying that this is a riot and not a so called ‘peaceful protests’ last year in Lhasa.
I really don’t understand why the Chinese police has to be so defensive whenever there’s a riot. There were so many people died and alot of damage was caused before there was an appropriate response from the police.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Here’s some news from Baidu:
http://news.baidu.com/ns?word=%CE%DA%C2%B3%C4%BE%C6%EB
乌鲁木齐严重暴力犯罪事件致140人死828人伤
Serious Violent Attacks In Urumqi Cause 140 death 828 Injury
7月6日凌晨,在乌鲁木齐市大湾南路的跑马场地段,多辆公交车被烧毁
Many buses were burnt around Dawan South Road in Urumqi
事态已得到控制,10多名挑头闹事的骨干被抓获… 截止到23时30分,已有多名无辜群众和一名武警被杀害
Situation is under control, over 10 rioters were captured… As of 11:30pm, many innocent bystanders and one police were killed
乌鲁木齐市北湾街上停放着多辆被烧毁汽车。新疆维吾尔自治区人大常委会副主任、乌鲁木齐市委书记栗智说,乌鲁木齐“7·5”事件死亡人数已达到140人,其中有57具尸体是从背街巷道中发现的,受伤人员达800多人
Several vehicles were torched along Beiwan Road in Urumqi. Xinjiang Uyghur SAR deputy committee chair, Urumqi city secretary Lhi Zhe says, Urumqi “7.5” incident fatality reached 140 people, where 57 bodies were found in the back alley, injury over 800
新疆乌鲁木齐的社会秩序和市民生活已基本恢复正常,在5日发生的打砸抢烧事件中受伤的人员正在医院接受救治
Social order and daily living is returning to normal, people injured by rioting on the 5th are being treated in hospitals
July 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Well, no one really knows the extent of what happened yet, so let’s just wait and see before we draw any conclusions. Right now, non-Chinese media is taking most of their information from the Xinhua account which classifies it as a riot, hence the nomenclature. All we really know right now is that there are a lot of dead and injured people, and I’d speculate that many of them on both sides are completely innocent.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@Allen – thanks for the update, I caught a glimpse of the issue on phoenix TV, but am shocked it wasn’t getting the attention that one would expect in the major news networks in the US.
@Raj – Amen to that
July 6th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
This is the most recent video I could find on the net, from CCTV:
Yo, I think the reason the major networks haven’t said much about the story yet is that network TV is driven by video and there just isn’t much video on what happened.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Yo, our media hasn’t jump on this yet, IMHO is because they haven’t figure out a credible way to cast the news in the usual anti-China light. Don’t hold your breath for a fair word condeming the violence either.
Steve, the World Uyghur Congress (an Eastern Turkistan independence group funded by the NED, big suprise) is justifying the violence by blaming it on the Chinese governemnt for not handling grievances over some Uyghur migrant workers killed during a fight in a Guangdong factory on 6/26.
Let’s see if our media picks up this NED-funded “China crack dowon on peaceful protest” propaganda:
http://uyghuramerican.org/
And here are some photos of the destruction:
http://www.eeo.com.cn/tppd/jrtt/2009/07/06/142801.shtml
Pay attention to the photos – riot police are not carrying guns. This will be evidence when the “massacre” bit comes out.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Look Charles, over 150 people just died and hundreds more injured. Now is not the time to blame this or that organization, NGO, government body, etc. but to pray for the victims and hope most of the injured will recover. As to what happened and how it happened, details are pretty sketchy right now but I’m sure it’ll all come out in the wash. WUC blames the Chinese government and the Chinese government blames Rebiya Kadeer. I’m not sure how blame can be placed so quickly after an incident that no one expected. I blame the people who threw the rocks, shot the bullets, set the cars on fire, destroyed the shops and beat the innocent men, women and children.
All I know is that whatever the “cause”, when little kids get rocks thrown at them, when innocent people get beat up for no reason except that they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when someone’s car that they saved up for years is burned beyond repair, when shops are looted and destroyed wiping out a family’s assets in a few minutes, there is no “cause” or “excuse” to justify such actions. Gandhi and King have shown that demonstrations do not have to turn violent in order to be effective; in fact, they’ve shown just the opposite.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
It could have happened far earlier. Still a very sad day.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Steve, I posted photos of riot police without guns on 10:40, and on 10:58 you say “shot the bullets”? Why is it when sh!t like this happens, we are all of sudden so mindful of being “even handed”? Even if the shots were fired by the police, you don’t think it’s justified, after 140 death, 800 injured, and scores of destructon?
Where’s the condemnation of the violence? Appearantly not only can this violence be justified, our tax dollars can be used to foment violence in China.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Charles, I don’t know how much more I could have condemned the violence. I haven’t heard a count of how many deaths by ethnic group, but I’m sure there are dead on all sides. My post #13 was entirely about condemning the violence and feeling for the victims. I wrote “I blame the people who threw the rocks, shot the bullets, set the cars on fire, destroyed the shops and beat the innocent men, women and children.”
I said “shot the bullets” because the reports I’ve read and seen state that people were shot by bullets. However, I did not assume, nor did the reports state, that the bullets were shot by the police. They could just have easily been Han Chinese shot by those bullets. Why did you jump to your conclusion?
Right now, I’m not interested in “blame” though I’m sure they’ll be plenty of that passed around over the next few days. I’m only interested in the poor people who were victimized, both Han and Uyghur. If someone was beating on an innocent victim or firebombing a car and got shot while doing it, they deserve to be shot.
Did it ever occur to you that you are awfully quick to jump to conclusions on who to blame?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
From what I’ve read most of the death are Han Chinese, just like the Tibet riot.
BTW I blame myself for not speakng up against my tax dollar funding the WUC.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Usual stuff. Really guys, everyone knows that this was almost certainly caused by the Shaoguan incident – does this make it ‘ethnically-motivated’? Was the Shaoguan incident ethnically motivated – and was it Han or Uighur sentiment that motivated it? Can I also say that 40 years of Bingtuan settlement by Han Chinese was ‘ethnically motivated’? This is not to excuse the death of innocent people – and it appears that this has been caused by both sides, if the reports of gunfire are to be believed. Anyone who believes that rioters only target the culpable has never seen a riot.
Bashing on the Western press was is also expected, here in the UK the story made the front pages of The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, and the BBC this morning. All of them have reported it in the same way that they did the Tibetan riots – quoting from both sides and using reporters on the scene where possible. If officials last year simply decided to refuse to give statements and bar entry to foreign journalists last year I am afraid that this was their problem. This year mobile phone and internet services have been disrupted in an express effort to prevent the spread of the demonstrations, but foreign journalists have been allowed access. I just saw a Chinese official give an interview to Channel 4 news in ‘response’ to an Uighur activist (Question: does Charles Liu work as a ‘community activist’ for the Uighurs or only for those Asians he agrees with?), the official refused to respond, merely repeating an obviously pre-prepared speech.
Charles Liu, blaming this on the NED is simply mind-bending. Did the NED post the accusation of rape in Shaoguan? Did it kill the two Uighurs there? You live in the US, after the events in LA after the beating of Rodney King, surely even you can see what effect the Shaoguan events would have on an oppressed minority?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Oh, and in case you missed it, get ready for this headline ten years from now: “Tensions run high in Xinjiang capital as tenth anniversary of protests approaches”. Why? Because simply nothing will change in the interim.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Foarse, the NED-funded WUC posted the Shaoguan incident. And let’s call a spade a spade – it’s a riot not a protest. It may be a Fruedian slip but I think your future headline proves my point.
I reject, completely, you cliam that fighting in Guangdong caused by rumors from jilted worker can somehow justify the riot and violence. And you are probably right, 10 years later US government funded propaganda outlet, like RFA, will sing about it.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
@ Chardles Liu 12
I saw police running around with their hand guns drawn in one of the videos online. So please, less of the xenophobic paranoia. . .
July 7th, 2009 at 12:13 am
Ming, can you post a link to this video? And you don’t think use of deadly force by police is justified, after 140 people are dead including police officers?
I must warn you, the photos are very distrubing – all of the dead have their throat slit:
http://bbs.tigtag.com/thread-456691-1-1.html
And not 10 minutes there’s already “peaceful protest” media reports going around. I really wonder if our media will report this news any differently, if they are state-sponsored.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Charles, don’t change the subject.
At 12 you said the police were not carrying guns and that this would be ‘evidence’ for later.
I simply noted that I have seen footage of armed police with their guns drawn.
I said nothing else.
For a link to the video showing police with their guns out (that’s what I thought I saw anyway) check:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/06/china-urumqi-mass-incident-and-beyond/
Look at the last few seconds of the 4th video on that page. The majority of the crowd are behaving peacefully so it is unclear exactly why the police have their guns drawn. Before your paranoid instincts kick in, note that I am not saying they should not have their guns drawn. It is just unclear why they are drawn in the context of that video. Something happened off camera maybe?
As for your photos – at least one of those is fake. The photo was circulating on the Internet before this incident so it is unconnected.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Ming I provided link to the photos I referenced – the riot police were not carrying gus. You can go see for yourself.
Where’s your “videos online” that you saw? It’s online, you must have a link/source/website, right? Let’s see it then we can tell for sure if it contradicts my claim, or the video show armed police not riot police.
Let’s see you “videos online” – I’m quoting you in 21.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Watts Riots of 1965 (los angeles), 34 people had been killed, 1,032 injured, and 3,952 arrested.
Benton Harbor riots of 1960, 1967, 1990, 2003.
LA riot of 1992, 53 dead, “thousands” injured, 3500 military deployed.
St. Petersburg Florida riot of 1996, 11 injured, 28 fires, 20 arrested.
Oakland California riot of 2008, 250 protesters turn to rioting, over 100 arrested.
Chinese massacre of 1871, Los Angeles, 18-23 Chinese hanged by mob of over 500 “Anglos and Latinos”, 10 prosecuted, 8 out of 10 acquitted by technicality.
The Seattle anti-Chinese riot of 1886, over 300 Chinese forcibly rounded up by a mob and sent on boats out of city, Federal Government declared Martial Law.
*
“Too many Han Chinese” in some places, perhaps too few in some other places.
Chinese policies, US policies.
But if US policy is any example, China should increase police and troops in all potential hot spots.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:28 am
@ Charles: The demonstration started peacefully, as they tend to do, and escalated into violence, as riots tend to do. This riot was particularly deadly. However, you are jumping to another conclusion here. You said, “And you don’t think use of deadly force by police is justified, after 140 people are dead including police officers?”
How do you know that the police only began to use deadly force after 140 people were dead? No one knows that from the coverage so far. I haven’t seen one comment yet that said, “I’m glad all those Han Chinese are dead, they deserved it.” Yet that’s the attitude you seem to be taking in response to anyone that happened to notice that innocent people died on both sides. Condemnation of the violence doesn’t seem to be enough for you. You are positive that the US government is responsible for the riots. Could you show us all the proof that the WUC is responsible for planning and leading this riot? They haven’t even figured out whether Steve McNair’s death is a double murder or murder/suicide yet you’re already positive that the Chinese government has this entire riot figured out and put to bed. If they were that sharp, they would have known about it beforehand and it never would have happened.
Instead of looking at what happened and trying to figure out why, you are looking at who you want to be responsible without regard for what actually happened and what proof is out there. To me, it sounds like a “don’t confuse me with the facts” defense of your biases against foreign NGOs. A few photos, a couple of videos and several government spokesmen surfed online do not make for a thorough investigation that can then assign blame. And I’m not catching a whole lot of sorrow for the victims…
July 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@Charles Liu #22,
Some of the pictures provided in your link were truly, truly gruesome…
July 7th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Well it is always a clever move to claim that PAP fired at students.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
@ Charles 24
Reread my post to find the videos.
I did edit it so maybe the edit went up as you were writing. . .
And yes, the police in your photos were not carrying guns. But you spoke about how the photos were ‘evidence’. A photo of police not carrying guns hardly ‘proves’ that nobody was shot by police. . . Jesus.
By the way, I find your odd use of quotation marks rather offensive. Take a chill pill.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:52 am
charles, I won’t be drawn into your fishing trip, but one interesting comment that highlights your bias is where you refer to the guangdong incident as ‘fighting’. No, it was ethnically-motivated murder. simple. watch the videos. mobs of a dozen han beating uighurs to death with iron bars. not quite ‘fighting’ eh. I do not believe for a second that only two were killed. the videos paint a very different story. and where were the riot police (with or without guns) when this happened. answer: nowhere.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:55 am
one more thing charles. at least two of the pictures in the link you post (pics 1 and 2, possibly pic 3 of the Window of China section) are actually of the dead uighurs in guangdong. again, check the videos (ESWN has links). if cnn had produced such false reporting, you would be having a hissy fit.
edit: another 2 of those pics are nothing to do with urumqi. one is of a uighur thief who stabbed himself in Shanghai, the other – people dragging a body through the street – is again from guangdong. so 5 out of 9 pics are dubious. I am going to set up an anti-Charles Liu website
July 7th, 2009 at 2:10 am
I guess China should seal off Xinjiang completely for 10 years, and see if there will be another riot. If there is, then it’s China’s policies, if not, external influence.
That is the only way we can find out for sure if “external influence” caused this.
*The alternative obviously would not work. If China opened up Xinjiang more, and there is another riot, there would just be more endless blames of “external influence” or “Chinese policies” back and forth.
*3rd alternative is to let Xinjiang be independent. But that would not prove 1 way or another whether it is “external influence” or “Chinese policy” that caused this riot. It would be merely a solution by avoiding the answers.
So again, Solution #1 then, Seal off Xinjiang.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Ming @ 23, your video does not show police with guns. in the 4th youtube video, from minte 1:25 on, the crowd parted because the police was chasing some people from the opposit direction. These police are the regular unarmed Gongan with riot helmet.
They were not holding guns.
Dick @ 31, thank you for pointing it out. You can take it up with blogger who posted it if you like. BTW, only one of the picture is from Windows of China, please look more carefully.
And the “fight” description came from elsewhere. Check your buddy Ming’s GVO blogpost, even they said it was a “brawl”.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Chalres Liu Says: “I must warn you, the photos are very distrubing – all of the dead have their throat slit”
Even more disturbing is the fact that you imply these photographs are all of the disturbance in Urumqi.
The two most “disturbing” images: “5.jpg”, the guy with the hacked body, has been in circulation since 2008 (I’ve no idea what the backstory is, but it’s not from the current events in Urumqi); “6.jpg” is a video grab from the June 26 incident in Shaoguan (in the first video on the link in post #23, scroll to 2 minutes 6 seconds), and, in all likelihood, is a dead or injured Uighur.
We live in a google age, there’s no excuse for the lack of even a cursory effort to check the veracity of what you present.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Charles Liu Says: “Dick @ 31, thank you for pointing it out. You can take it up with blogger who posted it if you like.”
Take some responsibility for your own misrepresentation..
July 7th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Or China can do what US does for LA, let the gangs of every race duke it out on the streets, and turn Urumqi into a war zone.
Declare general amnesty for all criminals.
WUC can go clean it up on their own.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:39 am
@ Charles Liu 33
OK. . . On re watching the video I agree they are not holding guns. So my bad. . .
I still strongly disagree with your pointing to a few photos of police not holding guns as ‘evidence’ of. . . well, of what exactly was never quite clear. You were just venting yourself in your typically paranoid and xenophobic style, confident as ever that ‘the west’ was attempting to ‘split China’ or something similarly daft.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:48 am
More news (not from blogs):
http://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/news/2009/07-07/1763907.shtml
乌鲁木齐暴力犯罪事件死亡人数增至156人 伤者逾千
Fatality from Urumqi Violent Crime Reach 156, Over A Thousand injured
截至六日十九时，乌鲁木齐市“七·五”打砸抢烧严重暴力犯罪事件死亡人数增至一百五十六人，其中，男性一百二十九人，女性二十七人；受伤人员一千零八十人。
As of 7/6 7pm, fatality from Urumqi “7.5” violent crime incident increased to 156 people, including 129 men and 27 women; injuries affected 1080 people.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Ming, “my bad” – I’m American; I ain’t from mainland China. And if you can’t produce a picture of armed police with gun, you and your BS can go to heck.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Comment deleted for crude language
July 7th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Don’t tell me, you got a online video of that too 😎
July 7th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Charles, you are the one who was attempting to prove that the police did not deploy guns in response to this incident.
Given the scale of the casualties, plus the fact that the hospitals have admitted treating patients with gunshot wounds, I would be amazed to find proof that the police deployed no guns in responding. In fact, if the police and other security forces deployed no guns one would have to question the effectiveness of their response.
You going to ‘vote down’ this comment too?
July 7th, 2009 at 4:38 am
BBC is reporting
renewed protests in Ürümchi and Kashgar. It takes a lot of moxy to show up on the streets at this point. Long live whichever of the protestors who are using peaceful tactics. Zhin-cang gyallo!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Charles Liu and Think Ming, given how sad the events in Urumqi are, can’t you just shelve the personal tit-for-tat abuse? It’s ugly and inappropriate.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Yes, Otto, I hope the protesters will follow the law and only protest legally, and stop killing people and torching cars and shops.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:31 am
It seems to be standard procedure now that, when there is protest by or unrest among minorities in China, it is the work of evil foreign NGO’s. And let’s face it, Charles can sniff out a money trail better than the IRS. It implies, however, that, if left to their own devices, minorities in China should be happy as clams, with nary a complaint or legitimate grievance in the world. It also implies that, once located by these foreign evil-doers, such minorities can be manipulated into all manner of protest and violence without provocation. So let’s just disregard the possible effect of the deaths of those two factory workers purportedly at the hands of Han Chinese coworkers, or the remote plausibility of that incident representing the straw that broke the camel’s back, since really, the Uyghurs, as is widely known, were too involved in their happy-clam state to have noticed. Why disrupt the happy narrative that nothing bad ever happens in China unless manufactured by the evil foreigners?
July 7th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Guns or no guns. Doesn’t really matter.
A murderous rampage that leaves 150+ dead needed to be dealt with swiftly. There’s indication that the adequate police forces seemed slow on the scene:
If the authorities have Kadeer warning family members about an impending riot, why didn’t they have riot police positioned to respond immediately?
I didn’t know anything about Kadeer before the government made her famous. She reminds me a bit of the DL with that same seal puppy innocence that plays so well outside of China. The French news agency, AFP, has this story: Uighur leader wants probe into Xinjiang unrest. The New York Times also has a story on her: China Points to Another Leader in Exile
In the French article, she claims that “Uighurs are shipped against their will to serve as ‘cheap labor.’” Is that true? Of the “litany of human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture, discrimination, religious repression, forced abortion and removing Uighur language teaching from schools,” the force abortion issue was novel. As a minority, wouldn’t the Uighur be exempt from the One Child Policy?
The article goes on to say, “Chinese officials have given no breakdown of the victims of Sunday’s violence, but Kadeer said she believes that ‘probably 90 percent were Uighurs.’” Xinhua in Death toll in Xinjiang riot rises to 156 breaks the 156 down as 129 men and 27 women. In another Xinhua article, Eyewitness accounts of Xinjiang riot, the numbers were about opposite of Kadeer believes. From the People’s Hospital, about 13% of the victims were Uygurs. 80% were Han. Kadeer seems to be a bit off on her numbers… Perhaps it is an error in translation?
As for the supposed spark that started it all… I’m not sure what message the World Uighur Congress or the Uygurs within Xinjiang are wanting to send the world… that the sexual harassment of Han women is defensible? 15 suspects detained over factory fight that triggered Xinjiang violence including two men who spread “rumors on the Web that Xinjiang employees had raped two female workers.”
I think Kadeer in the AFP article implied a motivation for the riots at the end of the article:
It is like she is saying to the “genuine Muslim” world: “See, we are just like you. We can do terrorism too.”
July 7th, 2009 at 5:46 am
This is a depressing thread…
Anyway, a piece of news a while ago: 国家认同感高汉人一成 新疆维族88%反分裂. Based on a recent survey, 90.6% of Uighurs in Xinjiang are “very proud” or “proud” of being Chinese, compared to 80.8% of Hans in Xinjiang.
More or less, this is a LA Riots moment for China. A transparent investigation of both the Urumqi and Shaoguan incidents are needed.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:59 am
MutantJedi: “As for the supposed spark that started it all… I’m not sure what message the World Uighur Congress or the Uygurs within Xinjiang are wanting to send the world… that the sexual harassment of Han women is defensible? 15 suspects detained over factory fight that triggered Xinjiang violence including two men who spread “rumors on the Web that Xinjiang employees had raped two female workers.”
The salient word is “rumours”. There’s no evidence whatsoever that there were any sexual assaults committed by Uighurs in Guangdong – the fact that the initial reports from Guangdong stated that there had been rapes and that this later became “rumoured” rather than fact speaks volumes. It’s akin to the prevalence of rumours against black men in America used by the Klan to stir up trouble. It’s a standard slur used against minorities by racists all over the world.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:19 am
JXie @ 48, I’m sorry you find this depressing, and I hope you’ll turn that into anger. I mean despite all the “detail is sketchy”, “pray for the victims”, “rioters are oppressed”, has it escaped people that this is basically the same as what happened in Bombay, London, and NYC? Is WUC’s calling of world wide protest in 7/3-7/5 really just a coincidence?
I don’t know if you were in NYC right after 9/11, but as I look at the pictures, the place is a war zone, just like NYC then. As someone not from China, really have no fight in this – I am mad as hell.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Uighurs have a deep-rooted tradition of an-eye-for-an-eye and herd mentality. That is the reason so many Uighurs showed up on Sunday evening mostly triggered by an earlier brawl in GuangDong Province involving thousands of people in just one toy factory. There were similar violent events from Ulghurs but not at the scale seen in recent days.
There are articles on both Wall Street Journal and New York Times quote Rebiya Kadeer denied her involvement on this whole matter “A call to my brother doesn’t mean I organized the whole event”
Although according the report that in recent days had intercepted telephone calls from Mrs. Kadeer to her younger brother predicting, “something will happen in Urumqi.”
“Today, Mrs. Kadeer operates from offices on Pennsylvania Avenue, a short stroll from the White House. She heads various Uighur groups, including the World Uyghur Congress and the Uyghur American Association. The National Endowment for Democracy says it supports some of her groups with grants totaling around $600,000 annually.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692332979002823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/asia/07kadeer.html?ref=world
Her denial is what called in one Chinese proverb “There is no silver here: three hundred taels”
On the latest development, Melissak Chan of Aljazeera updated
“From the other point of view the police did manage the situation well – it could have escalated far more.”
http://twitter.com/melissakchan
Also latest from Xinhua News
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/07/content_11666941.htm
July 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Kaader sounds like a lunatic by the way. . .
I saw her comments earlier. . . The idea of Uighur workers in factories in Guangdong being shipped there against their will is (on the surface at least) completely insane.
However, anyone who knows anything about Xinjiang would realize that the Uighurs have some genuine grievances and are severely pissed off and frustrated.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Shane9219 Says: “Uighurs have a deep-rooted tradition of an-eye-for-an-eye and herd mentality.”
And bigots the world over have a deep-rooted tradition of applying ugly and crude stereotypes to those they wish to marginalise.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:29 am
To JXie:
“this is a LA Riots moment for China. A transparent investigation of both the Urumqi and Shaoguan incidents are needed.”
—well said.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:32 am
@ Charles Liu 50,
Oh dear. . . Comparison between this and 9/11.
You are a nutcase.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:33 am
After reading the comments and watching the videos, I think no one really knows what’s going on with this story except that a lot of people are dead and injured, and a lot of groups on both sides are trying to manipulate the story to make a political point, which to me is disgusting. The blood is still warm on the streets, the victims are not even buried and many are still in critical care, and all I seem to hear is that it’s “this one’s fault” or “that one’s fault”. There is no list with the number of victims by race, no real reporting on whether the initial protest was strictly about the two dead Uyghurs in Guangdong province, no accurate story on what caused the protests to turn into riots and why the protests restarted again today.
I was watching a show recently about how the Argentinian military dictatorship in the 1970s starting kidnapping and killing kids they thought were progressive or liberal. The mothers got together and started protesting, which eventually destabilized the government. I heard (not sure how true it is) that today’s protest was started by mothers whose kids had been picked up in blanket arrests and the mothers aren’t willing to put up with it. Since the media, Chinese or otherwise, is unable to keep up with the story and the reporting so far has been pretty bad, why don’t we all hold off our accusations until more is known. If reporters on the street are still stumbling around in the dark, do any of us think we can figure this thing out by googling a few sites and looking at a couple of pix and videos? I think that’s pretty presumptuous on our part.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:37 am
@barny chan #53
“a deep-rooted tradition of an-eye-for-an-eye and herd mentality” is written as part of motto in Uighur history. Read more history facts and educate yourself, instead of putting out useless flash comment.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:40 am
@ Shane: If you’re going to use a quote from history, you ought to reference the source. Then no one would question your usage. I’d be curious about it myself.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Maybe this event will bring some energy back to this blog. It got traction because of the Tibetan riots last year at first place!
Also this is another great chance to educate millions more about the hypocrisy and bias of the western media. I was educated last year during the Tibetan riots, and this year when all the stuff was happening in Iran, I was able to use my education to discern what was really happening there, instead of being fooled by the western media.
Let us not waste a tragedy. Bring it on, western media !
My parents-in-law are survivors of another Xinjiang riots back in late 1990’s. This one is much worse. I strongly condemn violence, and condemn those hiding in the western countries who incite violence.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@JXie – My question: do you believe the study?
@EugeneZ – Yes, that’s right, this had absolutely nothing to do with the Shaoguan incident, and is entirely the fault of the western media and foreign forces. Why would you need any evidence to show that this is true? I mean, it’s what the CCP says and they always tell the truth, don’t they?
July 7th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Shane, if you want to quote from a motto, then do so and make it clear what your source is. As you’re well aware, that was not the context of your opening words in post #51.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:48 am
@Steve #59
I would assume the entire opposite: available reports inside China are both on-time and complete. Even foreign press personnel are allowed on the ground to fill stories in person.
The more timely report of senseless violence the better for China’s current and future situation.
1) It shows press now has more freedom to report, and people are getting updated information.
2) The showing of violent outcome will educate people (including Uighur population) better
3) separatists and extremists who actually promote hatred have now been taken off their masks, . To China, this is a moment similar to 9-11 in US
4) Concert actions against US and Europea support of separatists and extremists will emerge.
The overwhelming trend in the world on racial relation is reconciliation. So each step backward will definitely meet with two steps forward, given the dominate force of positive thinking by both ordinary people and government. China is no Israel.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Barny: Yes. Rumors that turned ugly. The authorities acted and people were arrested. That there was an arrest regarding who started the rumors is not new news.
But, I suspect, the Uighurs involved with the riot don’t really care about that. Standard slurs and crude stereotypes work well on both sides of a divide.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:52 am
EugeneZ @ 59,
You sound positively gleeful. . .
July 7th, 2009 at 7:04 am
FOARP, Shaoguan is more like an excuse than a cause, don’t you think?
It was an ugly race riot for political ends. Terrorism by Islamic separatists.
Just what the world needs, another bastion of tolerance in the form of an Islamic state.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
MutantJedi Says: “Standard slurs and crude stereotypes work well on both sides of a divide.”
Of course, which is why they should be treated with extreme caution and scepticism.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:15 am
One observation about the Western media: Buddhist protests and Muslim riots.
@barny #66, absolutely.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:16 am
@ Mutant Jedi 65,
Can you seriously call an event involving a large chunk of the local population ‘terrorism’?
There were clearly thousands of people on the streets demonstrating. The demonstrations turned violent.
I don’t get the link to ‘terrorism’.
I mean I realize they are Muslims and all that, but must you be so simple minded?
July 7th, 2009 at 7:16 am
@”Think Ming!” #52
“However, anyone who knows anything about Xinjiang would realize that the Uighurs have some genuine grievances and are severely pissed off and frustrated”
Yes, most grievances are historical, but there are two sides of this story.
Historically, Xinjiang has been a violent and unstable place since Han Dynasty around 200 BC, when Han emperor court started to assert control over parts of the region. Uighur ancestors appeared much later after migrating from other parts of Central Asia. Recent history since Qing Dynasty were not forgiving either.
After the collapse of Soviet Union, the desire for a separate state by Uighurs becomes stronger seeing several Central Asian countries popping out around them. So regardless they got any new grievances, some people will push the envelop as much as they can.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:17 am
To Shane:
“The more timely report of senseless violence the better for China’s current and future situation.”
—totally agree. I would add “free”, “uncensored”, “independent”, and “corroborated” to those reports for even better effect. I also agree with Points 1 and 2; point 3, however, seems to be a stretch.
To MJ:
them’s loaded words. Reminds me of a Russell Peters line, where putting the words “explosion” and “Muslim” in one sentence produces an instant conclusion, whether it is on a legitimate basis or not.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:26 am
@ Shane1219 69,
Oh dear. . . Now it’s the ‘who was in Xinjiang first’ history stuff. . . Wonder who will be first to try and ‘prove’ that ‘Xinjiang has been legally part of China since Dynasty XXX’. . .
How about just focusing on the fact that Uighurs are understandably pissed at the fact that they are getting demographically swamped by recent Han immigrants? Heck, even the minority group of Han who are long resident in Xinjiang complain about the more recent Han arrivals.
I find Uighurs to collectively have a bit of a chip on their shoulder and thus be rather hard to deal with (not unlike Chinese), so I don’t envy the Chinese government at all. That said, denying the problems exist, blaming ‘terrorists’ and ‘anti-China forces’, fixating on the reporting of the ‘western media’, calls to ‘strike hard’. . . None of that is the best way forward.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:33 am
@Think Ming! #71
“. Now it’s the ‘who was in Xinjiang first’ history stuff. ”
No, that is not my point, and you missed it completely. I actually agree there are much historical grievances. As matter of fact, the recent history includes the colonial past of GB and Russia.
Read this article on Guardian “Old colonial sores that modern China must heal”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/06/urumqi-ethinic-minorities-modern-china
July 7th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Latest from http://twitter.com/melissakchan
“I asked a Han Chinese girl if she was scared. Yes. But this is to defend my country she says with stick in hand.”
Now becomes interesting !
July 7th, 2009 at 8:05 am
17
“From what I’ve read most of the death are Han Chinese, just like the Tibet riot. ”
are there any concrete numbers from tibet? i mean han/hui/tibetians…
July 7th, 2009 at 8:08 am
http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20090707800008
July 7th, 2009 at 8:33 am
The pattern now seems clear:
1) The Uighur-Han incident
2) The Uighur demonstration
3) The govt. crackdown/The Uighur riots
And now:
5) The Han riot:
( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article6655225.ece )
All people have the right of self-defence, but I dare anyone to suggest that this is a positive development.
Oh, and The Telegraph correspondent reports being attacked by a Han mob. Maybe they mistook him for a Uighur, or maybe govt. propaganda is having its intended effect.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Those bastard are target for innocent people!!!!!!! this is your so -called “peaceful” demostration, look at the death toll, the number tell the truth!!!!!! open your eyes!!!!
if a chinese can not be employeed simply because he is not good at speak fluent english, will you see it as ethnic discrimination??!!! if a uighur have no education and have difficult to find a job, will you see it as race dsicrimination??!!!
Shut up you non-chinese!!!!!! go to hell with the demons!!
July 7th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Those of you white folks here should ask your congressmen to pass a bill to invite these peace-loving and ethnically supressed Uighurs to your country. They will be happy, Han Chinese will be happy.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:11 am
samp, your rant is sad to read. It makes me despair for the future of China. Your tone and vitriol are reminiscent of the product of any ultra-nationalist society (virtually anywhere pre 1914; Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia etc., 1990s; Germany 1930s; Rwanda 1999 etc.) Unforunately your extremist views are typical of a generation of young Chinese who have grown up listening to news and learning history from one biased (and in my opinion evil) source; the CPC. Be warned, this organisation has only one goal – to perpetuate its own existence and that of its higher echelons. As long as that coinicides with the interests of ordinary chinese like you, all will be awell for you. be warned, it it diverges they will drop you like a hot coal. Mewanwhile enjoy being an innocent and misguided pawn…
July 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Arthur,
Get off your high horse already.
If this is the “peaceful demonstration” they wanted, now they will have to deal with the consequences, all of it.
I’ll be the 1st one to say the old American cliche, “Can’t we just all get along?”
At least the Chinese government is trying to protect some Uighurs from harm as well.
I find some Westerner’s “non-responsibility” principle rather curious, considering how many anti-Chinese race riots happened in US and Canadian history.
Learn some history, Western Media were the pioneers of anti-Chinese racist propaganda, far more blatantly racists than anybody else’s.
I’ll admit, there are some racist Chinese.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Oh please raventhorn. . . How about you quit with the anti-Western angle?
China must trail only to North Korea in terms of xenophobic media. . .
July 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
NPR just reported that only about 30 of the initial 156 deaths were Uighur.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Mutantjedi you say the shaoguan incident was an excuse. no, it was a cause. not a justification mind you. the chinese reaction to what happened in guangdong was woeful. you say there were arrests. care to link? I have read nothing except the arrest of the individual who started the original rumour. that means several (and fro the video I would say several dozen) murderers walk free. would you not also be a bit pissed off (again, not a justification, but reasonable cause)
charles liu. I think it only right you take responsibility for linking the false pictures. or are you a coward as well? you are as culpable as the CNN photo editor. shameful behaviour. action without responsibility
July 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Anyone watch the interview with Kadeer on ESWN?
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20090706_1.htm
It’s near the bottom of the page right now but will move upwards as more content gets added.
She holds up a photo of riot police deployed in a recent riot elsewhere in China and claims it is from Wulumuqi! What the hell!
This woman is deranged. . .
There is simply no excuse or reason for her to be doing that. The possibilities as I see them. . .
1 – She is cleverly manipulating public opinion against China by using fake images. OK, I can accept she is trying to manipulate public opinion against China. But why use a fake image? The image adds nothing so far as I can see. The fact that the image is not from Wulumuqi just destroys her credibility.
2 – She is simply completely misinformed and out of touch. I have to go with this possibility. . . She had nothing substantial to gain from displaying a fake image on national news, and in fact she made herself look like an idiot. I reckon she is just clueless.
But. . . If she is this clueless, can she really be a credible force? I have trouble believing she can be this misinformed about China and yet still wield significant influence there. I mean, I suppose it could be true but it seems awfully dubious.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Think Ming
Looks like kadeer and charles liu have much in common when it comes to using fake images. I too can’t decide if mr liu is trying to manipulate feelings by using fake images or if he misinformed and out of touch. i do, however, believe he cannot be a credible force.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
mutant jedi: ” It was an ugly race riot for political ends. Terrorism by Islamic separatists.
Just what the world needs, another bastion of tolerance in the form of an Islamic state.”
you going to stop with the fifty cent philosophising, its getting boring. i remember you tried this on the MAJ Tiananmen thread and ended up looking just as silly. I don’t know why so many naive foreign apologists end up in China and repeat a party line that even most Chinese don’t take seriously. But then I have seen your blog and it sure explains a lot.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Warning: quite some gruesome, graphic scenes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psm8CG0MzTU
@MutantJedi,
Not to debate whether the riot police acted swiftly or not, there are mitigating factors:
–It didn’t happen in one centralized location. Calls for demonstrations at two locations were spreading online, and the two locations are indeed watched by police, which were standing by until it turned violent. And as soon as that happened, the policed started arresting people. It’s quite possible that innocent civilians were beaten/killed during this, and thus the late police action alleged by the victims.
–It didn’t all happen on major streets/squares. Reports say at least 57 of the dead were found from back alleys. How do you deploy anti-riot force under such circumstances, even if you have prior knowledge about potential riot? I’m not familiar with that but can only guess it won’t be straightforwardly easy.
–It seems like the police is not actively arresting people or dispersing the crowd as long as it’s ‘peaceful’. But how do you quickly respond to a crowd that’s carrying knives and blades? The Uyghurs (as well as a few other but not all ethnic minorities, and certainly not the Hans) are allowed to carry daggers and long knives. How fast can you react when some in a peaceful knife-carrying crowd suddenly start whacking bystanders?
Could the police have started making arrests earlier? Absolutely. The demonstrations were not sanctioned in the first place so it’s illegal to begin with. And many of the dead/wounded suffer wounds from knifing and clubbing. I don’t think the Uyghurs enjoy the freedom of carrying clubs and sticks more than any other ethnicity, especially in a mass gathering (it’s ironic given that they are allowed to carry knifes). So that at least gave you reason to arrest before the violence. But if the police did do that, would the situation end up better and casualty fewer? Possible but I really doubt it.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
#84
She holds up a photo of riot police deployed in a recent riot elsewhere in China and claims it is from Wulumuqi! What the hell!
This woman is deranged. . .
There is simply no excuse or reason for her to be doing that. The possibilities as I see them. . .
1 – She is cleverly manipulating public opinion against China by using fake images. OK, I can accept she is trying to manipulate public opinion against China. But why use a fake image? The image adds nothing so far as I can see. The fact that the image is not from Wulumuqi just destroys her credibility.
But who’s gonna call her out, and where? You, here on FM? And how does that affect her ‘credibility’?
The way I see it, she had no credibility to begin with. But the CCP doesn’t think fond of her. What’s even better (for her), they jailed her. That automatically gives her cred on the street of ‘international community’.
2 – She is simply completely misinformed and out of touch. I have to go with this possibility. . . She had nothing substantial to gain from displaying a fake image on national news, and in fact she made herself look like an idiot. I reckon she is just clueless.
Until someone from (or even just appearing on) the main stream media starts calling her clueless and an idiot, your point is moot. What you or I think here doesn’t change how she’s perceived in the west media and the ‘international community’ at large. My guess is, with the fake images on national news, her ‘street cred’ will only jump.
But. . . If she is this clueless, can she really be a credible force? I have trouble believing she can be this misinformed about China and yet still wield significant influence there. I mean, I suppose it could be true but it seems awfully dubious.
The same can be said of the Dalai Lama, what with using a movie scene as evidence of police brutality and all that. Yes, she might probably be not kept in the loop when it comes to planning a riot. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a plot for the riot, even by circles very close to her. And that doesn’t prevent them from using her as the face of the world uyghur congress. Not saying she’s anything close up the ladder where the DL is, but she’s probably the most visible face for the Eastern Turkestan movement, rubbing shoulders with GW Bush and what not.
So no, I doubt she’s a credible force if there was plotting for the riot. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t anyone plotting.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@FOARP, #60. The study was done by a college professor and it spells out its coverage area, its methodology. Looks quite believable. Can it be fake? Absolutely.
#76. So that you know, the author of the piece you quoted is Jane Macartney, who is a known creative journalist. The voice over the video betrays the contents of it. Why am I not surprised? Not that she is necessarily a bad person per se, but she doesn’t seem to possess the necessary intelligence, intellectual curiosity and integrity to make her a reporter I would count on.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
#68
Can you seriously call an event involving a large chunk of the local population ‘terrorism’?
Are you saying the Iraqi insurgents doesn’t involve a large chunk of the local population, or that it’s not terrorism?
There were clearly thousands of people on the streets demonstrating. The demonstrations turned violent.
I don’t get the link to ‘terrorism’.
How many of them end up with over a hundred dead and near a thousand wounded?
Does the fact that a demonstration went on first preclude the possibility of terrorism at work?
And by the way, there are already eyewitness accounts that many in the demonstration crowd were not local people but rather from southern Xinjiang. It will be telling when/if residence breakdown of the arrested is released. So far it only gives the gender breakdown of over 95% male.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
This recent racial violence underscore the importance of a strong and functioning government and a stable social environment in order to protect the interests of all common people.
For those so-called western human rights “nuts” and ultra-liberals, a few of them have been laughing and smiling from the sides. “one man’s pain is another’s joy”. People should be mad at them.
But they now see the reason why China could not follow the footsteps of Eastern European countries. China will never become another Balkans.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Think Ming!
“Oh please raventhorn. . . How about you quit with the anti-Western angle?
China must trail only to North Korea in terms of xenophobic media. . .
China is not claiming moral superiority to other nations, while spouting of endless threats and paranoia about other nations.
That’s all Western Xenophobia, all Western ignorance and arrogance.
If I was “anti-West”, I would not have come to US and learned its laws and its culture.
I find your stereotype remarks to be more evidence of your own arrogance and ignorance.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
#71
How about just focusing on the fact that Uighurs are understandably pissed at the fact that they are getting demographically swamped by recent Han immigrants? Heck, even the minority group of Han who are long resident in Xinjiang complain about the more recent Han arrivals.
The old Shanghainese also complain there’s too many out of towners. Didn’t see them going on a killing spree.
Besides, “getting demographically swamped” is hardly an honest description of what’s happening. The ratio of Hans in Xinjiang right now 41% is between the historical highs of 42% (in late 70s) and lows of 38% (in 1990) [statistics after 1950s]. It makes even less sense for you to say that with regard to the riot in Urumqi, where the Uyghur population is rising in recent years, not falling. And unlike in the 50s-70s, most of the recent immigrants are for economic reasons, individual and not government driven.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Kadeer is a mercenary. She made her money by trading favors with government officials.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“The old Shanghainese also complain there’s too many out of towners. Didn’t see them going on a killing spree.”
I’m old Shanghainese and I felt swamped. My old neighborhood got turned into a cigarette factory by “out of towners”.
Where is my license to kill?
🙂
“feel swamped”, that was the old excuse in US and Canada, when they had anti-Chinese riots.
Same old recycled excuses.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Well, for all of the parallels to the US or Canada you want to draw, don’t forget that Uighurs are being treated like foreigners in their own region. They need a perfect command of Chinese to get ahead, while immigrants can get jobs without any knowledge of Uighur. All top political, adminstrative and business positions are in the hands of Han Chinese who have little or no knowledge of local culture and interfere in the daily lives of Uighurs. Furthermore, while the central government often shows sympathy to local protests in the rest of China and condemn local government for being heavy handed in dealing with protests (that sometimes turn violent too), they don’t show the same consideration for the grievances of Uighurs and brand any expression of discontent “separatist”. That kind of policy leads to ethnic strife anywhere in the world. The Chinese government bears the responsibility for having allowed the situation turned this violent.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I don’t get your point Foobar @ 90. . .
‘Terrorism’ to me means a relatively small number of highly committed people utilizing a combination of surprise and careful planning to wreak headline-grabbing destruction and thus gain exposure for an extremist cause. Terrorists typically seek to inflict casualties disproportionate to their numbers.
I don’t automatically think ‘terrorism’ when thousands of people in an area suffering long-standing ethnic tensions demonstrate, things then spiral out of control, and they begin killing people of certain elasticities. Instead I tend to think long-standing ethnic tensions may have gotten out of control, just as they have at numerous other times and in numerous other places.
There have been rumors of bombs going off in this Wulumuqi violence, but the majority of the violence seems to have been dished out by ordinary people using everyday weapons (knives, sticks, stones and so on). No mysterious Uighur militants exploited the chaos in the streets to storm government buildings wielding AK47s. If these people are terrorists they are pretty crap at what they do. The pattern seems to be crudely armed mobs running around the streets in a show of force, murdering randomly chosen unfortunates from their target race when the numbers are on their side.
Perhaps new evidence is going to emerge, but that is what I see now.
Was it ‘terrorism’ when the Han factory workers in Shaoguan armed themselves and murdered Uighurs? What about the Han residents of Wulumuqi who have been beating (and perhaps killing) Uighurs? Are they also terrorists? Hey, perhaps the Han mobs are sort of amateur ‘counter-terrorist squads’? Would that be appropriate terminology?
Were the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia ‘terrorism’? They were certainly coordinated. What about the massacres in rural Java in 1965-1966?
You suggested that I must surely consider Iraqi insurgents ‘terrorists’, as though I am denying the Uighur mobs were ‘terrorists’ due to some anti-China bias. To clarify, no I don’t necessarily consider Iraqi insurgents ‘terrorists’. While I don’t follow the Iraq news too closely these days, I would assume the insurgents are a combination of anti-U.S. fighters from outside Iraq (some of them possibly trained and sent by terrorist groups but some undoubtedly individual sympathizers of the sort of who fought fascism in Spain in the 1930s) and Iraqis who are quite understandably defending their homeland against a totally unjustified American invasion launched on the flimsiest of pretexts. I doubt I would find much in common with their ideologies, but on one level they most certainly deserve to be labeled freedom fighters!
The word ‘terrorism’ has been seized on by the Americans to dehumanize the enemy of the day and justify all sorts of evil practices – from arbitrary invasions of sovereign nations, through to rounding up suspected ‘enemy sympathizers’ and torturing them to death. I suggest we all resist the urge to use the word ‘terrorism’ in places it does not belong.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@ Foobar 93
So are you suggesting that the Uighurs have no legitimate grievances?
July 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@Hemulen #96
There is a grain of truth in your argument, but mostly are not objective. Besides talking politically correct, there are deep rooted social-economical reasons and human nature that all people face in their perceived native place.
This Urumqi incident shares a similar social-economical background with last year’s riot in Lhasa, Tibet. On one side, there are lots of Uighur migrants coming to Urumqi from rural areas of Xinjiang. They are not that educated and skill in business, nor fluent in Mandarin. Many of them don’t have regular jobs, while holding out in the Great Bazaar area. On the other hand, many Han and Hui people coming from other regions have established business skills and resource to run a business. When Uighurs felt they face disadvantage in their own place, their discontent were NOT contained and dispersed by itself until the economical situation on the ground really change.
The same goes to some local Han people in Guangdong, a few of them lost their jobs to Uighurs coming from Xinjiang, they then turned to nasty rumors for a revenge.
During the recessions of 80s’, there were many incidents of people around Detroit area in US beating Asian looking residents, as seen in one violent death of a Chinese American by thinking him as a Japanese.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
If I don’t learn English in US, I can’t get any decent jobs.
I don’t see why that would entitle me to any complaints. Generations of Chinese immigrants did OK in US, Canada, Europe, even when they were isolated and in small numbers.
I don’t believe Uighurs are that weak.
Frankly, suggesting that Uighurs are being “swamped” is a paternalistic “human rights” doctrine.
It’s not like Han Chinese are killing off the Uighurs’ food supply like the American Settlers who killed off the Buffalos.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Think ming,
#97,
You don’t get my point? My point was to look at your argument against calling it ‘terrorism’, because it’s “an event involving a large chunk of the local population”.
#98,
I don’t think I suggested that. Are you suggesting their grievances justify the killings, or the killings justify their grievances? It seems so when you stated it’s their grievances that we should focus on, in wake of the brutal murders of innocent bystanders. Grievances due to “getting demographically swamped by recent Han immigrants” no less.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I don’t think we should engage in extensive detailed psychoanalysis of what motivates murderers.
Needless to say, we are not asking the Uighurs to do soul searching of themselves when some Han Chinese people kill or beat up Uighurs.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Ming, here’s a photo gallery of 70 picture from PhoenixNet, you tell me if it doesn’t look like NYC after 9/11:
http://news.ifeng.com/photo/s/200907/0707_4728_1238468_1.shtml
I really wonder where’s all the “bridge bloggers” now that opinions from Chinese bloggers are all of sudden not what they want to “bridge”:
http://www.itxinwen.com/view/new/html/2009-07/2009-07-07-598221.html
一位姓陈的出租车司机对路透说，与自己轮班开出租车的妻子在汽车遭到一位维族青年袭击时眼部被严重割伤。
A taxi driver surname Chen said, his wife riding with him was attacked by a Uyghur youth, her eyes were severly slashed.
“美国为什麽不把他们定性为恐怖分子？”他说。“他们对我们犯下的就是恐怖主义，不是吗？”
“Why doesn’t UA declear them terrorist?” he said. “What they’ve done to is us terrorism, isn’t it?”
在乌鲁木齐一家医院，暴力的受害者们回忆道，成群的男子专挑汉人打杀。
At a Urumqi hospital, a victim of the violence recounts how mob of men tartets Han people for assult and murder
一位被打断两根肋骨，打青眼眶的男子说：“他们根本不跟我们说话。他们一看到我们，看到汉族人走过来，冲上来就打。公共汽车开过来，他们冲上去就打。”
A man with two broken ribs and black eye says: “they don’t talk to us. When they see Hans walk by, they charge us. When bus drive by, they charge it and start hitting.”
July 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I don’t believe most Americans bothered to do any soul searching of themselves after 9/11, even though the discontent of Islamic World against Western Culture is so pervasive and so historical.
Chalked it to “Radical Islamic fanatical extremist terrorists” and move onto to smart bombs and military occupations.
(Though seriously, when is the West going to face the reality of the Islamic “grievances” and have a nice heart to heart “dialogue” with Bin Laden?)
July 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Raventhorn
If I don’t learn English in US, I can’t get any decent jobs.
I don’t see why that would entitle me to any complaints. Generations of Chinese immigrants did OK in US, Canada, Europe, even when they were isolated and in small numbers.
Well, the point here is that the Han Chinese in Xinjiang are immigrants into the region and it should be up to them to adapt to the Uighurs and learn the Uighur language.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Raven, do you think our military-industrial-media-complex will fairly report the fact riot police in Urumqi is dispersing angry Hans and preventing retailiatory violence against Uyghurs?
Burried in this “Hans taking revenge” article from Taiwan Central Daily is the fact Chinese police are proteching both Hans and Uyghurs:
http://bbs.thmz.com/thread-1032339-1-1.html
Hemulen @ 105, following your logic, why don’t American use Native American language?
July 7th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Hemulen,
“Well, the point here is that the Han Chinese in Xinjiang are immigrants into the region and it should be up to them to adapt to the Uighurs and learn the Uighur language.”
Sure, if Han Chinese don’t learn Uighur language, they can’t get jobs from Uighur business. Who’s complaining?
Lots of Chinese in US don’t speak a word of English, and they get jobs from Chinese businesses.
It’s a personal choice.
Why should the Chinese government make Han Chinese private citizens learn Uighur language, any more than they should make Uighurs make Chinese? If Uighurs don’t want to learn Chinese, it’s their choice.
I don’t see why anyone is entitled to anything.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
@Charles Liu
Good question. I’m not American, so perhaps you should your query directly to a knowledgeable American. As for Uighur, it has a written tradition that goes back several centuries and it has been the majority language in Xinjiang until very recently. If Han Chinese immigrants want Uighurs to accept them, they should be ready to learn Uighur just as Chinese immigrants are ready to learn the majority language elsewhere.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hemulen, I’m American, and I know exactly why we killed off 99% of the Native Americans and locked the rest of them in tiny desolate “reservations” –
And I thanky my lucky star every time I buy made-in-China products that they don’t support Native American independence and foment unrest in my country.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Charles,
I don’t know why some of these people are so into the “bull’s horn” trying to figure out rioters’ “grievances”.
Seriously, how many Western Media bothered to talk about Bin Laden’s “grievances” against US?
Geez, where did all these freaking amateur head shrinks come from?
and can y’all please just ship yourself to Oakland or South Central LA? There are about a few 1000 truly needy gang members who are just dying to tell you about their “grievances”.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@raventhorn4000
You forget that the PRC government smashed the native economy after 1949 and embarked on a massive colonization project led by the Bingtuan, which favored Han Chinese settlers. State owned enterprises still have a much more important role than in coastal regions and those SOEs are run by Han Chinese outsiders who employ other Han Chinese. In the 1990s, party secretary Wang Lequan did away with higher education in Uighur, further marginalizing the natives. The entire system is favoring Han Chinese and they are supported by the PLA. Xinjiang is, in effect, a colony.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
@Charles Liu
I’m American, and I know exactly why we killed off 99% of the Native Americans and locked the rest of them in tiny desolate “reservations” –
That sounds very reassuring to the Uighurs. Thanks for enlightening us about that.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Thank you Raven. Ater 112 comments, not one person have had the guts to say whether the factory fight in Guangdong started by jilted worker, or any other grievances, actually justify the violence on 7/5.
Hemulen @ 112, isn’t it obvious, in light of what has happened, that the Chinese don’t believe in what we Americans believe, and are far more benevolent than us Americans?
July 7th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@Charles #106:
“Raven, do you think our military-industrial-media-complex will fairly report the fact riot police in Urumqi is dispersing angry Hans and preventing retailiatory violence against Uyghurs?”
Yes, I heard just that on NPR this morning. They stated very plainly that riot police were attempting to disperse armed Han rioters headed toward the city center. Furthermore, they made no assumptions about who started what and offered up the numbers I posted earlier, which are skewed toward higher Han fatalities. You really need to ease off and take a better accounting of the coverage.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
@Hemulen #105,
You wrote:
I never understood that type of ideology. Han Chinese are supposed to feel they are out of place in certain regions of their own country?
There is a common language in China – just like there is a common language in U.S. Get used to it.
Han Chinese are free to move about everywhere in their country. There should be no travel restrictions against them just as there are no travel restrictions against ethnic Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongolians, etc. to live only in the “traditional” areas of residence (which is not easy to draw by the way).
I don’t think you want to get into an ideology that says whoever gets to a land first deserves first priority on how governance should be set up in that land. Modern Uighurs are not true natives of Xinjian if you look back a few hundred years – so are not modern Tibetans natives of Tibet – etc. And I don’t even want to get to the Americas – and the rest of the world…
I think it makes sense to discuss what role a common language should play in a multi-cultural society – what roles minority languages should play? It makes sense to focus on the challenges specific groups of people (along class, ethnic, religious, or whatever lines that may make sense) may be having economically and socially as China modernizes.
But to simply say Hans should not move into some areas like XinJiang or Tibet (a la DL) or that Hans moving into XinJiang or Tibet should learn local languages and practice local customs – and keep all traces of the cultures of their (and other) ethnicity out – that sounds frankly narrow minded, unenlightened, and racist ….
In Taiwan – many people from other provinces live amongst us Taiwanese. There is specifically a group of people known as ke jia ren (Hakka people) – to which group Steve’s wife belongs. Ke jia ren – despite their distinct language and customs and identity from us local Taiwanese – nevertheless have lived peacefully amongst us Taiwanese for hundreds of years. Imagine if we Taiwanese applied your logic to ke jia ren….
July 7th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
No Allan, you are absolutely wrong. Only when God says so and have given us “Manifest Destiny“, then we can rigthfully take other people’s land, decimate local population, and impose our language and culture.
The godless Chinese can never do what we do. The Taiwanese are our friend, so God’s grace to us naturally extends to them – but not them Chinese.
Ted @ 114, I was listening to Anthony Kune on NPR this morning. He called what hapened was a “clash between Han and Uyghur” and said death was over 150 – but he did not mention the death was majority Han (only 26 out of 156 were Uyghurs from what I’ve read.)
July 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@Allen
The unitary and assimilationist Chinese state is a very peculiar form of state in this world and the price you have to pay for that is ethnic unrest that we now are seeing. If you look around the world, there are a number of different ways of accommodating majority and minority interest that would not infringe on people’s rights to move around. I guess some kind of federal state, which different regional languages and one national language, could be made to fit Chinese realities. That is not what we are seeing here and it is extremely dishonest and disingenuous to accuse Uighurs or Tibetans of being racist when they have absolutely no political or institutional leverage at all in the Chinese state. None whatsoever. As things have been standing since the 90s, there are almost no way Uighurs or Tibetans are allowed to express their grievances in an organized way.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hemulen,
“unitary and assimilationist Chinese State”?
I think China has had a much shorter list of race riots than US (even just the post civil rights era riots).
I think there are plenty of average decent Uighurs and Tibetans. But also quite a few Uighur or Tibetan rioters and criminals, no less than the criminals and gangs in US.
I think some people’s trying to give more “nuance” meaning for rioters is extremely dishonest and disingenuous.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Charles,
You are wrong.
Taiwanese are only “friends”, until you run out of Chinese people to blame. Then they are “Taiwanese Chinese”, like Wen Ho Lee.
And then “You all look alike.”
July 7th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
#111,
You forget that the PRC government smashed the native economy after 1949 and embarked on a massive colonization project led by the Bingtuan, which favored Han Chinese settlers. State owned enterprises still have a much more important role than in coastal regions and those SOEs are run by Han Chinese outsiders who employ other Han Chinese.
Good point, except it doesn’t jive with reality.
The SOEs in Xinjiang are mostly operated under the Bingtuan (Production & Construction Corp), which statistically has been a separate provincial level unit. The Bingtuan GDP relative to Xinjiang’s total has been steadily declining in the past 30 years, dropping from around 1/4 to around 1/8 today.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
@Hemulen #117
“it is extremely dishonest and disingenuous to accuse Uighurs or Tibetans of being racist ”
Racism, in my view, exists in every single population around the world. I don’t think anyone has singled out Uighurs or Tibetans. However, no one can deny its mere existence just because a population belongs to a minority in a region.
In order to construct a solid and trustful race relation, racism has to be confronted one way or the other. There are also “soft-core’ racism and “hard-core” racism, and should be dealt in different fashion. For racism can be started as simple as misunderstanding, unfamiliarity, group thinking or subtle stereotypes. And some of these root causes may never disappear as long as we remain human.
My own view is that any society as a whole should emphasis on positive thinking, unity and appreciation of multi-ethnic culture and backgrounds, improvement of the fairness on economical and education opportunities. Political representation is important but not a total solution, especially when a state has to face an ugly separatist movement.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
More updates – including picts – see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124695275387404741.html
See also http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/07/content_11668519.htm
July 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
@Hemulen #111
Those para-military settlements occurred through recent history were mostly in response to real threats from Soviet Union. First wave occurred during the era of Soviet-China split, and the second wave when Soviet invaded Afghanistan.
During 90s, many from those para-military settlements were discharged and moved back to inland, and Han population dropped quite a bit in Xinjiang. The increase of Han population in recent years around Urumqi are driven mostly by commercial interests.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
My position on this is very simple, and is probably similar to the average Chinese person’s towards Islamic terrorism in the UK: I do not support the killing of innocent people, I do not support the policies of the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Expecting sympathy from the outside world for CCP rule in Xinjiang is a fool’s errand – does anyone doubt that this violence will continue to erupt every ten years or so? The immediate cause of the violence was the Shaoguan incident, an event born out of Han prejudice and Uyghur resentment, this was then followed by injustice towards the victims of the incident from a Han-majority government, which was then followed by violent anger from the Uyghurs, which has sparked similar violent anger from the Han. The lives lost in these events have been largely innocent ones, the deaths pointless and brutal.
If you wish to pretend that this occurred entirely because a former business woman called for protest, or because of a foreign conspiracy, then you are blinding yourself to the continuous stream of everyday incidents that have bred this vicious hatred: the endless labelling and characterisation of Uyghurs as terrorists, the talking down to them one sees so often, the way people who otherwise hold entirely respectable views feel free to label them as ‘thieves’ and ‘lazy’. I cannot speak Uyghur, and for all I know they have a similar bag of hateful opinions about the Han, In fact I’m sure they do, but it is the failure of the government to allow any outlet for this sentiment or take any steps to combat it that have allowed resentment to fester and then explode.
Many countries deal with this, for myself I think of the sheer pointlessness of the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland, where ‘liberation struggle’ meant essentially bursting into a man’s home and murdering him in front of his family, or throwing grenades into a group of mourners at a funeral, or drilling a man’s kneecaps with a power drill so that he might never walk again, or planting a bomb and then ‘accidentally’ making an inaccurate warning call so that innocent bystanders would gather near the bomb’s real location, or a thousand other pointless ways of carrying on a fight which nobody in their right mind could want but which went on and on and on for 30 years and more. Since the Good Friday Agreement I have allowed myself to hope that this stupid fight from which no-one actually gained and which no-one could win is finally over, I still hope so, but I recognise that it might still come back unless people work to prevent it. Perhaps both sides in Xinjiang could learn something from this, but they won’t.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
And where’s the “China censorship” critics now, that inflammatory blogposts are being deleted? I’m glad to see WSJ now agrees with the Chinese government downplaying the number of Han death in order to not esclate ethnic riff.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Foarp, can you show some citation to back up your “injustice towards the victims of the incident from a Han-majority government”? Serveral people were arrested, including the jilted work who spread the rumor on-line. NEd-funded Kadeer and WUC are screaming more than two Uyghurs died in the factory brawl to incite resentment, but there’s no evidence to it up the accusation the local or central authority have mishandled the Guangdong case.
What exactely are the “injustice” you speak of in the Guangdong case? And more importantly, does it justify the riot in Urumqi?
According to WSJ:
The [Guangdong] incident followed an allegation posted online by a former employee of the factory that Uighur men had raped two Han women. Police concluded the allegation was bogus and arrested the man who posted it, according to Xinhua.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
There are plenty of discontented people every where.
But it is rare that some people would openly call on them in airwaves, internet, to “struggle”, “uprise”, other words of similar nature. Backed up giant media megaphones of billions of dollars of US funding.
In law, we call that “incitement”.
You do it long enough, any poor man can be roused to violence.
Want an example: Nazi Germany, Let the Nazi Party drone on long enough about blaming their problems on the “jews”, even the ordinarily rational German people get a mob mentality.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@FOARP #124
“If you wish to pretend that this occurred entirely because a former business woman called for protest, ”
You should let facts speak truth. Naturally speaking, China has been in a stage of development which many types of discontent occur and will continue to surface frequently. The issue is that whether there are political forces motivated to to use them as issues to do harm.
Taking the example of racial tension in US or GB, Blacks were used to feel quite discontent and anger. What US and UK government would respond if there were political forces calling an uprising of black people, forming a separate state ? In the end, it was the improvement of economical and education situation that really helped the reduction on racial tension seen in recent years.
This Uighur exile showed her own hand on this tragic event, there is no excuse to defend her. The same goes to that annoying old bag in US Congress, anyone knew who she is.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
@Charles – Ming Pao also reported the deaths. As for whether the riots were justified, did you somehow miss the words ‘pointless’, ‘innocent’, ‘brutal’? Since you obviously skipped English classes in favour of surfing TieXue as a kid, I’m going to give you a little remedial test you can take in your own good time: when something is described as ‘pointless’ and ‘brutal’ and harming mainly the ‘innocent’, does this mean it’s a good thing or a bad thing?
July 7th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Foarp, if you feel none of these grievances, real or imagined (where’s your citations on the Guangdong injustice by the Han majority government?) justify the riot, then stop trying to justify the riot.
I don’t think my language is the issue, rather it is your lack of curage to answer a simple yes or no question.
You missed a very important distinction in the US/UK example – the Chinese ain’t pumping millions of dollar thru their “NED” to foment violence among our oppressed minorities against us.
If the NED didn’t give Kadeer and WUC millions, they wouldn’t have the means to twist and exploit the Gaungdong case (which you still have not shown any evidence of injustice by Han-majority governemnt) to call for the 7/5 protest. If Kadeer and WUC didn’t incite the young Uyghurs to gather illegally, there wouldn’t have been any police to disperse the crowd at 5pm, leading to esclation of the incident at 8pm.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
@Chuckie-poos – I’m afraid that you failed my little test so I’m going to have to drop you down a grade, but never mind, here’s another test to help you along. One of these words is not like the others, one of these words is not the same:
1) Brutal
2) Pointless
3) Justified
– which one is it, can you guess?
July 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Foarse, your lack of courage to answere a simple yes/no queston proves my point.
BTW how are the citations for your injustice by Han-majority government in the Guangdong case goiong?
Berinf just posted a blog about China’s policy in Xinjiang. Perhaps you support US and UK government’s policy on Nativer Americans and Northern Ireland?
July 7th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Credibility of Kadeer Rebiya, for those still wondering if there exists such a thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqs-469uDc0
Unfortunately it’s in Chinese.
Btw, I’m also interested in the “injustice” of ShaoGuan case that FOARP referred to.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
@foobar #133,
Interesting video. Rebiya pronounced that if she were to incite violence, she would be firstly, enemy of the Uyghurs, enemy of humanity, and enemy of the Chinese state.
I think she does understand that inciting ethnic violence is not in anyone’s interest.
I am going to hold off on whether she incited violence in this case (though circumstantial evidence does suggest the riot was premeditated). If she really did incite the violence, she would truly be enemy of the Uyghurs, enemy of humanity, and enemy of the Chinese state.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@foobar
That video only proves that the Chinese government likes to humiliate people by forcing them to make confessions. It has been a cornerstone of CCP rule ever since 1949. A lot of people in China – even leaders – have been forced to similar things. What makes this video unique is the fact that the government chose to leak it to the press. I strongly doubt that this video will stir up any doubts in Rebiya Kadeer among Uighurs, because this is the kind of things Uighurs and Tibetans have to submit to in Chinese society.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
POST DELETED FOR OFFENSIVE CRUDE LANGUAGE
July 7th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
POST DELETED FOR OFFENSIVE CRUDE LANGUAGE
July 8th, 2009 at 12:02 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/china-urumqi-protests-curfew
Guardian just reported Chnese embassy was attacked with molotov cocktail.
Western media immediately jumped on the “armed Han Chinese take street hunt for Uyghur” story and plastered photo of crying Uyghur grandmas in headscarves.
What about the fact the Han Chinese defending themselves were caused by 100 dead the night before? How about the fact riot police is also stopping Chinese rioter and protecthing Uyghurs?
What about the photos of torched building and cars from the night of 7/5? This is turning out to be another one-sided news.
Allan, here’s a link where Kadeer’s WUC called for protests 7/3-7/5, using a number of “unconfirmed reports” to accus the Chinese government over the Guangdong brawl:
http://www.uyghurcongress.org/En/News.asp?ItemID=1246487096
I have yet to see any FMer who repeated the Kadeer/WUC claim with any facts.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@ Charles Liu 113
You said: “Ater 112 comments, not one person have had the guts to say whether the factory fight in Guangdong started by jilted worker, or any other grievances, actually justify the violence on 7/5.”
You have mental issues my friend. . .
I for one have never been talking about ‘justifying the violence’. Is it ‘justified’? No! Has it happened for a reason? Yes!
July 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
@ Allen 115,
You said: “In Taiwan – many people from other provinces live amongst us Taiwanese. There is specifically a group of people known as ke jia ren (Hakka people) – to which group Steve’s wife belongs. Ke jia ren – despite their distinct language and customs and identity from us local Taiwanese – nevertheless have lived peacefully amongst us Taiwanese for hundreds of years. Imagine if we Taiwanese applied your logic to ke jia ren….”
In fact, way back in history there was a fair bit of “ethnic cleansing” within Taiwan. The Kejiaren were discriminated against and marginalized, and occasionally attacked and killed.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:38 am
In an interview Kadeer is saying: “When 800 Uighurs were butchered by 10.000 Chinese in Guangdong the police did nothing, and didn’t save the Uighurs.”
Are there any other reports on this incident?
Exclusive interview: Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer 06 July 2009
By Lindsey Hilsum, Channel 4
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/exclusive+interview+uighur+leader+rebiya+kadeer/3252962
July 8th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Ahh … I am sure you may find some instances of “ethnic cleansing” if you want to call it that.
Ever since I am conscious and aware though – we have lived harmoniously side by side.
I am not defending that we Taiwanese are saints, I am only saying if we Taiwanese had carried out what Hemulen suggested, we would have carried out full “ethnic cleansing”.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:44 am
@Charles #116: “I was listening to Anthony Kune on NPR this morning. He called what hapened was a “clash between Han and Uyghur” and said death was over 150 – but he did not mention the death was majority Han (only 26 out of 156 were Uyghurs from what I’ve read.)”
Here’s a link to the whole transcript from the NPR broadcast from this morning, it looks like there were some things that you must have missed.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106333891
I’ve pulled the pertinent Q & A that I referenced in my post #82:
———
Renee Montagne: Now the death toll is somewhere above 150 at this point, but it is not all Uighur Chinese who were killed. Is there an ethnic breakdown?
Anthony Kuhn: Well, I’ve heard from one official that of those killed only 30 were Uighurs, the rest were Han and other ethnic groups. But it suggests that the Uighurs killed were in the minority.”
July 8th, 2009 at 12:44 am
@ThinkMing #136,
You wrote:
Terrorist and other irrelevancies?
Has someone looked into real grudges the Talibans or Al Queda or the Palestinians may hold? Why even cooperate collectively on terror – focusing on terrorist and other irrelevancies?
Why focus on nukes and missiles the N. Koreans or the Iranians may be developing.
Terrorism, Weapons of mass destruction … these are such trivial tactical things.
We need to talk to treat all people as part of humanity – talk to all these people sincerely and fix the problems underlying other people’s discontent….
July 8th, 2009 at 12:48 am
@Chas #106,
“Hemulen @ 105, following your logic, why don’t American use Native American language?”
As of right now, in 2009, all American Indian groups in the U.S. are native English-speaking communities. Therefore, none of them are being kept out of jobs that require English language ability. Do they have a genuine historical grievance, having been stripped in the past of their ancestral languages? Indeed they do. But that is not the argument that Hemulen was making in 105. Thus, your response is a non sequitur.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@rolf #141
That is why Kadeer is a lunatic.
The incident in Guangdong province occurred in the middle of late night on 6/26/09, in-between the narrow space of dormitory buildings on a huge factory campus. Police responded to the brawl after it was reported, but the number of people involved were so high, it did not stop until there were reinforcement. The whole matter is still under investigation. Once the police found the rape rumor was untrue, the guy made BBS posting was arrested immediately. Who said the authority did not respond.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Otto
I guess we are going to “help” the Uighurs speak Chinese, and then we can give them casinos.
🙂
July 8th, 2009 at 12:55 am
@Allen #142
If I recall correctly, there are racial tension among Taiwan population groups too. Things only got much better since President Ma became the leader. This shows it takes lots of time, effort and work to sort of any kind of racial kinks.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:57 am
… And a Taiwanese President who’s not pitting 1 group against another all the time.
Some speak of “democracy”, but they really speak of “division”. Chen Sui-Bian was a good example of that.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Why it s every time I read up on news related to this, I find inaccuracies? This time, I find inaccruacy in Guardian’s Jonathan Watts insinuating the Chinese authority wronged the Uyghurs in the 6/26 Guangdong case (thus justifying the riot):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/china-urumqi-protests-curfew
“In a belated response, police announced yesterday [7/6] that they had detained 15 suspects in the case”
While the fact is there was an immediate investigation by Guangdong police, and as early as 6/28, people involved in the case were arrested:
1) The former factory worker who started the false rape rumor online against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:
http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm
散布谣言引起2死120伤群架 广东韶关肇事者被拘留
…
２８日，警方查获在“市民心声”栏目的发帖者朱某。朱某对其在网上发布《旭日真垃圾》虚假信息的事实供认不讳，称其原为旭日玩具厂员工，辞职后再次应聘被该厂拒绝，因此心怀不满发布了该帖文。目前，警方已对朱某依法实行刑事拘留。
Spreading Rumur Caused Two Death 120 Injuries In Brawl, Guangdong Shaoguan Troublemaker Arrested
…
On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, he posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law.
2) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:
http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm
13名韶关626集体斗殴事件犯罪嫌疑人已被刑拘
…
截至7月5日，已经有13名参与集体斗殴事件的人员被公安机关刑事拘留，其中新疆籍人员3名，其他地区人员10名
13 Shaoguan 6/26 Group Brawl Suspects Are Arrested
…
As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas
I hope Guardian will look into this, not merely to correct the facts afterwards (the damage is already done), but reexamine its journalistic standards in reportings on China, as twist of facts and false news can create lasting damage to minority citizes in Western countries where Guardian news is consumed.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Latest:
Just announced, President Hu has canceled his attendance at G8 meeting. That leaves State Councilor Dai Bingguo to fill his shoe. Mr. Dai Bingguo is mainly responsible for national security. So this is a sign to the West that national security issue is above economy and China is not happy about what West’s hidden support of Uighur separatist movement.
Mr. Hu also canceled his meeting with President Obama. That is even a stronger signal.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:07 am
“Has someone looked into real grudges the Talibans or Al Queda or the Palestinians may hold?”
I’m quite baffled by this question. You’re asking whether anyone has looked into real grudges held by Palestinians? Really?
How can you class “Taliban”, “al Qa’ida”, and “Palestinians” together? Palestinians are a whole group of people, with men, women, and children. The Taliban is a popular movement among Pashtun people. Al Qa’ida is the worst of the worst. I’m sure they all appreciate so much your deep concern for the rest of the world that leads you to lump them all in together.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:18 am
@ Allen 144,
I honestly don’t get your main point. . .
You mentioned ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which along with ‘terrorism’ is another of the USA’s ridiculous buzzwords. They use these buzzwords to manipulate public opinion into supporting extreme actions that would otherwise not receive support.
You said: “Why focus on nukes and missiles the N. Koreans or the Iranians may be developing.”
Why indeed? It is a bit ridiculous for the US to sit there threatening others with nukes and demand other nations not develop equivalent weaponry. Why not focus on reducing tensions – perhaps by reining in the worst Israeli excesses?
You said: “Has someone looked into real grudges the Talibans or Al Queda or the Palestinians may hold? Why even cooperate collectively on terror – focusing on terrorist and other irrelevancies?”
I’m no supporter of the Taliban (their misogynistic ideas seem barbaric), but I can sympathize at least with their desire to get the US invaders out of their country.
I absolutely sympathize with the Palestinians. Of course many of their actions are wrong, but they are struggling to deal with an hostile occupying power that appears to have no interest in compromise. If the Israelis had used just a few of their numerous recent opportunities to compromise a little I would have less sympathy for the Palestinians.
As for Al Queda, well they scarcely seem to exist any more. Their main function these days seems to be to justify massive US spending on anti-terrorism activity. However, just for the record, no I do not support their ramming planes into the WTC.
“Cooperation on terror” has already gone far too far. A relatively minor problem has been transformed into THE international bogeyman. Air travel has become a complete misery, and the more so when you must visit the perpetually-paranoid USA.
There are far more important issues in the world than a few Islamic terrorists.
And oddly, despite the US obsession with terrorism, they don’t like to slap the terrorist label on the christian extremists who shoot people and blow things up for political ends.
So, like I said, ‘terrorism’ as it is currently defined and debated is largely an irrelevant distraction.
You said: “We need to talk to treat all people as part of humanity – talk to all these people sincerely and fix the problems underlying other people’s discontent….”
Given the rest of your post I cannot tell if you are being sincere or sarcastic. . .
If you are being sarcastic then you probably have mental issues.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am
@Allen #115,
“I never understood that type of ideology.”
Your entire post makes it sound as if the “ideology” you’re describing is some unusual and alien thing. In fact, it’s all but universal. People don’t like the feeling that they are losing their people’s land to some other group of people. They worry that their people won’t have a place in the world in the future. You have no sympathy for them, I take it. But, looking at the world, I find that virtually every state (not only states, but taking states as an example) has established laws to regulate the movement of people into the country. China has immigration laws, and enforces them. Is that an example of an unenlightened, narrow-minded, and racist ideology, in your opinion?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:25 am
@Allen #115,
“Modern Uighurs are not true natives of Xinjian if you look back a few hundred years – so are not modern Tibetans natives of Tibet – etc.”
Waitaminnit. What? You’re saying that there were no Uighurs in Xinjiang a few hundred years ago, and no Tibetans in Tibet? Or, what do you mean when you say they were “not true natives”? If you just throw this kind of stuff out there and are unable to substantiate it, how can you expect other people to take the things you say seriously?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Think Ming,
You are twisting my words.
Yes, because I dispute your “focus on the fact that Uighurs are understandably pissed …” after a mass killing, thus I’m “suggesting that the Uighurs have no legitimate grievances”. And I’m the one twisting words.
QUOTED COMMENT DELETED FOR OFFENSIVE CRUDE LANGUAGE
Pray tell when and where I made such comparisons. And pray tell if there are posters like YOURSELF so I can make broad stroke accusations too.
Uighurs have been demographically swamped, and even if they haven’t they certainly feel that way.
Well I’m so sorry I let facts get in the way of your good storytelling.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:43 am
@Shane9219 #148, raventhorn4000 #149,
Agreed on Taiwanese intolerance and racism. It’s something I’m personally ashamed of.
That’s why I applaud the CCP’s effort to focus on social harmony.
Many in the West and the various political Chinese exiles may snicker at that concept as a front for political suppression. But I personally understand it to be a noble cause and aim. Sure, there is a lot more still to be desired in Chinese society, but no society is transforming faster than the Chinese society, and the Chinese gov’t is on the right path.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:52 am
@Charles #150: “Why it s every time I read up on news related to this, I find inaccuracies?… I hope Guardian will look into this, not merely to correct the facts afterwards (the damage is already done)”
As far as I can tell you haven’t addressed your misstatements in this thread or in over on this one: http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/06/24/green-dam-follow-up-stopping-china-through-the-wto/ Please slow down with the anti-China paranoia and let some of the facts filter through.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:02 am
@ Foobar 156,
Don’t accuse me of ‘story telling’!
Spending the past several months in Xinjiang, it was blindingly obvious to me that many Uighurs were deeply unhappy, and that many Uighurs felt they were being displaced in their homeland by recent Han arrivals.
I am not a scholar of the region (so I’m buggered if I know how many Han lived there two decades ago versus today). I am merely somebody who recently spent several months working on a project in Xinjiang, who has visited the region before, who has lived in China for close to a decade, who speaks fluent Mandarin, who has interacted closely with Uighurs in the workplace (mixed Uighur/Han workplace), and who has some clue what he is talking about.
As I said earlier, I do not envy the Chinese government the task they face. They face a social problem.
You seem to think the Chinese government does not face a social problem, they are merely being targeted by terrorists and ‘anti-China elements’. You are an idiot.
* I said posters ‘like yourself’ because there was one other poster who also jumped on the ‘demographically swamped’ phrase. I didn’t pull the phrase out of my arse you know. It is how Uighurs in Xinjiang talked to me about how they felt. You clearly don’t like the phrase, and to me that just proves the extent of the social problem that exists in Xinjiang.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:13 am
@ Allen #115 & Think Ming! #140: Think Ming! is closer on this one, Allen. Hakka originally lived in the valleys but were outnumbered and pushed off their lands and into the mountains. Politically, the KMT was able to use this animosity in 1949 to ally themselves with the Hakka against the native Hoklo. To this day, most major Hakka cities in Taiwan (Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Miaoli, Jungli & Pingtung) are KMT strongholds. Hakka are renowned as very good fighters, going all the way back to General Yueh Fei in the Song Dynasty, so they were able to hold their own in their mountain strongholds against persecution by the Hoklo. These days, the animosity has pretty much vanished. From what I know, it was never as bad as what we’re seeing in Xinjiang these days and it hasn’t been much of a problem since the late 1800s.
@ Shane #148: I’m not sure what racial tension you’re talking about in Taiwan. Ma’s election didn’t change anything racially. Could you be more specific? Taiwan people of all stripes usually get along great as long as you don’t talk politics, but I guess that rule applies most anywhere.
@ R4K #149: There are still deep political divisions in Taiwan, but they don’t manifest themselves in day to day life. They just make for good theater every once in awhile and keep the TV and radio talk shows going. Taiwan rule #1: Never discuss politics with a taxi driver. You can ask questions and listen, but if you disagree with him you might find yourself thrown out of his taxi. 🙂
July 8th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Ted, I replied to your accusation in the Green Dam thread with citations. I look forward to your reply.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:21 am
@ Allen & Otto: Uyghurs have been living in that area for over 1000 years, when they migrated from the northwest. I think that’s long enough to make it completely irrelevant to the topic.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:30 am
@Otto Kerner #152, to me a group of people is a group of people. Talibans represent the aspirations of a group of people. Whether that group belongs to one or more ethnicity is irrelevant. We already have discussed this issue many times before, but if you must view the world through ethnic lens in defining a “people”, it’s your privilege – not mine.
@Think Ming! #153, I was being a little sarcastic, but also somewhat genuine. The key point I was trying to make is that what you consider to be mere “Terrorist and other irrelevancies” may not simply be just that to others…
@Otto Kerner #154, if you cannot understand the difference between a state and a region in a state – I cannot help you. But to the point of whether China ought to set aside a “homeland” for each of its minorities, you are right – I don’t think I am sympathetic to those causes. China should respect the tapestry of culture and peoples making up China, but China should not be divided into microcosms of ethnic geographic bins.
@Otto Kerner #155, the historical making any “people” – including the “Tibetan people” or “Uighurs” is complicated. In many ways, depending on how finely you want to look at it, even in the case of these two “peoples,” we are looking at many “peoples.” Over history, the peoples of Xinjian did not stay stagnant. There were constant interactions resulting from a flow of people from the West (other parts of Central Asian), tribes from the North (“Mongolia”), flow of various peoples from the Tibetan plateau (“Tibet”), and of course flow of people from further east, including what we know today as ethnic “Hans”. (note: ethnicity is often a concept that is defined by contemporary politics, not necessarily by genes or even culture, I’ve always maintained that – but am not sure if that makes a difference here) Going back to my original point, my point to Hemulen was to question whether it was important to figure out whose ancestor got here first in deciding how XinJiang is to be governed today – when in reality there was always continuous movement of people. If you think a detailed historical lesson on the movement of peoples in China is important, I can think about researching hard into it and writing a post … though that was not my original intention.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:36 am
@Steve #162 – it ain’t that simple…
But I am curious – what if the Uyghurs have only been there only 100 years? 200 years?
What if I say Mongolians (however if defined) have been there even earlier – even though Uyghurs outnumber Mongolians today?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:37 am
@Steve #160,
Please read #142 before making judgments.
Also – I never said Hakkas was never persecuted – I only said Taiwanese and Hakkas (both in today’s nomenclature are just “Hans”) have lived side by side for hundreds of years. Maybe I should have said these two groups of people have lived peacefully together for over a hundred years instead of hundred of years. But I don’t think there was real problem even in most of 1800’s (so I technically still stand by my hundred of years statement).
Maybe you admitted to that when you said you don’t think whatever tension existed there was never as bad as what appear to be between Hans and Uighurs in Xinjiang today.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:48 am
@Steve – Pingtung is a KMT stronghold? Is that your way of joking to lighten up the conversation?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:49 am
@Otto Kerner #155
Look like you are not really familiar with the history of Uighurs in Xinjiang. Unlike Tibetans, modern Uighurs’ ancestors (actually formed from two separate sources) migrated to Xinjiang from Central Asia long after ancient Chinese Han Dynasty asserted a strong control over a large part of region. You may find a few things on Wiki too.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:52 am
@Charles #161: Replied over on the green dam thread, what about your comments on this thread? #106 and #116?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Shane9219,
“After ancient Chinese Han Dynasty” … was that “a few hundred years ago”? Please don’t you start lecturing me about learning history.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:01 am
@Allen #163,
I do understand the difference between a state and a region. I also understand that you carefully avoided answering my question. I will ask it again: is China’s immigration policy an example of an unenlightened, narrow-minded, and racist ideology, in your opinion?
I ask even though I’m sure you have no answer to this question. “It’s different just because it’s different, and that’s that”, is what I expect to hear back from you.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:03 am
@Allen #163,
Please substantiate your claim that Tibetans were not the native people of Tibet a few hundred years ago, or else please withdraw it. Regardless of what your intended point was, why try to bolster it with claims that are false?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:07 am
@Otto Kerner
There is no point of getting into the complicated history of Xinjiang region after this severe unrest. My point was quite clear that unlike Tibet where Tibetan settled for as long as people can remember, Xinjiang is a region of multiple racial/ethnic groups, migrated in and out all the times. Chinese dynasties asserted frequent direct control over it. You may check out the details for yourself.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Otto,
It is recorded by historians that the ancestors of what we currently call “Tibetans” migrated into Tibet from Mongolia.
The Native tribes of Tibet no longer exist, they were assimilated (or wiped out) by the Tibetan military empire.
The Uighur people didn’t migrate into Xinjiang until just before Sui Dynasty.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:16 am
I’ve heard that before on Fool’s Mountain:
“Historical claim X!”
“But, historical claim X is incorrect.”
“Well, there’s no point in getting wrapped up in complicated discussions of history!”
I basically agree with you that Xinjiang history has a complicated history. Northern Xinjiang was not predominantly Uighur until a couple hundred years ago or so, and I guess that includes Ürümqi, although it’s near the middle — I note that “Ürümqi” is a Mongol name, not Uighur. Southern Xinjiang, I think has had a stable Uighur majority for a good bit longer, although I don’t know the details.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:21 am
@Think Ming! #159
>> “As I said earlier, I do not envy the Chinese government the task they face. They face a social problem.”
You are quite right on this one. This is a social problem made worse due to rapid expanding of income gap over last 10 years, aggravated by historical ethnic tension.
During the first 20 years or so, the gap on average income expanded but not that much. However it rocketed up during the last 10 year or so, mostly due to the rapid increase on wages among civil servants, white collar workers and private business owners. While on the other side, rural income raises far slower than urban area. Right now, monthly salary of an average civil servant can be greater than the yearly income of peasants in the remote region.
To a society that are still not used to this kind of rich/poor split, it feeds into discontent. No wonder you saw mobs burning down cars and shoppers. That are symbols of their frustration.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Report from Zaobao
http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/cnpol/pages2/cnpol090708i.shtml
繁华一夜间消失了
“她用不太流利的汉语说：“过去我们不管什么民族，大家都是好朋友，没有打过架。怎么一下子都变了？”
Editorial
“中国民族矛盾的新特点 ”
http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/cnpol/pages2/cnpol090708c.shtml
“但是，从拉萨和乌鲁木齐骚乱分子仇视汉人的行为看，少数民族虽然从中央政府的优惠政策中得到了很多好处，但身份上的求同意识并没有增强，反而越来越强调民族身份的差异。而排斥汉人、仇视汉人的心态，乃至逢汉人必除之而后快的恐怖行径，就是这种身份求异意识的极端表现。”
“当然，这种现象不只出现于中国，其他一些国家也都遇到过。虽然具体的原因有所不同，但冷战结束之后民族自觉以及民族自决意识的抬头与作祟，是近年来各国发生种族仇视悲剧的大背景。而中国西部边疆地区通常易受外部局势影响，此次乌鲁木齐的骚乱事件难免与外在因素有牵扯。”
July 8th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Some images of Han men rallying on the streets of Urumqi, following what they felt was the authority’s inability to keep their families secure.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:51 am
@ Allen #164: Allen, I wasn’t making a judgment on anything, just filling in the approximate time period they settled that region. My guess would be that one of the Mongolian tribes were there before the Uyghurs. What if they had been there a shorter period of time? That’d make them like the Navajo, Apache or Sioux, who only lived in their “ancestral lands” for a short time before being displaced by European invaders. They never seem to teach that in history class.
Allen, I’m a realist when it comes to present circumstances. You can’t turn back the clock. History is the story of crowded peoples moving to uncrowded land where the opportunities are better. Han Chinese are not leaving Xinjiang and Uyghurs aren’t going anywhere either. Rants about history, whether 1000 or 100 years ago don’t really matter. What matters is today. So I believe you’re preaching to the choir here.
To say that the problems in Xinjiang are solely the work of an old woman living in Washington or some outside organization is ridiculous. There are social issues in Xinjiang that need to be solved. The Uyghurs there accept Chinese rule but aren’t happy about the way it’s administered. The Chinese government has controlled movement of people within the country for decades, they can certainly control the rate of increase for Han settlers if they so wanted. I don’t think the problem is so much the Han moving in but that the rate is so high that the two cultures have been unable to adjust to each other. Right now, within each city are two separate cities, one Uyghur and one Han. That’s a recipe for disaster.
The government can allow greater religious freedom without having madrasas sprouting up everywhere. Worship and education can continue to be separated. But the people cannot feel they are being categorized as a lower class subset in their historical land. Change is subtle and needs time to take place.
@ Allen #165: I actually wrote #160 while you were posting #165 so I didn’t see your reply until after I posted. I was just trying to give a brief history. I would not go back further than after the Taiping Rebellion ended. At that time, many Hakka came to Taiwan and things were not good between the Hoklo and Hakka at that time.
You might think of Hakka and Hoklo as just being Han and they would both agree they are Han, but I don’t know any Hakka who doesn’t identify themselves right from the beginning as Hakka. They are a very proud people. I can’t speak for the Hoklo, though.
I absolutely agree with you that the tension was never as bad as Xinjiang today. It’s more like residual tension that has turned into jokes about the past. There’s no real tension at all.
@ #166: I knew those five main Hakka cities and have spent a whole lot of time in four of them (all of which are KMT strongholds) but have never been to Pingtung. I made an assumption there by throwing it in. You’re correct; Pingtung is normally a DPP city, though the KMT did much better in the last election. They are right when they say, “location, location, location”. South in Taiwan seems to mean DPP.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:58 am
“To say that the problems in Xinjiang are solely the work of an old woman living in Washington or some outside organization is ridiculous.”
US media studies have shown that even violent video games can drive some youth to kill. Let alone some old woman and her organization who broadcasts “blames” from afar.
China has problems, solution is not more speeches of “division” and “differences”.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:16 am
@ R4K: I believe “solely” was the key word I used. And the video game analogy is weak. When someone buys a video game, the influence is direct and the incidence of violence triggered by the game are minuscule compared to the overall sampling size. To compare that to these riots is what is known as a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. This old woman is thousands of miles from Urumqi. Her influence is indirect. The number of marchers was very high.
So, what is your solution? To “lock down” Xinjiang by complete curtailment of freedom and the banning of all modern communication technology? Are you also going to apply this lock down to the Han Chinese living there?
P.S. Remember paragraphs? This thread is a big one and it already takes a long time to scroll down.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:34 am
@Steve #178
>> “To say that the problems in Xinjiang are solely the work of an old woman living in Washington or some outside organization is ridiculous.”
It’s not if backed by solid evidence.
>> ” There are social issues in Xinjiang that need to be solved.”
That is true but it is a hard one.
1) It may take a decade to solve rich/poor divide.
2) Those special preferential minority policy did not pay dividend. They only bought some time.
3) China is experiencing a major identity crisis among large minorities. As China continues its nation building. It badly needs a new and modern narrative that can forge consensus among all population. It needs NOW. The old Han-centric view of history just don’t cut it.
>> “I don’t think the problem is so much the Han moving in but that the rate is so high that the two cultures have been unable to adjust to each other”
This is hard to enforce under the current trend as people now enjoy major fruition on freedom of movement.
The important thing is to encourage minority groups to come out more, travel, reside and have training outside their own regions. They would enjoy more opportunity and establish more biz network. More importantly, reduce their strong yet isolated sense of “my” region. This is a hard task of social-economical integration, but it is already underway.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Ted, this is the NPR news I heard, where Anthony Kuhn is interviewed:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106318388
There was no mention of how many hans or uyghurs were killed. Here’s what the report said:
00:15
clash between han and uyghur
00:25
not clear if more han or uyghur were injured
July 8th, 2009 at 4:40 am
In the Southern Xinjiang (or more like Southwestern Xinjiang), language, religion and the stock of people (mostly Uighur) likely have been reasonably stable since probably Yuan ruled China. Northern Xinjiang though had been much messier. Hans, proto-Mongol and proto-Turkic tribes such as Khitan, Xianbei at one time or the other lived there. After Yuan, various Mongolian tribes (more like tribes once were loyal to Genghis Khan) controlled the land, and the last Mongolian tribe over there was Zungar. After Zungar was annihilated by Qing, Qing started settling Hans, Manchus and other Mongolian tribesmen to Northern Xinjiang, and the pace of which was sped up after Qing felt the danger of Russian encroachment. Though detailed historical demographic numbers are scarce, it’s quite possible that Uighur was never a majority of Northern Xinjiang for any extended period of time.
One thing people often overlook is that other minorities such as Kazakh, Hui, Mongolia collectively are of roughly 1/4 of the total Uighur population in Xinjiang. For example, a Kazakh boxer from Xinjiang won a bronze medal in the recent Beijing Olympics.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:46 am
@Otto Kerner #170: you want me to answer the question “is China’s immigration policy an example of an unenlightened, narrow-minded, and racist ideology, in your opinion?” – my answer No. Is there specifics of Chinese immigration policy today (or that of any other country – including that of the U.S.A. – the land of immigrants) that you feel is unenlightened, narrow-minded, and racist?
@Otto Kerner #171: I wrote in #115 “Modern Uighurs are not true natives of Xinjian if you look back a few hundred years – so are not modern Tibetans natives of Tibet – etc.” The “few hundred years” relate to Uighurs – not Tibetans, but I guess I could have been clearer…
I can’t easily find any good (i.e. nonpolitical) English source summarizing the anthropological history of today’s ethnic Tibetans but maybe this one might do. Hopefully you will find it useful.
Here is an excerpt:
Just to clarify – I myself don’t think the origins of people – or the origins of ethnicity – is relevant to the issues at hand.
With respect to Xinjiang, whether the Uighurs have been in XinJiang for one hundred years or one million years is irrelevant. China is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic state. I oppose carving up China into roughly ethnically or religiously homogeneous political units (whatever that means, concept of ethnicity can be divided and subdivided again and again – depending on the political climate). In general, I believe ethnically drive politics (from deep ones such as those between Pakistan and India to superficial ones like those in Taiwan for most of the last decade or so) – rather than liberating people – actually enslave people and promote violence against humanity.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:58 am
@Steve #178,
You wrote:
My mixing the two together was one (underhanded) way for me to show people that the concept of a monolithic Han people is really a facade – more politics than anything else. If you go back through history, you will see the Han people is an agglomeration of numerous people.
If you think about it, the whole concept of a “people” is not stagnant. To use it as basis for political discussions of sovereignty or self determination has to me always been a red herring.
The goal is not to keep on harping on our differences. It is to work on a common future and focus on the bonds that bind us.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Allen @ 185 has just proved that the Chinese are really the Borg!
The free world must unite and exterminate them!
Ok. . . I’m joking.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:09 am
I’m posting this through a proxy… It’s not clear cut, but it seems that the blog has been harmonized.
I almost wish it were something as simple as separatist violence.
Instead it is ugly, debase, murderous racism in the hearts of both Han and Uighurs.
Eyewitness: tensions high on the streets of Urumqi and Mobs spread ethnic strife in western China
Previously: The Shaoguan Mass Incident, This is Xinjiang (scroll down June 28), and ‘No Rapes’ in Riot Town. (yes, I know who rfa.org is)
Of course, any opportunity is a good opportunity: Uighur protesters U.S. capital reach China’s embassy
Because of the heavy handed censorship of the government, nobody believes what is reported in the news. 2 dead Uighurs in Shaoguan gets inflated to 100’s with decapitated bodies tossed into dumpsters. And, in turn, the Han don’t believe the official reports in favor of rumor. Instead of turning to a responsible media, the people turn to rumor for their information because there is no trusted responsible media. Racial hatred is fertile ground for heinous rumormongering.
… now off to read the two new posts.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Allen and Shane,
Okay, I agree that my focus on this “Modern Uighurs are not true natives of Xinjian if you look back a few hundred years – so are not modern Tibetans natives of Tibet – etc.” issue was an unnecessary tangent, and I’ll drop it.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:31 am
@Allen #184,
I don’t personally feel that Chinese or U.S. immigration policy in general is narrow-minded, unenlightened, or racist, but, then, I also don’t feel that it would necessarily be narrow-minded, unenlightened, or racist if the regulations on who can move into ethnic autonomous regions take ethnicity into account. I’m trying to tease out the logic of your argument. I could rephrase your earlier comment as follows:
“But to simply say humans should not move into some areas like China (a la the Chinese government) or that people moving into China should learn Chinese language and practice Chinese customs – and keep all traces of the cultures of their (and other) ethnicity out – that sounds frankly narrow minded, unenlightened, and racist …”
So, what makes the one case better than the other. I’m aware that in one case we are talking about a state while in the other we are talking about a province-level “autonomous” entity, but I don’t see why that makes a difference with regard to the ethical or racist, etc. nature of a given policy.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:31 am
@ Allen #185: I agree that Han is a political concept. I think I read once that Dr. Sun Yat-sen used it to try and create a sense of “Chinese” rather than individual peoples separated by language. For a political concept, I believe it has been a very successful one.
“If you think about it, the whole concept of a “people” is not stagnant. To use it as basis for political discussions of sovereignty or self determination has to me always been a red herring.”
This one’s tricky. As an Italian American, I would never think of using that designation for discussions of sovereignty or self determination. It’s more of a cultural background thing since the USA is one big melting pot. However, having lived near the Navajo reservation at one time, I believe that there are instances where political discussions concerning a people on their native land can be politically helpful. If we look at Xinjiang, I can understand establishing areas similar to American Indian reservations but of course these would not include Urumqi, Kashgar or any of the biggest cities. Those problems need to be worked on as with any relatively sudden mixture of two different cultures. The major problem isn’t so much language as much as it is the completely different nature of the two cultures. There seems very little common ground, but over time that common ground should increase.
Inside the big cities, the future goal should be to create a “one city” environment where there is no de facto segregation as exists currently.
Allen, if you’re the Borg, think you could fix me up with 7 of 9?
@ Shane #181: Excellent post. Again, I’d like to point out that I used the word “solely” regarding that woman in Washington. I’m not saying she wasn’t a factor; I honestly have no idea if she was since I don’t live in Urumqi and everything I’ve heard is secondhand (or thirdhand). But I certainly don’t think she was the sole factor. I also haven’t seen any evidence from the government, just an accusation which could very well be true. But if the government tries to place sole responsibility for the riot on her, then nothing changes and nothing gets solved.
There’s an old maxim in politics, “If you paint the moderates as radicals, eventually the real radicals take over.” I hope that’s not what’s happening here.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:47 am
@Otto Kerner #189,
You may be surprised I agree with the essence of your thought.
The idea of a state necessarily rests on and/or breeds the idea of us vs. the rest of the world – when all of us are part of humanity.
The very idea of a state that exists for the benefit of only a segment of humanity, but not others, is inherently racist and repugnant.
This strain of thought reminds me of John Lennon’s famous lyrics:
Unfortunately – given history of the last few hundred years and today’s geopolitical reality – using that to argue narrowly against Chinese sovereignty is to me unfair.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Otto Kerner #174, JXie #183,
Urumqi used to be called Dihua (迪化) up to the PRC’s time and was always a Chinese built city. The earliest version was a Tang-era settlement built out of a military fort. The other thing one needs to understand about Xinjiang is there was no such thing as “Xinjiang” as a cohesive region until the state (late Qing and ROC) made it into such. Otherwise, there were only passageways (northern circuit, southern circuit, the so called “silk road”, etc.), and oasis settlements along them. Some of these were Uighur settlements, some were Kazahks, some were Dzungar, some were Hui, and some were obviously Han. But otherwise, the entire region is sparsely populated. Just like in recent times the Bingtuan would build new settlements out of no man’s land, some of which turned into cities, so it was long before.
There is no such thing as a “Uighur” identity to all of Xinjiang. Such a designation based on a certain failed Soviet autonomous region model is arbitrary and a historical accident especially when it comes to Xinjiang. It had to do with who the CCP needed to form a united front with at one point. In light of what happened in Tibet last year and this, more people see that the minority policy is in trouble — maybe what’s on paper is in trouble, or maybe it’s the implementation. But there is no obvious and easy solution at hand.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:50 am
@Think Ming!, Steve,
I am just a Borg? I’d rather be Q!
July 8th, 2009 at 6:18 am
MJ @ 187, I really don’t know what is up with Kadeer’s “China’s failure to hold anyone responsible for the recent killing and beating of Uighur workers at a factory in southern Guangdong province” bit:
The fact is there was an immediate investigation by Guangdong police, and as early as 6/28, people involved in the case were arrested:
1) The former factory worker who started the on-line rape rumor against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:
http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm
散布谣言引起2死120伤群架 广东韶关肇事者被拘留
…
２８日，警方查获在“市民心声”栏目的发帖者朱某。朱某对其在网上发布《旭日真垃圾》虚假信息的事实供认不讳，称其原为旭日玩具厂员工，辞职后再次应聘被该厂拒绝，因此心怀不满发布了该帖文。目前，警方已对朱某依法实行刑事拘留。
Spreading Rumur Caused Two Death 120 Injuries In Brawl, Guangdong Shaoguan Troublemaker Arrested
…
On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law.
2) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:
http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm
13名韶关626集体斗殴事件犯罪嫌疑人已被刑拘
…
截至7月5日，已经有13名参与集体斗殴事件的人员被公安机关刑事拘留，其中新疆籍人员3名，其他地区人员10名
13 Shaoguan 6/26 Group Brawl Suspects Are Arrested
…
As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas
Somehow I doubt our free, objective media would be interested in the truth. Would our media report on China any differently, if it is state-sponsored?
July 8th, 2009 at 6:23 am
To Shane #181:
if you acknowledge the presence of “social issues” which may be difficult to solve even in the medium term, then why do you seem keen to blame the whole thing on the old lady sitting in DC who made a couple of phone calls?
Why is the tendency to always look outward when a race/minority issue flares up within China?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:10 am
one possible reason why the govt is late (or reluctant in) releasing the ethnic breakdown of the victims is perhaps because it is hard to identify the dead. for 2 reasons,
1) some may not have their ID on the body
2) the “ethnic identities” of many Han are fake or “unclear” — some han changed ethnicity into that of minority to enjoy ‘minority’ benefits, most of the, eg 3/4 han and 1/4 uighur would be uighur on the ID card for the same reason. it is not easy for really provide that breakdown. though IMHO the govt should have explained why when the question is asked — which will sure be the case when there is a press conference.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:22 am
@ Charles Liu #194, I had linked to xinhua’s reporting of the 15 earlier. But I think Kadeer would dispute the “facts.” In her mind, 100’s of Uighur were killed and that that atrocity was never brought to light nor to justice.
That, in fact, is, at least part, of her role in the riot. Forced abortions, forced labor, and now Han, acting above the law, murdering 100’s of Uighurs in Shaoguan. Minimally, her role is fanning the flames of racial hatred.
blog.foolsmountain.com isn’t harmonized yet. Not sure what my earlier connection problems were though…
July 8th, 2009 at 7:24 am
sunbin, I think the Chinese government downplayed the number of Hans killed is to avoid fueling the ethnic tension. If they did focus on how many Hans were killed, the western news will certainly fault the Chinese government for inflamming the majority against the poor Uyghurs.
Regrettably, the shameless western media is all of sudden careful with the facts and say “clash/unclear more Hans or Uyghurs kiilled”, while quoting Kadeer’s “over 500 peaceful Uyghurs protesters gun down by armed Chinese police” BS.
For example, Anthony Watts of the Guardian echoed Kadeer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/china-urumqi-protests-curfew
“In a belated response, police announced yesterday that they had detained 15 suspects in the case”
Did Watts, who is in China, miss all the reporting that police made arrest on 6/28? Or did he intentionally sensationalized Kadeer’s accusation?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:44 am
@SKC
You seems still not get it. “Social issues” are not equal to violence outcome. There are peaceful ways to address them. But when there are political forces to incite harm, the outcome is often violence.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Thanks for the interesting comments guys. I was especially disturbed to read the UK Channel 4 interview (posted by rory above) with Kadeer where she states that “800 Uighurs were forced to go to work in Guangdong province. About 10,000 Chinese beat them and killed around 60 of them” (I thought it was 2?) and then a few sentences later states that “When 800 Uighurs were butchered by 10,000 Chinese in Guangdong the police did nothing, and didn’t save the Uighurs”. From 2 to 60 to 800, and apparently there were 10,000 Han Chinese? I’m surprised any Uighurs survived if that number is correct…
This woman clearly has no idea of what actually went on in Guangdong, or at least feels she can exaggerate it freely in order to gain western attention. Given this I think the CCP’s ‘foreign interference’ claim does seem to have *some* basis in fact – if she’s going around telling foreign news sources that the Chinese police underestimated the Uighur dead by a factor of 30 (or 400!), then clearly Uighurs are going to feel a great sense of injustice. Add to this that the report is coming from abroad (the ‘hey-maybe-she-knows-something-the-chinese-news-is-hiding’ factor) and I can well see why the CCP would consider that she was behind the riots, or at least hold her partly responsible even if she didn’t orchestrate them. The crazy Han guy from Guangdong’s lie may have started this, but the ‘lie’ from the crazy Uighur woman in America seems to have stoked the fire.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Urumqi riots signal dark days ahead
——
@Aenima, it would seem that Kadeer has no interest in cooling the flames either.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“Why is the tendency to always look outward when a race/minority issue flares up within China?”
Because, duh, there are evidence of outside support of money and weapons!
July 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
” it would seem that Kadeer has no interest in cooling the flames either.”
And people call us “conspiracy theorists”.
Why is the tendency of the West to house and feed such loonies in customized bat caves?
July 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@Charles 182: The interview you cited was two days old, yesterday was the 7th and our entire conversation yesterday related to interviews from the morning of the 7th. Is it really that hard to admit a mistake?
Re: all your other comments… how about quit paying so much attention to “sensational” reporting. All your hatred is just funding their advertising budget.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@ Raventhorne 202,
You said: “Because, duh, there are evidence of outside support of money and weapons!”
The sticks and knives were supplied by the US?
Would you accept that the stones may have been local?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
It’s been very sad days of seeing the pics and stories. I never thought this would have happened in China. There are more ethnic tensions in some other part of the world like middle east and Caucasian where this kind of mass, brutal street murder by civilians did not happen in decades.
It needed a long time to hack more than 100 people to death and where were the police? The riot had been organized by internet and text messages and the government didn’t prepare after the Shaoguan incident? So many questions to ask.
Some here are arguing who came there first , what ethnicity the party heads are? Are these the justification of the killing of bystanders who had nothing to do with whatever policies had been made.
When the twin tower ,the trains, the buses got blew up, somewhere people were saying because they were oppressed by others, their resources were drilling out by others. Some are saying the same thing here.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
This is such an emotional time. I just hope people can calm down sooner. Chinese nation has a long history of civil wars and racial hatred is not anything new. We as a nation had overcome countless difficulties. One more hurdle to go.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“”Unintentional scream” triggered Xinjiang riot”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/08/content_11675440.htm
This is a new story filed by Xinhua News about how this deadly incident got started.
”
The “Han girl,” a 19-year-old trainee who had worked at the factory less than two months, said she only found out hours later that she was the cause of the violence.
“I was lost and entered the wrong dormitory and screamed when I saw those Uygur young men in the room,” said Huang Cuilian, originally from rural Guangdong.
Huang said she had no idea why exactly she was scared. “I just felt they were unfriendly so I turned and ran.”
She remembered one of them stood up and stamped his feet as if he would chase her. “I later realized that he was just making fun of me.”
”
However, when you dive deeper, you find the deep distrust between the racial groups and large income gap of remote rural regions with coastal regions that fuels so much discontent.
”
I’m ready to stay here for at least a year. After all, my folks back home need to work hard for a whole year to earn what I make in a month,” Atigul said through an interpreter. Her monthly wage averages 1,400 yuan, almost equal the annual income she earned in her hometown.
“
July 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
@Shane
So how did the rumor that this girl was sexually assaulted in the Uygher dormitory got started? And when this rumor was floating around, why didn’t she stand up and clarify things? When the Han Chinese worker broke into the dormitory and beat the Uygher male workers, why didn’t she say anything?
July 8th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I have a question: Will internet censorship prevent violence or increase it?
Malcolm Moore of the Telegraph blogged that journalists have been unable to verify her figure of 400 deaths and praised the government’s strategy of allowing foreign journalists onto the scene.
… Allowing journalists to circulate and protecting them from the crowd has clearly paid dividends. Rebiya Kadeer’s claims that 400 Uighurs were killed on Sunday were dismissed by my colleagues on the ground, who have neither seen nor heard any evidence to back up her accusation.
I would encourage the authorities to stop censoring the internet now. Allowing information to circulate does not lead to greater instability – this unrest has shown that the wild rumours that develop when news is suppressed can be incredibly explosive.
My feeling is that the Han Chinese, now that they have marched and let off some steam, are unlikely to assemble in large numbers again. An enormous security operation should succeed in preventing any more chaos. But the long-term picture is still troublesome. How will the Uighurs and the Han Chinese resolve their differences?
See also: Internet Plays Key Role in China’s Latest Unrest:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/07/internet-plays-key-role-in-chinas-latest-unrest
July 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
@miaka9383 #209
The rumors started long before the incident involving this particular girl.
The trouble started right after this toy factory went to Xinjiang and hired a few hundred of Uighers under government’s encouragement. This factory has over 10,000 workers from different provinces. The older workers complaint that Uighers receive better treatment such as allowance for room and board on top of a standard salary, and certainly most Han workers there are not used to live and work side by side with Uighers and so do Uighers. All of these contributed to initial tension.
Later, a few local people responded to factory’s recruitment and wanted to get hired or rehired but was rejected. Two of them apparently posted rumors of raping incident by Uighers on Internet as a revenge. That added fuel to discontent among Han workers.
Under heightened tension and mistrust, this girl’s “unintentional scream” just lighted up the fuel … and the rest was violence — first a local brawl involved hundreds workers within a factory compound, and days later, deadly violence of misguided hatred on Urumqi streets fueled by further rumors of bad treatment of Uigher in Guangdong — apparently some oversea Uighers played a role of fanning further rumors and organizing the large scale unrest on Sunday just before dusk. They sure picked a very good time.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Some more on strategy:
The Australian: China’s crackdown has world bluffed
By Greg Sheridan July 8, 2009
A fascinating aspect of the conflict has been Beijing’s new approach to the media. It has made the standard but implausible accusation that all the disturbances are being orchestrated by outside forces. It shut down the internet in Urumqi to try to limit the demonstrators’ organising ability. However, rather than trying to impose a media blackout as it did in the Tibet uprisings last year, it has swamped the media, domestic and international, with its own television images designed to suggest Uighur violence against Han. It is thus using the authoritarian power of the state to lead and dominate the media, rather than try to black it out. This is a significant development and signals China’s move from the totalitarianism of communism to a more contemporary authoritarian style. Still a dictatorship, but significantly more sophisticated.
The problem with this media strategy, though, is that it inflames Han hostility to the Uighurs. The Chinese state has used Han nationalism, along with economic performance, as the key source of legitimacy for its rule, given the death of communist ideology. But this nationalism is increasingly ugly.
Further, the policy lessons Beijing will draw from this are that it needs to be tougher on Uighur activists. This is exactly the reverse of the truth. In fact it needs to be more liberal with people, allow them to pursue their cultures more freely, give them more authentic autonomy and integrate them in a more sophisticated fashion.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@rolf #213
This is not the same old era when Westerners can make finger-pointing on China’s domestic political affair.
The first international lesson and actions should be taken is to tough up to Washington’s government funded Uigher separatist movement. Time and again, these extremists use whatever opportunity available to them to organize and incite violence.
President Hu just canceled his G8 attendance and a meeting with President Obama. China’s vice foreign minister is also in Washington in meetings with Mrs. Clinton. More follow-ups are needed until Washington politicians understand that their support of various separatist factions have harmed lives of innocent Chinese and unity of the nation.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
–Please delete–
July 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@ Charles #198: “Somehow I doubt our free, objective media would be interested in the truth. Would our media report on China any differently, if it is state-sponsored?”
You can’t seem to let this go and haven’t picked up anything from our conversation yesterday….
err-hrmmm…. NPR = National Public Radio. Please see previous comments.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
@ Ted: It’s a five step process:
1) Claim all media is slanted against China.
2) Search the internet for media that seems to be slanted against China.
3) Find said media from any source possible.
4) Use one or two sources as proof that this type of media is pervasive.
5) Go back to Step One.
I keep asking for someone to show me “accurate” media that is non-western and non-Chinese but no one can seem to do so. I’ve gotten Hong Kong media (last I looked, that was Chinese media) and once someone recommended Al-Jazeera so I checked their coverage on these riots and the first thing I found was a long interview with a certain older Uyghur woman in Washington, so I have a feeling Al-Jazeera is off the list.
Some have suggested James Fallows of The Atlantic but he’s (gasp!) “western”, so also off the list.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Ted @ 215, I provided citations in 198 – do you think Anthony Watts’ “belated response” jives with the fact Guangdong case was investigated immediately, and arrests were made as early as 6/28?
And just for the record, I predicted comment 212’s “Chinese govt inflame sentiment” in comment 198.
As to our conversation yesterday – I provided ample citations in response to your comment in the Green Dam blogpost, as well as locating the NRP report I heard for you in comment 182.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
@Steve #216,
I think it’s pretty clear most Western media articles are highly editorialized in a highly biased way. Do you genuinely dispute that statement?
As for what to do – I think it’s unfair to say we should discount Western media. Western media still the dominant media in the world – it has the most resources – and is still the most widely read.
The key is to read between the lines. Western media is an important resource for information. But it is only a source. We must read other sources, too though.
We then triangulate to figure out what is really going on.
Many intelligent, independent thinkers in the West know how to triangulate for information from multiple resources relating to domestic issues. I only ask that these intelligent, independent thinkers go further and do so for information relating to issues relating to China. It may be difficult since they would have to go outside the main stream media. But I promise it is worth the effort.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Steve @ 216, can you find one western sourced media that has mentioned Kadeer in a more honest way? From the highlighted comments above it’s obvious Kadeer twisted the facts on Guangdong and Urumqi, and fabricated, exagerated the Uyghur death significantly, to justify the violence and further her agenda.
While the 156 death from 5/7 were predominately Hans, Kadeer said not only were they all Uyghurs, the police actually kill 800 Uyghurs.
Can you find just one western source that has honestly commented on her claim? Every instance I’ve seen is quoting her denial of responsibility.
On a personal leve, do you really believe her exaggeration, twist of facts about Guangdond, and calling for protests 7/3-7/5, had no influence or effect whatsoever on her followers, and what happened in Urumqi on 7/5?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
@ Charles & Allen: As I wrote on the Tiananmen 1989 thread, “I’m not trying to be an apologist for some of the media; in general I think they suck.” What part of the word “suck” is confusing you?
Charles, can you find one non-western and non-Chinese sourced media that has mentioned Kadeer in a more honest way? That was my point. Personally, I don’t think she had much credibility until the CCP painted her as the chief conspirator. Now she has recognition and a platform to spout her views. They just turned a nobody into a somebody in the world press. My guess is that very few reporters would have even recognized her name if you had asked them about her last week.
So no, I don’t believe her version of events. And I don’t believe the official Chinese version of events that this whole thing was SOLELY because of her, some foreign NGOs and today’s new villain… the internet. I think there are real issues over there that need to be solved. Denying those issues isn’t going to solve anything.
@ Allen: Same question I asked Charles… what “outside the main stream” media do you suggest? I’m looking for non-western, non-Chinese media. Right now that’s what I normally see, both on the net and on FM. I can’t triangulate to a third source if I can’t find one.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
This is an in-depth report from BBC News in Chinese about labor exporting to costal regions from rural Xinjiang.
4000公里的导火线
http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/simp/hi/newsid_8140000/newsid_8140600/8140604.stm
“出事的旭日玩具厂香港老板蔡志明称，是响应政府的扶贫政策才聘用了这批新疆人。 ”
“可以看出，和内地外出打工不同的是，新疆少数民族出去打工更多的不是个人的事，而是政府的事；更多的不是一个外出赚钱的经济问题，更是一个东西合作、“民族互助”的政治问题。”
“韶关骚乱发生后，玩具厂老板、旭日国际集团主席蔡志明对香港《明报》表示，这次事件“主要由于厂内新疆人与广东人的生活习惯出现差异”
“新疆少数民族员工在内地或者沿海地区工作的收入和待遇应该说还是过得去的。根据地区的不同他们基本都有1000元上下的月收入，他们一般也都每年给家里寄回数千甚至上万块的积蓄，也可见他们在打工地的消费并不多，生活并不宽裕”
“近年，中国企业，特别是沿海加工企业经常发生因工资和劳动条件而起的纠纷甚至“群体性事件”。这样的问题对汉族员工来说不过是劳资矛盾，但对少数民族员工来说就可能加上了民族矛盾”
July 8th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Shane @ 221, I haven’t read this article, but I’ll bet you even when BBC has decided to talk about the minority jobs agreement issue here, they are not going comment on Kadeers “Uyghurs were forced to work as cheap labor for Han in Guangdong” inflammitory remark.
The truth is the government incentivized hiring of minority (something US government also does), and no Uyghurs were forced to go work in Guangdong.
I’ll even make a prediction here, that our military-industrial-media-complex will never cover Kadeer like this, as it is not in-line with our “official narrative” of China, or our agenda to manufacture narrative of China by supporting East Turkistan independence movement.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
@Charles
When Wei Jingsheng was locked up and rotting in a Chinese jail somewhere, he won a [self-censorship] load of awards; and quickly after he was released to the US, at one point there was even the talk of him winning the Nobel Prize. Anyway, it didn’t take long for him to fall off the face of the Earth. Get this, reportedly at one point, he was in a meeting with somebody important (a congressman or something). He insisted that it was his freedom to smoke. In retrospect, China should’ve released him long ago, to let the whole world see that he was just a buffoon instead of some mythical figure like Mandela.
There are two kinds of enemies (so to speak) you have — one you want them to talk, and the other that you don’t. You want the mic handed to the former type so that the latter type can’t be heard. Apparently Kadeer is the former type. FWIW, methinks the Dalai Lama is the latter type.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Steve @ 220, the NED is not an NGO – it is mandated and funded by US Congress to overtly conduct what the CIA used to do covertly. I guess this is where we disagree – I feel the media in China is more credible than someone our government paid to demonize China.
And may I make an observation while you claim to not belive her story – you’ve stoped short of the question I asked – did her false claim inflammed sentiments and contributed to 5/7?
I think a little courage is needed on your part; it’s a simple yes or no question.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@steve 216
I think it’s unfair to mock Charles this way. Although it did sound funny — I hope you were just joking.
As for whether the western media is somehow inherently biased towards China, I’d like to offer my two cents.
People got their information from TV, printed media, and more and more from the internet. Since I live in the US, and mostly read English-Languae news outlet, I’d only focus on them. News from TV, network or cable, are increasingly becoming another form of entertainment, geared towards rating and the mass appetite. No offense to the intelligence to the common reader/viewer of the western media, they might be interested in truth when surveyed, but that is outweighed by their attraction by the sensationalism. The nightly shouting matches between pundits and talking heads on virtually every network served nothing of substance. The greatest benefit I had watching them is actually improving my English.
To be fair, these shouting matches do provide a platform different opinions can be voiced. (In US, that’s usually Two and exactly Two opinions that can be heard — and you wonder why American society is polarized if no third party can ever have a real voice). However, this is mostly only true with domestic issues. When it comes to China, there is no viable “Chinese voice” available across the US media, tv or printed. And I blame this equally on the Chinese government, as well as the media outlets themselves. The Chinese government are not sophisticated dealing with media in general. The lack of willingness of the officials to talk with journalists, and the stoic speeches they gave periodically are laughable. Their paranoid of foreign media reporting bad news about China only reinforces the impression that they have something to hide and highlights their lack of confidence. On the other hand, the western media also lack the effort of engaging everyday Chinese, in China or overseas, in their reporting. Having a preconceived notion of China is normal, but not acknowledging it and try to find a more balanced, comprehensive view is not what I would call good journalism. There are plenty of well-educated, English-speaking, Chinese people nowadays who would like to talk with foreign reporters. And they are not the so called angry youths or fifty-cents army on the internet. However, most news stories I read or heard seem to never be able to find them. All these, are also coupled with a certain level of feeling uncomfortable with what to make with the rise of China’s clout (more prevalent among my European friends than Americans, I have to say), leads inevitably to the mostly one sided reporting on stories relating to China.
There are actually plenty of information on the internet, and you can gain a more realistic view about everything, if you try very hard. But let’s be honest, is that what most people will do, to sift through hundreds, if not thousands, of different outlets, to find one tiny bit of truth? To most people, China is not that important, other than the poisoned toys and dry walls that surfaces once a while. In the end, people who had no connection with China otherwise, and only read western media, will have a heavily biased and negative opinion about China, which set the standard of what the reporters will report to satisfy these viewers, and the vicious cycles will repeat itself.
In the end, I think NPR, and to a lesser extent PBS, do offer somewhat more nuanced views on most issues. BBC somehow carries with them a strange sense of cultural superiority ( I have that feeling even reading stories about the US). But maybe that’s my biased views.
As for China, and the Chinese people, there is nothing that can be done other than become more open, tolerant. And the truth will always prevail. If anything is indeed the fault of the Chinese government/people, mostly likely it’s the Chinese people who will pay the ultimate price.
@ Charles 219
The china comment blogs on telegraph.co.uk did offer some challenge towards the views aired by Kadeer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5778736/China-mounts-massive-security-operation-to-contain-ethnic-violence.html
July 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
@steve 220
I think there are real issues over there that need to be solved. Denying those issues isn’t going to solve anything.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Totally agree. Actually, much like the US policies have failed in the middle east, the Chinese policy in Xinjiang has also failed, and pleased nobody, Han or Uighur. This is the time to find solutions, not scapegoats. Personally I also agree that China now made Kadeer from almost nobody into somebody by accusing her.
On the other hand, I did hear from a former student leader in the tiananment-era that the Chinese government purposefully put some student leaders, that they deem would achieve nothing in the end, on the blacklists and later into exile, while dealing with other more threatening ones quietly. Could this also be true with Kadeer? Well, you be the judge.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
@Steve –
South African:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-07-08-china-police-fan-out-to-halt-xinjiang-unrest
Indian:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Hus-hasty-return-may-hurt-India/articleshow/4754862.cms
Argentine:
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/5897
Oh wait, they’re all using wire services, guess that means they must be biased, I mean, if they weren’t biased they’d be using Xinhua . . . . . .
July 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
FOARP in #227 gave some good links, here are links to the original story:
South African:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-07-06-china-says-140-killed-in-xinjiang-unrest
Indian:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/China/China-snuffs-out-protest-156-die/articleshow/4743125.cms
Argentine:
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/5752
Steve – go ahead and compare these to those from NYTimes and Economist (and many others) when you get time (those others are not worth me linking here).
And if you really have such a hard time finding that third source as you claim in #220, of the Western media, WSJ and Bloomberg often have more objective reports (not guaranteed though).
July 8th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
@ BMY 206
You say: “When the twin tower ,the trains, the buses got blew up, somewhere people were saying because they were oppressed by others, their resources were drilling out by others. Some are saying the same thing here.”
I find this comparison ridiculous!
You are comparing terrorist attacks in which Islamic groups based in the Middle East attacked targets in the U.S., Spain, and the UK, with an ethnic riot in which Islamic long-standing residents of a particular area attacked with and killed newer non-Islamic arrivals, and where those new arrivals then responded by attacking the original rioters.
But hey. . .
Any excuse for the ‘Poor China is victim of the West’ mentality. . .
July 8th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
@Allen – Two of those were Reuters stories and the other was a TNN story, that was the point of that post. People in those three countries are happy to use ‘western’ wire stories even though they often report on stories which cast their national governments in a bad light. But I suppose there’s always KCNA and RIA Novostii
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090708/155473199.html
July 8th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@Neutrino #225:
I don’t think Steve was specifically targeting Charles in 216, it’s a pattern with alot of commenters here when Western media is brought up. It’s nobody’s fault that Charles happened to nail that stereotype on the head. He not only (accidentally) misrepresented the facts yesterday but refuses to acknowledge that there is any semblance of balance in the reporting when I demonstrated that there is, and from a “State” sponsored media outlet no-less. Furthermore he hasn’t acknowledged his error from yesterday. When he ran out of examples in the US he jumped across the pond to the UK. It’s tiresome and clutters the thread, I’d be just as happy if all of his and my comments were deleted.
To the rest of your comment, I think it’s safe to say that the views offered by each media outlet are the views favored or generally held by their target market, as you have pointed out, for those interested in a more nuanced view of China, try tuning into NPR. I would not recommend NPR if you’re a Palin fan though, she’s been taking a beating recently. I don’t turn to Fox for coverage on Obama. I would think the average Chinese listener would find their own preferred news outlet or as Steve may suggest, turn them all off.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@FOARP #230,
That’s good to hear. These three countries selected wisely, in my humble opinion… 🙂
July 8th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Not sure if any one posted this video:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5780814/Video-Shocking-footage-shows-brutality-of-the-riots-in-Urumqi-China.html
July 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
@Think Ming! #229,
You wrote:
This seems to echo what Hemulen wrote in #105:
In both cases, you seem to have the concept that whoever is here first has right on how the region is to be governed.
I replied in #115 and in several back and forth with Otto Kerner on why that notion – if examined carefully – really does not help that much on how politics should be settled on the ground today.
Who was really here first anyways; does it matter how they got here – i.e. by violence, by displacing other peoples, etc.; why do new comers of today count less than new comers of yesterday; why must China be divided into roughly ethnically homogeneous zones?
July 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Think Ming,
“The sticks and knives were supplied by the US? Would you accept that the stones may have been local?”
No one is ruling out weapons and bombs smuggled into Xinjiang through the Western border. There had been several instances of bombings in Xinjiang in the last year.
And of course, those Uighurs caught in the terrorist training camps by US military.
Why are you trying to down play this?
July 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@ Charles Liu #224: No, I agree the NED is not an NGO. It is also not a very big secret. Are you saying that China does not pay money in order to mold opinion in other countries? Are you trying to tell me that China doesn’t have lobbyists in Washington? NED isn’t media, so why are you comparing it with Chinese media? That’s apples vs. oranges. You can compare media against media but not media against something that is not media. I feel American media is more credible than Chinese media and you disagree. I’m fine with that.
“And may I make an observation while you claim to not believe her story – you’ve stopped short of the question I asked – did her false claim inflamed sentiments and contributed to 5/7?”
I have no earthly idea and quite frankly, neither do you. This event just happened and everyone has everything figured out from thousands of miles away… yeah, right. Later we’ll hear an “oops!” when someone, and it might be Chinese or foreign, discovers that what they reported was completely wrong. I prefer to wait a bit so people can find out what really happened. All I know is that Kadeer was a two bit nobody last week until China elevated her into a demi-god.
The reason I hadn’t answered your question until now was because I was waiting for you to answer mine, which was “Name That Media Source”. I’m still waiting. FOARP gave it a go but was unsuccessful. Care to try?
@ Neutrino #225: I was just kidding. I like Charles though we disagree on occasion. He’s also been known to get on my case here and there. 😛
I was also trying to make a subtle point about a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, as they call it in psychology. If you believe strangers are staring at you, strangers are staring at you. Sampling size does matter. When I was in college, we did political sampling using very antiquated computers (punch cards where you better not misplace a comma or you get an endless loop, whirling magnetic tapes, and less computing power in that entire huge room than an iPhone) and one thing we always had to check was what was called the “chi factor” which told you the level of significance of your data. You could reach all sorts of conclusions but if the significance was too low based on the sampling size, then the data was meaningless.
I don’t watch political talk shows anymore. They used to be pretty interesting but these days they are just entertainment where every issue becomes black and white, there are no subtleties or nuance, and the object is to get big ratings by saying controversial things. How else could someone like Ann Coulter make a living? Back in the day, William F. Buckley had a show called “Firing Line” when he used to debate a liberal on whatever topic that liberal specialized in, the debate lasted an hour and though honorable, it was very lively and highly intellectual. Later, the show became more of an interview process but back in the ’60s, it was great. Those kinds of shows are gone forever, it seems.
The platform tends to be the extremes. Abortion: one side wants abortions when the head is out but the body still inside, the other wants no abortions even for rape, incest or to save the mother’s life. There is no “middle way”. So all they do is shout at each other and call each other names.
Wow, I could not agree more with your third paragraph. China makes it difficult for a reporter to do his/her job, so reporter finds unofficial sources and guess what? They don’t agree with the government. Then everyone says the report is biased. When the officials do say something, it’s just boilerplate propaganda with no details but plenty of accusations, so not much for the reporter to sink his teeth into.
If we take this latest story, the government has accused Kadeer of fomenting the riot but the only evidence I’ve seen so far is that she called her brother on the phone. Today they’ve added the internet as a cause. Yet so far this year, China has had something like 80,000 mass incidents. They can’t all be from outside sources. Someone needs to admit there’s a problem here that can’t be solved by even greater restrictions. That doesn’t mean tolerance for the ones that killed those people, just the opposite. They should get the same punishment as everyone else which in China is probably the death penalty. But have all these people they’ve been arresting/detaining/whatever you want to call it, really suspects? How did they get their information so quickly as to be so sure that these people were actually there? It seems like Captain Renault in Casablanca saying, “Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.”
July 8th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Steve @ 236, “but the only evidence I’ve seen so far is that she called her brother on the phone”
Are you aware of the fact after she twisted the facts about Guangdong (which you have agreed is not believable), her organization, WUC, called for protests in US, Europe, China, from 7/3 to 7/5?
I provided the citation already I belive, but I can dig it up again if you like.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@ Charles: I’ll answer your question right after you answer mine, since it’s your turn now.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@ Allen: As FOARP wrote, all three are western news sources. The point I was trying to make is that everyone keeps condemning western news sources but when I look at it, their definition of “west” is everywhere that is not China. So the term “west” is a misnomer, isn’t it?
NYT, Economist, WSJ and Bloomberg, still all western sources. Allen, what you seem to be saying is that there are good and bad media outlets outside of China, and I agree with you 100%. But that’s not the argument that keeps getting made on this blog. The argument is that “western” news sources cannot be trusted so that’s why I keep asking the people who say this to show me a source not from the west or China. So far, no one has been able to do so.
Allen, your argument in #234 sounds distinctly like the Israeli argument on why the land is really theirs. They use the “ancient” argument and then the “possession is 9/10 of the law” argument. Fact is, I agree with you about Xinjiang though I think Han immigration needs to slow until the current population can get used to each other. Some disagree but isn’t that the argument for why this form of government is superior? They can respond quickly to changing circumstances.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
@ Allen 234,
You said: “In both cases, you seem to have the concept that whoever is here first has right on how the region is to be governed.”
Err. . . No! in fact my point is totally unrelated to the other guy.
And you are changing the subject!
I merely clarified the nature of the recent and ongoing Wulumuqi event. I made no judgments about who was ‘right’, who was ‘wrong’, and who should accommodate who.
I merely clarified that the Wulumuqi event is NOT an example of ‘terrorism’ and comparisons to 9/11 are ludicrously misleading and, frankly, borderline evil. The Wulumuqi event IS an example of an ethnic riot. And yes, ethnic riots tend to involve different ethnicities, typically a ‘first arrival’ versus a ‘later arrival’.
Either agree or disagree with my real point. Not that I really care, because my point is blindingly obvious and if you disagree you are living on fantasy island.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
@Steve #239,
I’d even go so far that NYTimes and Economist and other usually supsect Western sources can put out good informative articles at times. It’s just that it always seems to happen only once in a very rare blue moon…
July 8th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@ Raventhorne 235,
You said: “Think Ming,
“The sticks and knives were supplied by the US? Would you accept that the stones may have been local?”
No one is ruling out weapons and bombs smuggled into Xinjiang through the Western border. There had been several instances of bombings in Xinjiang in the last year.
And of course, those Uighurs caught in the terrorist training camps by US military.
Why are you trying to down play this?”
So where were those smuggled weapons deployed in this last riot?!?
We have clear evidence of dozens of people killed by mobs armed with crude weapons like knives or rocks, and you are insistent that the real issue we need to be concerned about is ‘terrorists armed with smuggled weapons’.
You have lost all touch with reality!
Why can you not see this?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@Think Ming! #240,
Why cannot ethnic riots constitute terrorist activities?
Suppose for the purpose of discussion that the ethnic riots were premeditated, planned, and caused to be put into action by a foreign source – would that make comparisons to 9/11 appropriate?
My position is that ethnic riot and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism can be carried out through many means – we can have bullets, bombs, airplanes crashing into buildings, or mobilization of ethnic mobs…
We can disagree on the facts. You may believe that the ethnic riots spontaneously arose due to legitimate political grievances. Others may believe that the riots were premeditated, caused, and planned from outside sources.
It makes sense to disagree there – who knows, you may even be right in the end.
But to simply say that ethnic riots categorically can never be terrorism … I don’t think I can agree with that.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Think Ming,
There are people who got shot. No one knows by what weapons.
And bombs in the past clearly indicate external organization and money supply. Even with mere crude weapons, there is still the issue of MONEY supply and ORGANIZATION.
If you don’t see the link, that’s your business.
China should investigate every factor of cause.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
@ Raventhorn 4000,
You said: “There are people who got shot. No one knows by what weapons.”
True. I’d tend to initially assume they were shot by security forces, but of course anything is possible.
“And bombs in the past clearly indicate external organization and money supply.”
If you mean organization external to China, I don’t see that a bomb necessarily indicates external organization. Terrorism does not necessarily have to be funded from overseas.
“Even with mere crude weapons, there is still the issue of MONEY supply and ORGANIZATION.”
Huh? So do we seriously need to ask ourselves how the knives, sticks and stones that seemed to have accounted for most of the deaths were financed? Many Uighur guys habitually carry knives you know. Though I admit, the knives carried daily by many Uighur guys could be financed by mysterious overseas terrorist organizations, and we would not necessarily know if this was the case. I also remember seeing many knife shops in the Uighur part of town, and obviously a knife shop in Wulumuqi would be ideal cover for a mysterious foreign terrorist organization that wanted to arm Uighurs in China.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@Steve 236
I actually agree with most of what you wrote about the media and that China has an internal problem. At a civilization level, I hope at least it’s apparent that there is a lot of “good” in China in its attempt of building an equitable multi-ethnic society that may or may not work too well, e.g. the AA policies, government-paid programs to assist poor Urghurs working in better-off regions, etc. You know what, so long as you have people look, live, speak differently, you always have a chance of tribalism and ethnic strife.
Imagine the days of LA Riots, there was an overseas-sponsored propaganda outfit pumping into the LA airwave on how China/Russia/aliens may support a Malcolm X’s Black Nation-like plan. Or for you San Diegoans whenever there is ethnically based gang violence flaring up, how China/Russia/aliens may help the Mexicans to retake their lost land. There are many such outfits around China today, case in point: RFA Uighur. Is the end goal having more Hans and Uighurs killing each other so that the equitable multi-ethnic China would be a pipe dream, you know it’s all about PNAC at the end — is it cynic enough or far from enough?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
A common lesson from this incident and the one in Lhasa last year is that minorities of rural common people did not have adequate political representation at the central government level. Local officials paid too much attention on the growth of their local GDP number and projects with big sexy title.
The presence of large number of low-income migrants around big cities has been common in China, but it has became a feeding ground of discontent in case they are minority. You may call this a kind of ethnic issue with Chinese characteristics. Indeed, this deadly incident should not be allowed to be turned into a long lasting racial hatred like what happened in Middle East. It should become a gateway towards mutual understanding, respect and a new relation.
Reach-out to minority intellectuals is also important, as they may turn very negative and close-minded on race relation once getting motivated by one reason or another.
The government has certainly realized this problem, but effort to fix these problem are not enough.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
@ Allen 243,
You said: “Suppose for the purpose of discussion that the ethnic riots were premeditated, planned, and caused to be put into action by a foreign source – would that make comparisons to 9/11 appropriate?”
I suppose you conceivably could have a scenario where somebody recruited thousands of terrorists, then, rather than arming them with bombs and automatic weapons and having them assault a government target, instead had them demonstrate on the streets before beginning to kill people and behave as though they were part of a violent ethnic riot.
It’s plausible if unlikely.
I’d tend to assume though that something that appears to be an ethnic riot is just that.
Obviously some people would have prepared for violence in advance, but ‘planning for violence’ does not transform an ethnic riot into a ‘terrorist attack’.
Nor does ‘external organization’ transform an ethnic riot into a ‘terrorist attack’. You still need a critical mass of pissed off people in your target location, and this means you are really a ‘political agitator’, not a ‘terrorist’.
I find the eagerness among some Chinese commentators (including on some Chinese language forums) to turn this event into “China’s 911” very sick. . .
July 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
@Think Ming! #248,
Perhaps you misunderstood me just slightly – in my scenario in #248, the terrorists are the World Uyghur Congress and its leaders. I like you (for now) do not think it likely everyone on the streets were terrorists trained with a mission to kill Han Chinese. I think there were a few goons that incited people on the streets to kill. Those goons and the WUC would be the terrorists. The mob itself would be the “weapon” of choice in this case.
Now I have a question for you – why does the “the eagerness among some Chinese commentators (including on some Chinese language forums) to turn this event into “China’s 911″ [make you] very sick. . .”?
911 was tragic not because of identity of who did the killing – or why (i.e. politics) of the killing. It was tragic simply because of the mere killing of innocent civilians.
The Urumqi killing is equally tragic simply because another indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians has occurred.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
@Think Ming! #248
This riot was planned and premeditated with Internet posting and text messaging under a heavy dose of misguided racial hatred. The participants were organized and picked a perfect time. So in a sense, it was a 9-11 style hate attack on innocent human beings of bystanders. What’s wrong with a comparison of 9-11?
July 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
@ Shane: Not to dispute what you’re saying, but can you prove that it was planned and premeditated with internet posting and text messaging? Can you show the messages and what they said? I haven’t seen any of this information on the net so far.
I don’t see how it compares to 9/11 either, to be honest. This was a race riot where innocent people were killed. The murderers weren’t foreigners, they were Chinese citizens. They were born and raised in China. They had no weapons of mass destruction, if you want to use that term. It’s a horrible, horrible incident but it’s just very different from 9/11.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@ Allen 249,
You asked: “Now I have a question for you – why does the “the eagerness among some Chinese commentators (including on some Chinese language forums) to turn this event into “China’s 911″ very sick. . .” for you?”
It is sick because this event is a racial riot, a social problem, a ‘mass incident’, a failure of CCP ethnic policies, perhaps even a tragic result of a modern Chinese nation state stubbornly clinging to the borders of the Qing Empire it once fought to overthrow.
The narrow-minded insistence on framing this event an ‘attack on China by external forces’ is tragic, it is sick, it is xenophobic, it is evil, it is shortsighted, and it is just plain wrong.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I see a lot of people saying “Imagine if China supported insurgency in other countries” as if China never did this, people seem to have forgotten the support which was freely given to communist movements the world over by the Chinese government. These included Robert Mugabe’s ZANU, Che Guevara’s expedition to the Congo, FRELIMO, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. The same Robert Mugabe who has ravished his country, the same FRELIMO which terrorised Mozambique, the same Che Guevara who raided multiple countries, the same Pol Pot who committed genocide against his own people. The mere fact that China has now abandoned such insurgencies under Deng’s “don’t claim leadership” and “don’t argue” does not absolve all responsibility and should not erase all memory.
Maoist propaganda also called for uprisings amongst the blacks in The US (yes, exactly the scenario quoted as imaginary here). Whilst the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover did its utmost to try to prove that people like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were communist-influenced, the link was never accepted by the general public, and never taken seriously, because it was never the case, nor could rhetorical support from China make it so. Whilst some people linked to groups like the Black Panthers did eventually escape to Cuba and remain there, this is not accepted as proof of foreign influence of these organisations. The US government has never intentionally sought to deport its political adversaries, although foreign-born terror suspects have been subject to rendition and placing in limbo in Guantanamo.
What I would say is that Rebiya Kadeer obviously did call for protests, and these protests happened, they appear to have been initially peaceful, and at some point after the police arrived they turned ugly. Is there any evidence that she called for more than mere protest? Any evidence that she wanted violence? I haven’t seen any.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
@Steve #251, Think Ming! #252,
We’ll agree to disagree here. I guess things depend on whether this is a pure race riot or whether this is a premeditated, instigated attack that took the form of a race riot.
If it is a pure race riot – then to me it is more akin to natural disaster (leaving out the issue whether it’s caused by gov’t policy or not) than a terrorist event.
If it is a premeditated, instigated race riot – then to me it is definitely comparable to 911. A terrorist attack can be carried out by bullets, bombs, airplanes, biological weapons, and yes – incitement of mob attacks and hate crimes.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
@ Shane 250,
You say: “This riot was planned and premeditated with Internet posting and text messaging under a heavy dose of misguided racial hatred. The participants were organized and picked a perfect time. So in a sense, it was a 9-11 style hate attack on innocent human beings of bystanders. What’s wrong with a comparison of 9-11?”
What do you really mean here?
How do you expect rioters to organize a riot in the 21st Century? Of course they are going to use Internet posting! Of course they are going to use text messaging! Or course they are going to be ‘organized’! If they were not ‘organized’ how could they have gathered thousands of people on the streets? Of course there was misguided racial hatred! It was a racial riot – duh!
Now how do you get from there to “a 9-11 style hate attack”?
You can make some dumb analogy about how “the rioters were the weapon of the evil terrorists”, but the “terrorists” still needed to be able to get their “weapon” out on the streets and cooperatively killing people. Some pretty serious ethnic tensions must have been necessary to execute this theorized “terrorist plot”, which means that the more obvious question becomes “was this event the racial riot that it clearly appeared to be?”
Oh. . .
And the Han mobs who ‘organized’, ‘planned’, ‘pre-mediated’, and, motivated by ‘misguided racial hatred’, went out and beat and killed Uighurs, are they also “terrorists”?
Just wondering. . .
July 8th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@FOARP #253,
You wrote:
I guess we should evaluate Kadeer’s action in context.
I can go drunk driving without any intention of killing any person, but my going driving while drunk does make me criminally responsible for the killing of innocent bystanders (I think that’s the law in Gr. Britain, too) – even though I did not intend to murder any person.
I may want to scream “fire” in a crowded theater as a joke, but my doing so may make me criminally responsible for the killing of people in a subsequent stampede – even if I had not planned to kill any persons directly.
In Kadeer’s case – suppose Kadeer did call for protest – we would have to evaluate whether ethnic violence is one of the possible consequences reasonable people would anticipate from such actions – taking place during heightened ethnic distrust arising from the several internet rumors circulating about the Gunadong incident.
Of course one needs to make the call in the context of China – not in the Context of the U.S. or Great Britain.
So what is my answer to your question? If I have to make the call now, I’d say even if she had not explicitly called for direct violence, she should have known better and should not have called for huge ethnic protests during a time of especially high ethnic tension and rumor mongering.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
@Think Ming! #255
There is no point of getting a useless and strong-headed argument with you after seeing so many innocent people slaughtered in execution style on the street. These dead or severely beaten people did not participant in anything except pass-by at wrong time. What more you need to make an argument.
@Steve
You won’t find anything like that on western media, except a couple of first report on WSJ and NYT describing how Kadear defended her phone call before the attack occurred. You may read more reports in Chinese language.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Allen said: “I guess we should evaluate Kadeer’s action in context. . .
In Kadeer’s case – suppose Kadeer did call for protest – we would have to evaluate whether ethnic violence is one of the possible consequences reasonable people would anticipate from such actions – taking place during heightened ethnic distrust arising from the several internet rumors circulating about the Gunadong incident.”
So Kadeer is a “terrorist” for calling for protest at a sensitive time? She should have known it would result in an orgy of ethnic violence, and the protesters were her “weapon of mass destruction”?
I would have thought that in this case the real issue becomes the ethnic tensions, but hey. . . lets focus on the “terrorists”!
Are the rumor mongers stirring the pot of ethnic hatred also all “terrorists”?
Was that Han guy who apparently responded to losing his job by starting rumors about Uighur rapists a “terrorist”?
Just asking. . .
Trhing to understand the mind of proudly self-proclaimed “Chinese ultra-nationalist” Alan. . .
July 8th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Steve @ 238, neutrino’s Telegraph link in 225 is the only article that even remotely stated Kadeer’s claim don’t match the facts. I’m not able to find any other examples, and the above example IMHO is the exception that proves the norm.
I’ve also said I find the Chinese media credible in their accounts – the Guangdong case arrests starting 5/28 with the ex worker spreading rumor online, casualty figures in both Guangdong and Urumqi incidents, the downplaying of Han deaths to clam the nerves (which the western press has ignored.)
The Chinese have also noted Kadeer’s phone calls prior to the 7/5 riot, as well as the increase in QQ/text messages prior to the incident, and the WUC and other’s inflammatory speech on the Web preceeding it.
If you disagree then the onus is on you to come up with the good as to why you don’t believe the Chinese press.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@ Shane 257,
You say “There is no point of getting a useless and strong-headed argument with you after seeing so many innocent people slaughtered in execution style on the street. These dead or severely beaten people did not participant in anything except pass-by at wrong time. What more you need to make an argument.”
You are the one who is claiming this tragic event is a ‘terrorist attack’ rather than the race riot it appears to be.
Why don’t you justify your inflammatory claim?
July 9th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Uh, Charles, my question was, once again, to name a credible non-western, non-chinese media source. If you cannot do it, then the term “western media” has no meaning since anything not from China would be considered western.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
@Think Ming! #255,
I still don’t understand why you have such visceral reactions to some people’s comparing Urumqi to 911.
Of course in comparing Urumqi to 911, I understand that the events are not identical: no two events ever are.
Perhaps it’s because we have been trained to see 911 as pure evil whereas some of us are not ready to condemn Uighurs killing Hans as pure evil?
Perhaps some of us see Han Chinese in Urumqi as oppressors who have it coming – all guilty to some extent by just being in Xinjiang – instead of the innocent Americans who became victims in 911?
Perhaps some of us see the Urumqi riots as a direct result of failed, unjust Chinese government policies – though I think I can make an equally good argument that 911 was a direct result of failed, unjust American foreign policies.
Yes, I agree that on some levels, the two events are not the same, but there seems to me to be plenty of similarities for them to be mentioned together.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
@Think Ming! #260
A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people without a warning and in nondiscriminatory way motivated mostly by racial hatred or other political reasons.
You may get your own definition, enough is enough on this one.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Another in-depth report from FT.com
“Xinjiang’s divide stirs separatist pressures”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ddd7fb8a-6bdc-11de-9320-00144feabdc0.html
July 9th, 2009 at 12:13 am
@ Shane 263,
You say “A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people without warning and in nondiscriminatory fashion with mostly motivated by racial hatred.”
Err. . . No.
A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism.
Racial hatred has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Maybe you need to learn what terrorism is and then we have this conversation again?
July 9th, 2009 at 12:32 am
@Think Ming! #258,
Are rumor mongers terrorist?
My short answer: not the factory workers – either Han or Uighur.
But if there are rumor mongers today who are inflaming hatred and conspiring to cause more riots and killings for political gain / statement – yes they would be. They would sort of be like Timony McVeig – a domestic terrorist.
By the way – terrorism can be defined as “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.”
July 9th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Allen @ 266, Ming is having trouble distingushing between “terrorist” and “criminal”. In US someone was arrested for threatening speech online. The guy who posted false rape story online was arrested by the Chinese government on 6/28 according to law.
Steve @ 261, I disagree with your exclusion of Chinese media in this case, and I have presented ample evidence as to why I find their account of the Guangdong and Urumqi incidents credible. If you don’t, or you wish to exclude them, the onus is on you to come up with the goods.
Like you said, your question is meaningless if you want to exclude Chinese media without any real rationality.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@ Allen 262,
You said: “I still don’t understand why you have such visceral reactions to some people’s comparing Urumqi to 911.”
Because labeling rioters terrorists confuses the issue, shifts blame externally (the ever-present ‘anti-China forces’), and neglects the domestic social problems that have caused their behavior.
You said: “Of course in comparing Urumqi to 911, I understand that the events are not identical: no two events are ever identical.”
Forget identical Alan, the two events are not even similar – at least not beyond banal similarities like ‘people got killed’.
You said: “Perhaps it’s because we have been trained to see 911 as pure evil whereas some of us are not ready to condemn race riots as pure evil?”
Don’t make assumptions about me. I am not going to call a murderer of innocent people anything but evil. Having said that, I can see what motivated the 911 terrorists, and I can see what motivated the murderous rioters in Wulumuqi (including both the Uighur and Han murderers). I have a certain abstract and limited sympathy for all of them.
I would guess that the 911 terrorists were more psychopathic and removed from reality (in so far as they spent months training and planning, and did so within a very radical organization). In contrast I can see many of the Wulumuqi murderers being fairly regular guys who got swept up in the heat of the moment. Of course I don’t know this, but I am guessing based on the apparent nature of the event. There are probably some people in Wulumuqi with blood on their hands who have not yet been caught by the authorities and are feeling pretty sick about their crimes.
You said: “Perhaps some of us see Han Chinese in Urumqi as oppressors who have it coming – all guilty to some extent by just being in Xinjiang – instead of the innocent Americans who became victims in 911?”
Frankly, from the time Bush became president I thought the Americans had something like 911 coming to them. Of course, 911 had been planned since before Bush became president. I don’t mean that the innocent victims deserved to die. I just mean that, surreal and unexpected as it was, on one level the event was no surprise.
I’ve lived in Xinjiang. I have more friends who are Xinjiang Chinese than I have Uighur friends. I do not see Han in Xinjiang as “guilty oppressors who have it coming”. However, the Chinese state clearly has a problem in Xinjiang, and Han living in Xinjiang also have a problem.
I don’t think the problem is easy to solve. Both sides need to change their attitudes. Many Uighurs carry a large chip on their shoulder. Many Han in Xinjiang are arrogant and racist. On the other hand many Han in Xinjiang are great neighbors to the Uighurs and are truly respectful of and interested in their culture.
You said: “Perhaps some of us see the Urumqi riots as a direct result of failed, unjust Chinese government policies – though I think I can make an equally good argument that 911 was a direct result of failed, unjust American foreign policies.”
Yes, your point seems blindingly obvious. I’m surprised you are even saying it to me.
US foreign policy is a disgrace, and seems almost designed to breed terrorists.
You said: “Yes, I agree that on some levels, the two events are not the same, but there seems to me to be plenty of similarities for them to be mentioned together.”
I am still not seeing the similarities. You are comparing a messy ethnic riot in a region suffering long-standing ethnic tensions with a remarkably effective terrorist attack on an iconic Manhattan building. Both involved a tragic loss of life, both involved violence by Muslims, but beyond that I do not see a whole lot of similarity.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:53 am
@Allen #262
Great post, should be put on NYT as opinion piece. I echo the question you asked below by changing one word
“Perhaps some of ‘westeners’ see Han Chinese in Urumqi as oppressors who have it coming – all guilty to some extent by just being in Xinjiang – instead of the innocent Americans who became victims in 911?”
July 9th, 2009 at 1:02 am
@ Charles Liu 267,
You said: “Ming is having trouble distingushing between “terrorist” and “criminal”. In US someone was arrested for threatening speech online. The guy who posted false rape story online was arrested by the Chinese government on 6/28 according to law.”
Am I having trouble?
A terrorist is a type of criminal. The two are not distinct and mutually exclusive categories.
Yes, I realize the guy who posted the false rape story online was arrested.
But is he a terrorist?
It seems that when Muslims in China spread false rumors to incite ethnic violence they are labeled ‘terrorists’, but when Han do the same thing they are not.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
I didn’t know somebody who used threats of violence against civilians could be labelled a terrorist, but if the intent is to incite “terror” in the minds of ordinary people, I guess that would count.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:27 am
@Think Ming!
Stop soulless name calling and your typical head-strong mindless post.
This is a time of mourning for those innocent victims. Please be respectful.
No one said most Uighurs are terrorists, but those engaged military violence and this recent nondiscriminatory killing clearly are.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Terrorism, as currently defined by US:
Use or threat to use or planning to use violence to (1) intimidate the civilian population, or (2) to force change in governmental policies.
Material Support for Terrorism has been defined as, supplying funds, logistics, or other material resources to groups that intend to carry out terrorist acts.
Material Support for Terrorism carry the same criminal penalty as Terrorism.
*Additionally, Possession or transportation of material for terrorism is also a crime in US, defined as:
Possession or transportation of materials, weapons, plans, equipments, and other instrumentalities intended for use in acts of terrorism.
*some states even have the “Hoax Terrorism” crime:
Use or possession of hoax weapons or devices with the intent to (1) intimidate the civilian population, (2) force change in government policies, or (3) force evacuation of buildings and public spaces.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:33 am
“For Poor Migrants, Grief in China’s Ethnic Strife”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/world/asia/09han.html?hpw
“Relations with the Uighurs were pretty good,” Ms. Zhang said. “There was a mutton stall beside the cart where my son sold fruit. On nights when my son didn’t want to bring his fruit home, he would ask the Uighur neighbor to keep the fruit inside his stall.”
“At the market, about three-quarters of the 200 vendors are from those two provinces, the parents said. A handful of Uighurs sold fruit or raw mutton.”
…
On Sunday, as on any other day, Ms. Zhang, her son and a young cousin pushed four carts to the market. Mr. Lu’s father had gone to another province to buy fruit wholesale.
Abruptly at 8 p.m., the manager of the market told people to shut down immediately. More than 1,000 Uighurs were marching through the streets to protest government discrimination. Street battles erupted when riot police officers armed with tear gas and batons tried to disperse the crowd.
The first wave of the rioters arrived minutes later, weapons in hand. The younger Mr. Lu dashed home first and Ms. Zhang followed him. When she got home, she found that he had gone out again to rescue another cart. ”
“Mr. Lu’s father said that of more than 100 photographs of bodies that he looked through at a police station to identify his son, the vast majority were Han Chinese, most with their heads cut or smashed.”
July 9th, 2009 at 1:33 am
@Wukailong #272: see http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aterrorism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a for various definitions of terrorism.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:08 am
charles 217. it is jonathan watts. get it right.
the person who spread the internet rumour was indeed arrested 6/28. however, the announcement that 15 of those DIRECTLY LINKED WITH THE VIOLENCE had been arrested was not made until 7/7 (see link), which is certainly belated. also, very convenient very much a case of trying to bolt the stable door one the horse has fled and smashed down the farmhouse. I feel now that Hu is back, some very senior heads in Guangdong Province will be up for the chop. this ‘brawl’ was very badly handled.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/07/content_8387543.htm
hoisted by your own inaccurate petard once again. you really do need a fact checker my friend
July 9th, 2009 at 2:49 am
dick, the 6/28 arrest was announced. Also the Chinese have already arrested 13 of the 15 by 7/5:
http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm
13名韶关626集体斗殴事件犯罪嫌疑人已被刑拘
…
截至7月5日，已经有13名参与集体斗殴事件的人员被公安机关刑事拘留，其中新疆籍人员3名，其他地区人员10名
13 Shaoguan 6/26 Group Brawl Suspects Are Arrested
…
As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas
Also, as of 7/1 Guangdong authroity already made announcement regarding the investigation progresss up to 6/30:
http://www.gdemo.gov.cn/yjdt/gdyjdt/200907/t20090701_96716.htm
– The brawl started early in the moring
– The day of 6/26, city government began the tasks of caring for the injuired first
– The evening of 6/26, relevant departments and magistrates begain analyzing the case
– The criminal disorder case was officially introduced on 6/29, after preliminary investigation
Why is that a layperson such as myself an ocean away can find this information readily, while a professional like Watts, on the ground, is unable to? My conclusion is such behavior is habitual and intentional when it comes to reporting on China.
I hope Guardian will look into this, not merely to correct the facts afterwards (the damage is already done), but reexamine its journalistic standards in reportings on China, as twist of facts and false news can have lasting damage to minority citizes in Western countries where Guardian news is consumed.
(All the cites came from an op-ed letter I sent to the Guardian three days ago.)
July 9th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Guardian news needs “citation scrubs”.
🙂
July 9th, 2009 at 3:24 am
@ Shane 272,
Don’t lecture me on showing respect for the victims.
You are blaming this entire event on ‘terrorists’.
You are the one noisily assigning blame and reaching for labels rather than reflecting and showing respect.
If the Uighurs who recently engaged in ethnic killing are ‘terrorists’, what are the Han who did exactly the same thing?
July 9th, 2009 at 3:30 am
@Allen 262: Honestly, did you have to ask why someone would have such a visceral reaction. I was in NYC during 9/11… please don’t make such a ridiculous comparison. I don’t call 9/11 an act of terrorism, I call it an attack. The headline on the front page of the NY Times the next morning was “Terrorists Hijacked Planes and Attacked the US”. That is precisely what it was. If outside forces infiltrated Xinjiang and attacked the people then I would say feel free to make the comparison but the scenarios are entirely different.
In Xinjiang you had riots. Rather than debating the definition of terrorism and trying to stretch it to fit your situation, how about just start with the word Riot. Does Xinjiang fit the definition of riot?
Riot: a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent.
Is that not good enough for you? If evidence is provided proving the riots were organized by outsiders who slipped into the country then you can have your fun. Otherwise, haggling over the definition of terrorism and comparisons between the riots and 9/11 just scream “I want to be a victim too!”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Gee Ted, I guess there’s no such thing as “domestic terrorism“, then.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Ted,
You are pigeon-holing legal definitions.
A person can be convicted of “riot” (or mob violence) and “terrorism” and “murder” for the same acts.
Terrorism is the use of violence with the intent to (1) intimidate the civilian population, or (2) force change in government policy. (as defined by US laws.)
“Terrorism” is not exclusively from the other crimes. In fact, most acts of terrorism can be categorized as Murder, theft, kidnapping, etc.
And terrorism is not limited to merely conducts exclusively by non-citizens.
Domestic terrorism is a well defined crime in many countries. (For example, Tim McVeigh)
July 9th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Incidentally, some US states have passed criminal laws against “bio terrorism”.
Willful destruction of agricultural crops or livestock (over $2000 in value) by means of chemical or biological agents with the intent to (1) affect change in government policies, or (2) affect change in agricultural enterprise policies.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:09 am
@FOARP 253
Well… she is quoted saying this:
So, she expected violence. You already admit that she called for protests. With her own words, we know she knew that the protests would be violent. By the way, if you accept that she called for protests, then you must also accept that she is a liar because in the same article she goes on to say: “In no way did I call on anyone, at any time, to demonstrate within East Turkestan.”
The following is from Global Times. Evidence shows Rebiya Kadeer behind Xinjiang riot: Chinese gov’t
July 9th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Foarp, you need to stop justifying the violence.
What should happen in US/UK when people hold protest without permit, and police arrive to end it?
– obey the law and go home?
– start killing looting burning?
And please, Kadeer and WUC did more than call the July 3-5 protests:
– the Guangdong brawl was twisted into various “unconfirmed reports” that many more than 2 Uyghurs died, and Chinese government did not hold poeple responsible (evidence in comment 277)
– twisted Chinese government’s subsidized minority employment program into Uyghurs were forced to relocate to Guangdong as cheap labors for Hans
– after the Urumqi riot, twisted majority Han casualty into Chinese government killed 600-800 Uyghurs (evidence in comment 225)
Does “free speech” in US/UK cover inflammatory speech inciting violence?
And le me remind you again this is paid for by the US government, using my tax dollar. Can you blame me for being angry?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:52 am
You guys have to see this. Apparently, Kadeer used a totally unrelated picture when interviewed by Aljazeera to defend the peacefulness of the riot/protests in Xinjiang by the Uighurs. When questioned by the anchor how she felt about Han women attacked on streets,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekG0_H7LGQ, she pulled out this large picture at 2:37, claiming the protesters were surrounded by the police and could not injure anyone. The funny, or sad, thing, is that the picture was about another petty incident that happened in Hubei province on June 22nd, involving the mysterious death of a chef. You can find the news article about that incident at here ( http://focus.news.163.com/09/0626/14/5CO8RTDT00011SM9.html ), if you are interested and can read Chinese.
I actually liked Aljazeera, and still do. They have a very fresh look, and surprisingly quite balanced compared with a lot of US media, in my view. But I guess they would never have thought Kadeer would use an enlarged fake picture for her cause.
I’m really speechless. Is she really that clueless, or does she have such contempt for Aljazeer viewers’ intelligence?
This news came from http://cn.chinareviewnews.com/crn-webapp/search/allDetail.jsp?id=101017030&sw=+%E7%83%AD%E6%AF%94%E5%A8%85
July 9th, 2009 at 6:00 am
@neutrino #286,
I’ve been following Aljazeera for the last year and a half. As a journalist organization, it has definitely earned my respect … much more than so-called journalist outlets like NY Times…
July 9th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Allen, please, take all the facts in the comment thread and make another blogpost – the details are not sketchy anymore.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Wow, this post has turned into one big “semantics” argument.
Allen, I respect you enough where if you feel this is terrorism, I’m not going to argue. But I also have to say that my own feelings are similar to Ted’s. I wouldn’t categorize this as terrorism but a riot that turned murderously and criminally violent where protesters went on a rampage, killing innocent people in large numbers. For me, it doesn’t compare to someone plotting for a very long time to hijack and then crash two planes into one of the tallest buildings in the world while two other planes headed for Washington where one took out the Pentagon and another was destroyed before it could arrive. The massive scale of that attack just put it in another category for me. I see terrorism as going after high profile, visible targets in order to garner as much publicity and instill as much fear as possible.
Technically, you are correct. The definition of terrorism can fit this scenario. It’s just not the definition I would use for this type of violence. But in the end, isn’t it just a matter of semantics? The real issue is what happened, how it happened, why it happened and who took part in the happening. All this arguing back and forth about whether it was terrorism or not, whether it is similar to 9/11 or not is totally useless and has no meaning.
How does the definition of a word help us understand what happened? How does a comparison to a totally different event that happened under completely different circumstances help us to understand what happened? I’m frankly befuddled that this conversation/argument is even taking place.
@ Charles: I don’t have a problem with your highlighting the accusations that the Chinese government is making about Kadeer, but none of this is proof, just accusation. If the Chinese government says she is a terrorist, that isn’t proof she is, just an accusation that she is. I still haven’t seen any actual proof released. Has she said things that weren’t accurate? Sure seems like it and glad you’ve pointed it out. But proof that the violence was preplanned by her? I’m still waiting.
@ Charles #267: *Sigh* I’d be happy to answer your question JUST AS SOON AS YOU ANSWER MINE! I haven’t excluded Chinese media at all. I’m just waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked before you asked yours, and then I’ll answer yours pronto. I’ve only asked you the same question over and over so why can’t you answer it? Others have volunteered information but not you.
So once again, can you name a credible non-western, non-Chinese media source? If you cannot, then we need to eliminate the use of “western” media on this blog and replace it with “non-Chinese media”. Wouldn’t that be accurate? Then we’d talk about two sources, media within China and media from outside of China. No more China vs. the west since now it’d be China vs. the entire world.
Or are you saying that there is no non-Chinese media source that you feel is accurate? If that’s what you think, just say so and then I can answer your question. I’m not ducking you, you’re ducking me and have been doing it for awhile. Hell, you might even like my answer!
July 9th, 2009 at 6:32 am
charles – I still can’t see any confirmation that the arrests were made before 7/6.
All news reports on this matter are dated 7/7, which suggests either:
– the arrests were made before that date but it was decided not to publicise it (unlikely, as they had already announced the arrest of the initial rumour monger as early as 30/6, a full week earlier. why not announce both?)
or
– the arrests were made after the Urimqi riots and were backdated to save the backsides of the authorities in charge (more likely, as one of the justifications for the riots were that nobody was arrested, so it is extremely convenient that it is announced – AFTER THE FACT – that arrests had already been made. See my previous bolting horse analogy. The Chinese authorities are now cast in the position of saying “we had the stable door locked all the time. we just forgot to mention it”).
thanks
July 9th, 2009 at 6:33 am
@ Neutrino #286: I put Al Jazeera’s latest video on the violence in urumqi details still sketchy thread. You might want to check it out.
Yes, I do believe she’s that clueless.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:41 am
This is a quite balanced report from Telegraph UK by Peter Foster
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002643/urumqi-criticism-and-credit-for-the-chinese-police/
“A note on the performance of the Chinese police during this crisis: from what I’ve seen they have been highly disciplined and professional under extremely challenging circumstances and deserve real praise for this.
On the one hand, it could be argued that the police failed in the first instance. Certainly that is the view of many Han people we’ve spoken too who are deeply angry that Sunday’s killing was allowed to take place at all.
It seems that the police were taken completely by surprise. Having broken up the original demonstration around the People’s Square and the South Gate on Sunday night between 6pm and 8pm, they failed to anticipate the extreme violence that was unfolded along the side-streets after about 10.30pm.
Perhaps this was because Urumqi, unlike Kashgar, is generally felt to be a stable – I hesitate to use the ‘H’ word (harmonious) – city where relations between Uighur and Han are nothing like as tense as in other parts of Xinjiang.
Then on Tuesday, the police appeared to get caught out a second time when, having focussed on locking down the Uighur areas, they seemed unprepared for the huge number of Han who took to the streets with their clubs and other weapons to show their anger over what they say was effectively an anti-Han pogrom carried out by thuggish Uighur elements on Sunday night.
These are fair criticisms, but equally the Chinese police and paramilitaries must be given huge credit for handling the situations that did arise.
On Tuesday they walked a fine line between confronting the Han protesters – keeping them separate from the Uighur community at a time when there was a real sense of blood lust in the air – and allowing them they chance to vent their legitimate anger and frustration.
In the event, the Han crowds on Tuesday effectively were allowed to go round and round in circles, exhausting themselves in the hot sun while never actually being allowed to reach the objects of their anger. To my mind, this was very smart policing.
Then on Wednesday, after an overwhelming show of force, the police made sure that the Han protestors largely stayed off the streets.
Similarly on Tuesday when a crowd of Uighur women and children of the Sai Ma Chang (Racetrack) district led a protest against the arrest of their men, the police contained the protest – showing force, but judiciously withdrawing a few hundred metres just at the moment when it looked as if things might get nasty.
I don’t claim to be an expert in riot control, but I have reported on mass protests in many different cities around the world – in the UK (football riots in London), in Africa (Harare and Lagos), in Pakistan (Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar) and in several cities in India – and I’m happy to say that China’s police have showed far greater professionalism, discipline and restraint than I’ve observed in many of those places.
Riots are feverish and unpredictable things and it only takes one nervous recruit to lash out (and if you look behind the visors, many of the Chinese police are pretty young) and suddenly a controlled situation can turn very nasty indeed.
All credit to the Chinese foot-soldiers, therefore, who have shown great professionalism and must be applauded for preventing any major further bloodshed after Sunday night.
They are neatly turned out, quiet and orderly when off-duty – for example, they don’t leave a trail of litter after chow-time like India’s police always did. These are small things but they do matter, since they set the tone. “
July 9th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Steve, “can you name a credible non-western, non-Chinese media source?”
I have not looked at any non-western, non-Chinese media soruce around this story, so no I can’t name one. The only place I’ve seen Kadeer’s lies mildly contradicted in Western meida is the one neutrino cited, which I consider exception that proves the rule.
I find the Chinese media quite credible on this. Did Kadeer and WUC mastermind the riot? I’m not so sure. But at a minimum her lies incited and inflammed the violence and she bears large part of the responsibility, not the Chinese government’s ethnic policy, or the police enforcing the law.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:04 am
@Steve #289
Given Al-Jazeera its Muslin background, I don’t take this outlet as neutral at all. On the other hand, I found several media shops from UK are very balanced. Al-Jazeera 1) It gives Kadeer lots of face time while she used a enlarged wrong photo image as evidence of government shutting at protesting Uighurs. 2) Their usage of Tibet protests at Nepal to show China’s crackdown on Tibet riot (same old trick as last year). and 3) It made an open suggestion to let Xinjiang independence, otherwise facing a civil war situation.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:07 am
@ Charles: I’ll take that as a no. So at least now we’re dealing with either Chinese or non-Chinese media. Thanks for answering my question.
Personally, I think Kadeer was insignificant before this riot and I also think the Chinese government has made a mistake to give her this much publicity. They’re literally made her famous overnight. I completely agree with you; she keeps making false statements and contradicting herself. I don’t trust anything she says at this point.
However, I don’t think she was responsible for the riot. I think the people who committed the riot were responsible for the riot. The protest was peaceful at one point. If she was out there with a loudspeaker inciting the crowd to riot, I’d completely agree with you. But she was 10,000 miles away on the other side of the world. Was she involved in setting up the protest itself? Probably, and she definitely knew it was going to happen before it did. Most of her lies seem to have been told after the riot rather than before, so I don’t understand your point on that one.
Is the Chinese ethnic policy at fault here? Based on what a lot of Chinese bloggers have said on this post, I do believe several of their policies have contributed to the harsh feelings among the Uyghur. Does that justify the riots? Absolutely not. The riots were criminal. They were murder at its worst since the people who died had nothing to do with any policy but were just people going about their business. Police enforcing the law? I don’t know the details yet about what the police did before the riot started but no matter what they did, nothing can absolve the killers from their murder.
The Chinese media has blamed these riots 100% on Kadeer and her organization. They have not acknowledged that there are any problems in Xinjiang except “outside splittists” who are totally at fault. That’s not credible reporting to me but a one sided approach that echoes the official government line.
I’m waiting for James Fallows’ column on this that he promised tomorrow morning. I’m more of a magazine guy than a newspaper guy. The stories tend to be more accurate, more thorough and more objective. I’ll let you know what I find.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
@ Shane: I’m not a big Al Jazeera fan but others in this blog seem to like them and think they are objective. They have been the only non-Chinese, non-western news source that anyone has mentioned as being credible. That’s why I posted it.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
@ Ted 280,
Indeed. . .
July 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Steve wrote:
The Chinese media has blamed these riots 100% on Kadeer and her organization. They have not acknowledged that there are any problems in Xinjiang except “outside splittists” who are totally at fault. That’s not credible reporting to me but a one sided approach that echoes the official government line.
+++++
There is a context for this, and it is to divert attention to calm anger internally. If you say the people at fault are your ethnic neighbors, it would not be a good idea. And even if the Chinese media were allowed to focus on problems in Xinjiang and draw cnoclusions (in the past they have acknowledged problems, but maybe a different set of problems than you’re thinking about), this would not conceivably be the chosen time for them to do so. Granted, it is not “reporting” per se but delivering the government’s directive, but realistically “free” media often behave in the same way of their own accord after some disaster. People just find it hard to be dispassionate in the midst of things.
The hope is that when things do calm down, the real problems won’t be ignored again. It is hard to say.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:34 am
@Steve #289, Ted #280,
I respectfully accept our differences on whether it’s appropriate to compare this incident to 911. As I’ve noted before, I can see why some don’t think that these two events are comparable. My point was to articulate why from some perspectives, they are comparable.
In any case Steve, I think I would agree with the proposition that this is a sad and important enough event for us to deal with by itself – without referring to 911.
The most important thing going forward is for people in Xinjiang to work together to make sure Xinjiang becomes stable enough society where people do not have to die when rumors are spread in the future.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:43 am
@Shane9219 #294,
I guess Al-Jazeera is not as neutral as I made them seem in #287. I have come to respect them because I was sick of the BS American coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan over the years.
You are right they gave a lot of face time to Kadeer initially. And some of their coverage last year on Tibet was questionable at times. But over time, I think they do try to adjust and get things somewhat even keeled.
Al-Jazeera can be biased and can definitely get things wrong, but I feel at least they don’t seem to consciously and continuously do so – and they certainly don’t do as much active fraudulent editorializing as outlets like NY Times.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
deleted – want to revise it
July 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@Raventhorn: I wouldn’t compare Xinjiang or 9/11 to Oklahoma either.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@Charles Liu #285,
“What should happen in US/UK when people hold protest without permit, and police arrive to end it?”
There’s a big difference between “police arrive to end a protest one particular time because it lacks a permit” and “people aren’t allowed to have protests at all”. In the former case, they should go home and resume their protest late. In the latter case, how can they allow themselves to be dispersed, knowing that things will never be any different? If the police then attempt to force them to leave, it is the police who are instigating violence.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@FOARP #253
Che Guevara, Congo and China was involved? I certainly didn’t know, and I smell an award-winning epic film…
OK, honestly so China may owe a few countries an apology. If you add a couple more countries to that list, the list may actually be longer than the list of countries that the Great Britain DO NOT owe an apology. Long after China stopped its revolution exporting business, and started its merchandise exporting business in its earnest, the UK had invaded Iraq by some account causing excess deaths as the percentage of the total population higher than that in China during the Great Leap Forward or in the WW2, and had continued supporting the Apartheid South Africa.
Are you up for the challenges faced by the mankind in the 21st century, or are you consumed by the old fears?
July 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Personally don’t see anything wrong with giving people holding different viewpoints as yours (e.g. Kadeer) air-time by the media — giving Kadeer airtime isn’t the same as endorsing her stories. This is what the media does, reporting stories from different angles. You know what drive me nuts? The media does more than what it’s supposed to: just tell the damn story in who, what, how and why, give me the facts and figures, and stop mixing your opinions in news reporting. Certain news outfits such as NYT, believe so much so that the society as a whole needs “nudge” (coined by Thaler) that it’s ventured into the news creation business, like moving the quote signs around, “tastefully” leave out and add background information that isn’t there, etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Nimrod (298)
It doesn’t calm the anger, it just displaces it. Displacement might avoid an immediate problem, but the repeated blaming of non-Han civil unrest on foreigners has built up over the years. What is the Chinese media going to do to deal with that problem? Look stupid by admitting it was all a placebo? Point the finger at other media groups? At the very least, pointing the finger outside of China’s borders so predictably seems paranoid and reflects badly on the country.
A thoughtful if difficult reflection on underlying problems concerning how Xinjiang is run, who lives there, how they live, etc might not lead to significant anger, but blaming foreigners certainly will create resentment (i.e. towards foreigners). Indeed saying the problem is external may still cause anger towards Uyghurs, as Han people will see them as traitors, spies, stupid and easily manipulated, anti-Han, etc. Making them more aware that there are important issues that need to be resolved will calm them down. One reason Han people get annoyed is that they feel ethnic minorities are treated too well and need to be put in their place/made to earn their keep. Until they realise they don’t have it so good they’ll continue to have little tolerance/less tolerance than they should do for other groups and their problems.
It is time to stop blaming China’s ethnic-social problems on foreigners and, whilst punishing criminals, actually look at and address underlying problems that cause these things to happen. I would like to be surprised, but on previous form this will not happen and the response will be the usual one of dealing with the symptoms, finding a scapegoat and sweeping the real issues under the carpet.
JXie (304)
Were you just a bit annoyed about this issue such that you made a comment you wouldn’t otherwise have done, or do you find the “but country X did worse, so don’t complain about China” argument a valid one? I don’t believe that FOARP has strongly endorsed every aspect of British foreign policy over the last two hundred years or so, so how is your comment relevant? Does coming from a country that has done “wrong” mean that such a person’s views on wrong committed by another country are automatically invalid?
Moreover, it’s clear that FOARP was indicating the ignorance of some commentators’ views about PRC foreign policy since its creation. He was not making an overall judgment on the validity of that foreign policy in order to rank the PRC on some sort of list of countries according to whether their impact on the world has been good/bad in the last few decades.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Otto @ 303, “people aren’t allowed to have protests at all”
Are you suggesting legal and political problems should not be resolved peacefully within the established legal/political framework, but it should be seized as justification for killing looting burning?
We’ve seen many many gorups in China pulling off peaceful protests (arn’t there 80,000 of them every year?) Please don’t tell me people aren’t allowed to protest at all in China.
Like I said, some of you need to stop justifying the violence.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@Raj #306
If that comment of mine offended your British sensibility, that was intentional so that you know. The point in play here is that there are certain foreign government-sponsored outfits such as RFA Uyghur, WUC out there that overall have contributed to the antagonism between different ethnic groups in China, and hurt China’s building of a multi-ethnic society. FOARP’s comment to me seemed to indicate that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and China had it fair share of misery exportation decades ago. My point is if China deserves these — to the end result of such as some innocent Hans in the wrong alleys of Urumqi that day knifed to death, so will the UK only far more so.
Like Confucius said, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Steve @ 295, “Most of her lies seem to have been told after the riot rather than before”
Um, did you miss the citations on Kadeer and WUC’s rationale for calling the 5/3-3/7 protests (turned minority works program into Uyghurs forced/shipped to Guangdong, turned Guangdong brawl investigation into authority into not holding anyone responsible.)
As to your “They have not acknowledged that there are any problems in Xinjiang”
Um, didn’t you read all the articles FMer’s have translated? They are from China’s media/opinion outlets, and they are in fact linking the riot to the policy problem. Again I’m glad to see you claim to not justifying the violence, but if you really believe it, than you need to stop justifying it.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Nimrod
Further to my comment (306), when the 7th July 2005 bombings occurred in London, the natural assumption was that the bombers were foreigners. When people found out that they were British-born/raised, they were shocked. Had that fact been covered up, it might have stopped some anti-Muslim anger. Certainly it led to some difficult questions.
But the fact the information came out was probably a good thing, because it made people realise that previous attitudes towards dealing with different ethnic groups (i.e. letting them get on with it) wasn’t working. There has subsequently been a lot of discussion on the need to bring Muslim groups closer into the wider community, not forcefully but in a positive fashion and stressing that we’re all British and not different just because of our ethnic origins.
JXie (308)
My “British sensibility” is fine – I just thought you were reciting a tired position that normally has no relevance to the discussion in play so it would be good to check whether you really believed it was a valid point.
I can see absolutely nothing in FOARP’s comment that suggest he thinks China deserves what it gets because it has sponsored uprisings elsewhere. After all, it was you who brought in the idea of foreign-instigated civil unrest/foreign backed movements with your earlier comment (246). You can hardly complain if he puts you straight on China’s foreign policy history in light of that and similar “what if” views.
Charles (307)
Please don’t tell me people aren’t allowed to protest at all in China.
Sometimes they can get away with it, but only because the authorities tolerate it. I think Otto was talking about a legal right to protest that can’t be blocked because it’s a protest against the central government, local officials, a well-connected businessman, etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Just wanted to share this choice quote from the CSM editorial “Why China’s ethnic riots help the Communist Party”:
“And to make sure millions of overseas Han hear of such attacks, the government allowed foreign media into Urumqi, the capital of China’s far western Xinjiang region and the traditional homeland of the Uighurs.”
The nerves of those evil commies!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
#308 JXie,
Um, that’s not what Confucius said. His version is subtly quite less aggressive and more accommodating than that of the new testament. If that’s what you are trying to quote, I would totally agree.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@Zepplin #311,
So if Chinese officials allow foreign journalists in – they are damned – t hey are just spreading propaganda.
If they don’t – they are damned, too – they must be hiding something!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Raj, #310
Say it ain’t so… What did I write gave you that understanding, mate?
Let me switch the angle a tad so you may actually see what I said, instead of what you think I said. There have been quite some Han/Hui, Han/Han or Group_A/Group_B conflicts in China, but none of them have grown into what it’s like between Han/Uighur (with side victims such as Hui). Do you know why? Because in the conflicts of the former type, after everybody cools down and reassesses how lives may go on, they all end up agreeing that everybody will have to live with each other together — “Can we just get along?” But in the case of the later type of conflicts, because there is an independent movement, may not necessarily be that viable but nonetheless a movement with foreign sponsorship, some Uighurs may opt for more violences.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Foobar #312, I have seen 己所不欲,勿施于人 translated to that.
Zepplin #311, apparently the CSM editor didn’t realize how powerful the Internet is, and “millions of oversea Hans” don’t need the “foreign media” to get the news. No wonder CSM has been in financial trouble.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Allen,
This reminds me of the debate we had on Tibetan self determination and it’s relationship with ethnicity.
In that debate, you argued that the idea that the ethnicity of the Tibetans gives the grouping a right to self determination (as opposed to the greater Chinese grouping, or the smaller individual grouping, or some arbitrary grouping of tall people) is purely a western construct.
I let that line of thought pass at the time, but I wonder, is ethnicity really just a western construct? I don’t see taller than 5″ Chinese rioting against shorter than 5″ Chinese. Do you think this affair is also a western-originated problem? I view it more as a domestic problem and view the importance of ethnicity as something “universal”. After all, some of the Han themselves admit a fear of the Uyghurs. By extension, I have to say that China, in this case and that of Tibet, is acting in the role of the oppressor and that there is some sympathy to be had with the protesters/rioters.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Well, whatever else comes out of this, The NYT has a really (and intentionally) moving piece on two Han settlers in Urumqi, and the son that they lost to the riots. This, along with their new “room to argue” salon where people can debate about what the Chinese should do with the Uighurs – as if the Uighurs were an old sofa in the basement – in the typical manner of online forums.
Gee, where was this even-handed approach during the Tibet riots? Then, western news outlets were tripping over themselves to play to simplistic notions of good and evil in their portrayl of events… not that I necessarily disagree with that, I just marvel at the difference in coverage. Perhaps if the Uighurs were cute and cuddly, bestowed with magic mystical powers and charm, they might get a little more love… but a bunch of Muslims – a few of whom were in Guantanamo… well, it must feel good for some Chinese to know that there is a dog westerners like to kick more than the Chinese.
And where are the other Muslim nations? I haven’t heard or seen anything from Arab nations, not to mention Indonesia, Malaysia, African Muslims… the amazing lack of Muslim-themed media coverage (aside from decidedly secular Al-Jazeera) is really surprising to me.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@Zepplin #311
You sound as prejudice as those CSM and “human right” guys — always keep reading tea leaf on everything from China, blame China on what did as well as what didn’t.
They don’t come out to condemn violence after seeing so many innocent people, women and kids, slaughtered in execution style, but only calling “all sides to exercise constraint”. What a bunch of hypocrites, apparently human life is not in their definition of human rights. How possible for a “peaceful protest” to turn into a murderous spread of hundreds people in a couple hours? Why they need carry weapons for “peaceful protest” ?
These judgmental and I-think-I-am-decent-but-you-don’t types like to continue to make strong-headed empty argument, while caught with a red face act.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
@ heiheianan
I was reading that piece and kept picturing Nicholas Kristof writing some piece about some ravaged Uygur or Han. I wonder what his wife would say.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
@ Nimrod #298: I can see where you’re coming from but it seems to me to be one of those decisions that looks good when you make it but not so good in hindsight because of its causative effect. So in solving one problem (the local situation) the inaccurate reporting can lead to other consequences. Having said that, I can certainly see why it was made. The situation on the ground was volatile and so the main concern was not to aggravate it in any way. However, this also shoots down Charles’ argument that Chinese media is more trustworthy than worldwide media. Instant reporting, in my mind, is never very accurate, no matter where in the world it occurs.
@ Allen #299: Agree. Let’s just hope this never happens again and remember the victims and their families.
@ #300: Allen, I agree with your assessment of many of the NY Times’ articles and editorials. Of all the American newspapers, I believe the news articles in the Wall Street Journal are the most objective, though their editorials are very subjective. To me, that is the mark of a high journalistic standard.
@ JXie #305: I couldn’t agree more.
@ Charles $309: You’re doing it again. What’s with the binary thinking? Why is everything black and white, 100% or 0%?
I used the phrase “MOST of her lies”. “Most” doesn’t mean “all”, but your subsequent criticism of what I wrote assumes I meant “all”. I didn’t miss anything she said. Here I’m agreeing with most (used that word again) of what you say yet all you can see is the qualifier and assume it’s an absolute.
As for your second critique, we weren’t talking about media outlets, we were talking about the government response. Everything I’ve read coming from government spokesmen has put the onus directly on foreign agitators, specifically Kadeer. If you can show me otherwise, I’d be happy to look.
Charles, I know you’re an IT guy and live in a world of zeros and ones, but you can’t apply that thinking when reading others’ comments. I think you bring a lot to the table and many of your comment help move the discussion along. But if I agree with 99% of what you say, all you can see is the 1% I disagree with and focus solely on that 1%.
“Again I’m glad to see you claim to not justifying the violence, but if you really believe it, than you need to stop justifying it.”
I have no idea what you mean by this sentence, sorry.
@ Zepplin #311: In your comment, you stated it was an editorial. Editorials are supposed to editorialize. They are not supposed to be objective but subjective. They do not reflect the opinion of the media outlet but only of the independent writer. I don’t agree with this editorial opinion myself, but I actually agree with few editorials. Most of them to me are just talking heads who pretend to be experts in every field; jack of all trades, masters of none. I certainly wouldn’t get all worked up over it.
From what I’ve seen, China has no editorial culture. Editorials there are reflective of government positions and not the individual’s opinions. So because it is a different media form, I can see why they are hard to comprehend for someone in China.
@ heiheianan #317: So what you’re saying is that because worldwide coverage is more sympathetic to Han Chinese in this incident, rather than label it as an improvement you label it as racism, nevermind that the media was allowed in this time to report. Couldn’t you just as easily have said that by allowing access, the media was able to do its job and not have to rely on outside organizations trying to spin the story? Isn’t that turning a positive into a negative? Isn’t that the same (though from the opposite viewpoint) angle that Allen complained about in #313?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Can anybody explain the Hui/Uighur contradiction?
Newsweek: “The president of the People’s Hospital said 233 of the 291 victims taken there were Han Chinese, while 39 were Uighur and some were from other minorities, according to Xinhua. The presence of Hui Muslims, another ethnic minority, among the victims highlights Muslim-on-Muslim violence, a tactic that could limit sympathy for Uighur separatists and undermine the claims of rights groups in the Arab world.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/205628/page/2
July 9th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
@Zepplin #316,
I don’t know how to respond since you are mixing so many concepts here.
Regarding ethnicity and self determination, my position was that this idea that every ethnicity somehow deserves a nation was not part of Chinese political thought. The idea that Tibetans are a distinct ethnicity and hence deserve unilaterally some type of “self determination” is what I rejected. Of course, in the case of Tibet, if you go back far enough, there was a Tibetan empire / political unity. But that’s a separate issue than what I was discussing.
As for whether ethnicity exist in China – of course it does. China is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. Over the course of China’s history, there were even ethnic rivalries. The main thrust of Chinese polity – I’d argue however – is always toward a fair, open, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic polity. That’s what we should focus on. Not ethnic bickering.
And yes – “racism” exist in China – but not of the type found in the West. In the West, “racism” was an attitude / ideology developed to oppress – of the I am ordained by God to be great – you are ordained to be my slave type. That does not exist in China – I’d argue. The “racial” conflict you see now are based attitudes that has built up as a result of recent policy. We’ll have many more discussion on that in the coming days, I am sure.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Interesting post I came across from economist some day ago. I can’t find the original link (buried in the many pages of comments (but I found copies from http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2009/07/08/for-uighurs-and-han-in-china-a-shared-mistrust/tab/comments/ and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002368/uighur-unrest-not-another-tiananmen/)
July 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@Shane9219 (#318): “You sound as prejudice as those CSM and “human right” guys — always keep reading tea leaf on everything from China, blame China on what did as well as what didn’t.”
This isn’t directed at me, but I’m curious to know exactly what you mean when you say it’s prejudiced to read the tea leaves about a certain country. I do it all the time, since I don’t have (and probably never will have) access to internal government documents describing the plans or actions for the future. Whatever China, the US, the EU or any other governmental body decides internally is off limits for me, except analyses and statements you can read about in the press or books.
I guess this is not what you mean… Though I’m wondering a little.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
@Steve
Usually, the editorial represents the view of the media, since the editor / publisher writes in that. For example, the NYT always officially endorses candidates in editorials, and that is considered the view of the paper.
The Op-Ed, or opposite editorial, are the opinion pieces by regular or guest columnists, and these do not officially represent the view of the paper. So if Krugman endorses Clinton in the Op-Ed of the NYT, that has nothing to do with the paper’s endorsement at all.
You are right in that it is supposed to be subjective of course.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Ted,
“I wouldn’t compare Xinjiang or 9/11 to Oklahoma either.”
I see no reason to avoid an uncomfortable comparison. Frankly, mob terrorism is far more blood thirst and far more “terrorist” in effect.
Obviously, it has the intended effect of increasing ethnic tension among the civilian population, among more than 1 ethnic group.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
@Shane9219 (#318)
Sorry, I don’t understand you correctly.
Are you referring to my post #311 where I point out the CSM editorial that amusingly condemns the Chinese government for letting in foreign media as part of an insidious plot, or my post #316 where I mention how the Uygurs are oppressed and deserves some sympathy? Or Both?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
rolf,
Uighurs are genetically about 50% Turkish, and 50% Hun. They have distinct Turkish features and they speak their own language.
Hui’s are Muslim Chinese, who look very similar to most other Chinese. Hui’s practice Islam, but they have adopted many Han Chinese customs and Chinese language.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@ Zepplin #325: Sorry, I made an assumption that it was an Op Ed since I didn’t see the original editorial. If as you say it was from the editorial staff of the paper, then I agree with you.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I wouldn’t really call this terrorism, not that it really matters what the word is. I don’t think that this riot was an organized attempt to instill fear into the Han population so as to achieve a political objective. I feel it is more of a spontaneous result of the culmination of raw resentment.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I find “democracy” have too many “spontaneous” events sometimes.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Raventhorn: I’m happy to agree that the victims in every one of those situations were terrified. As Allen said “this is a sad and important enough event for us to deal with by itself – without referring to 911.”
July 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
@rolf #321
Uighurs have settled reasonably stably in the area of today’s Central Asia and South Xinjiang for at least 1000 years. They were Islamized before Genghis Khan took over the bulk of Eurasia. Typically Uighurs are not allowed to marry other ethnic groups, especially Uighur men without being forsaken by the Uighur society.
Most of Huis’ forefathers came from Persia and Arabia to China when the Mongol ruled the world, when they were already Islamic. They took up Chinese names (Mohammad changed to Ma, for instance), and allowed to marry local Chinese. Overtime, most of them look just like your typical Han Chinese other than their religion and customs. From time to time, you may run into individual Huis who have some distinctive non-Han features.
BTW, R4000, if you don’t mind me asking, didn’t you once say you had some Uighur blood in your paternal side? Any more details like Uighur woman/Han man?
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
All I know is my paternal great grandmother had curly hair and green eyes, from what my father and uncles told me. (My father and I both have very curly hair) And she also participated in some type of regular religious activities.
Of course, Shanghai at the time was settled by many different kinds of people, including Uighurs and Jews.
I said I MIGHT have some Uighur blood in me. I’m not certain. (For all I know, she could have been Caucasian, but I doubt that very much.)
July 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
A cousin of mine is a Hui with round and light-colored eyes, and sandy-ish hair. We grew up together and it never occurred to how her features are different, until once a friend of my sister saw my cousin and asked, “how come you have a foreigner friend?” Later I got to know from my uncle who called my cousin 返祖, that his forefather moved to China from Arabia in Ming.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Jane Macartney comes up with an tear inducing article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6677379.ece
July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
JXie: my understanding is that the “Hui” is quite a general category, with a lot of variability. It’s pretty much anybody whose family is Muslim and are native Chinese-speakers going back a few generations prior to 1950, right? That no doubt includes some families with almost all Chinese ancestry going back many generations, as well some other families with a lot of Turkic ancestry relatively recently, probably in the southeast some people with Malay or Cham ancestors, etc., etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“Han” is a pretty general category.
One might just say that “Han” is a the generic default ethnic category for any Chinese who can’t trace back to a specific minority ethnic group.
If someone can trace their family back to “Hui” of any kind, that’s probably good enough.
There are already 54 ethnic groups in China. Any more subdivisions would probably render the category meaningless.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:04 am
The wife of an American colleague of mine is blonde and fair skinned. But she has 1/8 Cherokee Indian blood, and so she qualified for Cherokee Tribal membership, and had scholarships, benefits, etc.
When I heard about it, I was rather surprised.
Races and ethnic groups mix more and more now. That is a good thing.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Otto,
In Qing all modern-day Uighurs, Kazakhs and Huis were called Hui, so then Hui was more about their common religious belief. In Xinjiang, there was a saying “南回北准” — Hui (actually mostly Uighur) to the South and Zungar to the North. Zungars were wiped out by Qing, which is another story all together. From mid-ROC on, Uighur was separated from Hui as a different category again much like in Yuan.
The Islamic influence never quite went to the east of Tian Shan historically, and as far as I know there was no Islamic conversion of the locals at where most Huis now congregate such as Ningxia. Most Chinese keep pretty good family-tree records in their ancestral homes. The Huis I know of all could trace back their family trees back to foreign migrations. Conceivably some Huis could be from the Malay and Cham stocks if they were Islamic when they settled in China — I am not quite sure one way or the other though.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Raven my grandmother is miao ren, so I have curly hair.
And @#$%, 335 comments later, finally a little bit of justice. Thank you Jane Macartney.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:30 am
At least she just stuck to the bare facts as she saw and heard. Not the inevitable “psychoanalysis of the perpetrators”.
Miao girls are cool.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Note: the same article as Allen #336
“Search for Han Chinese sister whose family were butchered by Uighurs”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6677379.ece
“We saw hundreds of Uighurs running down the street on the afternoon of July 5. About ten suddenly rushed into the store. They began to hit the people inside, even the old mother, with bricks and stones. They tried to run outside. Then they were dragged back inside.
“There were terrible screams. Just wordless screams. But then very quickly they fell silent.”
“He found no survivors, only four bodies. He has yet to discover the fate of his sister. ”
This was once a tight-netted family of 5 with a boy of age 13.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:11 am
@ Charles Liu 341,
Quite the victim complex you have going on there!
July 10th, 2009 at 2:14 am
@ Raventhorne 342,
You said: “At least she just stuck to the bare facts as she saw and heard. Not the inevitable “psychoanalysis of the perpetrators”.”
So are you suggesting all articles on the earlier Han on Uighur butchery in Shaoguan that mentioned the fact that the Han were motivated to indiscriminately kill Uighurs by fake rumors and a desire for revenge were also ‘biased’?
Should discussion stick only to the “bare facts”?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:24 am
@Allen #191,
Well, not surprisingly, we’ve again reached a point where we have such basic differences that there’s no common ground to continue discussion. Suffice to say that I don’t think that migration controls for states orfor sub-state entities are necessarily “narrow minded, unenlightened, and racist”, while you think that in a perfect world, all such limitations would be done away with on those grounds. I’m glad that John Lennon was never president or anything close to it, while you perhaps think that would be peachy. Oh, well, to each his own.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Well, yes, the spreading of the “rumors” were facts. and no one is excusing their behavior as “genuine grievance” against the other side.
I see no “psychoanalysis” to delve into the pains of the Han perpetrators. Unlike the “psychoanalytic speculations” that the Western Media is engaging for the Xinjiang rioters.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:28 am
COMMENT DELETED FOR AD HOMINUM ATTACK
July 10th, 2009 at 2:35 am
#307 Charles,
Are you suggesting legal and political problems should not be resolved peacefully within the established legal/political framework, but it should be seized as justification for killing looting burning?
That looks like two questions to me. 1) If the established legal/political framework is sufficiently corrupt, then, sure, there are problems that cannot be solved inside of it. One could imagine a hypothetical completely noxious legal system in which no problems are resolvable. 2) No, that does not justify killing, looting, or burning of innocent people, and, of course, I didn’t say it did.
We’ve seen many many groups in China pulling off peaceful protests (arn’t there 80,000 of them every year?) Please don’t tell me people aren’t allowed to protest at all in China.
How many protests in Xinjiang by Uighurs against central government policies?
Like I said, some of you need to stop justifying the violence.
I find it very offensive that you claim that I did. What I’m saying is that, if there is a peaceful protest and the police try to stop it without a valid legal reason (viz one that is in accord with the Chinese constitution, “Article 35: Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration”), then the police and the people who give them orders are responsible for creating a violent incident. If anyone then takes advantage of the chaos to attack an innocent bystander, that is still completely unjustified.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:41 am
“Fear and loathing on China’s Silk Road”
http://www.theage.com.au/world/fear-and-loathing-on-chinas-silk-road-20090708-dddk.html?page=1
“Some of the worst violence happened close to here on Sunday night, especially around a Uighur area called Shanxi Lane.
Chen Xiang, a 20-year-old Han man who had joined in the pursuit of the two Uighur boys, explains why he was so angry. A close friend of his, surnamed Jiang, was on his way home from decorating his new house on Sunday night when Uighurs lobbed a petrol bomb onto his No. 3 bus as it reached Shanxi Lane. The bus caught fire and he jumped off.
Uighurs then beat him senseless.
“I just saw him at the Children’s Hospital and he cannot move, and has only just managed to talk again,” Chen says.”
People: just tell me why these Sunday Uighers armed with petrol bombs to attack innocent people without provocation are not premeditated terrorists.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:44 am
“If the established legal/political framework is sufficiently corrupt, then, sure, there are problems that cannot be solved inside of it. One could imagine a hypothetical completely noxious legal system in which no problems are resolvable.”
One could imagine such a “noxious” political framework as “peaceful” demonstrations that turn into murderous riots.
Which would render the current problem stalemate.
But somehow, I get the feeling that people on both sides will still try their own way, regardless of the cost.
So, to each his own.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Otto @ 349, I hope you can see I’m not the only one seeing you justifying the violence.
If the legal/political framework is the problem, then go about changing the framework first; if the problem is the system than change the system peacefully.
The Native American’s broken treaties have been in such position for over 100 years in Whiteman’s courts, and do you see them using it as justification to kill loot burn Whites?
And do you think few hundred Uyghurs have the right to decide for millions of Ugyhurs that the system is “sufficiently corrupt”? Somebody posted a survy that over 85% of Ugyhurs are proud to be Chinese.
Like I said, some of you need to stop justifying the violence. One breath you say it doen’t justify, but next breath you utter all these “buts”…
US constitution gaurantee “pursuit of happiness”, so I can do whatever makes me happy irregardless? On the same hand Chinese constitution Article 35 has limits as stated by law. To use the illegal assembly which the police had leagal right to end, as justification for “turning violent”, is the real shame here.
Have some courage man, if you believe those 130 Hans deserved it but the 26 Ughurs didn’t, just say so.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:55 am
@Otto Kerner #349
Assume you know the basic requirement for a real peaceful protest is pre-registration.
A mob gathering with intent and action to kill innocent people out of racial hatred are a bunch of murderous terrorists.
Do not make any senseless argument with a red face to insult people’s intelligence. A rotten egg is a rotten egg, you can make it into an apple.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Charles,
To be fair to Otto, it is not a justification, but an excuse to change the topic.
The classic, “I murdered your family, but let’s talk about the REAL problem of you need to be nicer to me.”
July 10th, 2009 at 3:40 am
@346 #Otto Kerner,
Very surprised about this post. I don’t think you understood #191 at all. It was not about immigration or migration control at all.
On second thought … maybe I’m not surprised at all.
To each his own.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Charles,
I refuse to discuss this with you further, since your behaviour seems quite childish to me, except to point out that the final sentence of my post was “If anyone then takes advantage of the chaos to attack an innocent bystander, that is still completely unjustified.” There are no qualifications attached to that statement.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Allen,
Well, my post #189, which you responded to in #191 was about immigration controls. So, if your response was not about immigration controls, then I am surprised as well.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Shane,
“Assume you know the basic requirement for a real peaceful protest is pre-registration.”
If a hypothetical Uighur organisation in Xinjiang were to file an application for pre-registration to hold a peaceful protest against central government policies, do you imagine it would be handled fairly?
July 10th, 2009 at 4:13 am
@Otto Kerner #357,
That’s ok. At first, we were both talking different things. We were talking about migration control within a state. You then brought up migration control between states. I thought those two concepts form completely different subjects … but when you pushed me to discuss the latter, whether such controls was “narrow minded” and so on, I expanded the topic to the concept of a “state” by itself is “narrow minded” if you care about humanity in general. I don’t know how anyone can disagree with that.
Anyways, I don’t know if we disagreed per se. But this time (and many other times as well), we definitely did not communicate!
July 10th, 2009 at 4:29 am
@Otto Kerner
Of course, requests would be granted if a concern is valid and genuine.
Earlier last year, there were many protests by school teachers on issues of their pay, because the law says teachers need to paid on the same scale as civil servants, and government just adjusted pay for civil servants. Their wish was granted after a brief dialogue with State Council.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:34 am
Three people saw you justfying the violennce now. Either the world is crazy or you need to read what you wrote again. The illegal assembly is the cause of the “chaos”, not police enforcing law of the land.
So protest pre-registration not being handled fiarly justify killing burning looting? You keep trying to justify it. You don’t see wether the permit would be handled fiarly, or not, has nothing to do with the violence?
If the law is wrong, change it within the system. If the system is wrong, change the system, then change the law. There’s no justification for violence don’t you agree? Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. would agree with this characterization of his principle of non-violence?
If you agree then please stop justifying the violence. If you really, and I suspect, belive the violence is justified, feel free to say so, I’m tired of running around in circles with these “not justifiable… but”.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Otto,
Even in US and Canada,
Free speech is limited by local laws determining “time, manner and place”.
When the authority say “OK, break it up”, it mean you had enough time already to make your point.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@ Raventhorne 347,
You said: “Well, yes, the spreading of the “rumors” were facts. and no one is excusing their behavior as “genuine grievance” against the other side.
I see no “psychoanalysis” to delve into the pains of the Han perpetrators. Unlike the “psychoanalytic speculations” that the Western Media is engaging for the Xinjiang rioters.”
Unfortunately, that Uighur are collectively pissed off and frustrated is also a fact.
Doesn’t make murdering people right. However, like it or not, it is part of the story.
Actually, it sounds like those Han in Shaoguan who murdered the Uighurs were also pissed off and frustrated. Am I allowed to mention that they were pissed off? Must I label those Uighur murdering Han “terrorists” to demonstrate that I am not anti-China?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
COMMENT DELETED FOR CHILDISH INSULT
July 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@ Shane 9219 350,
You said: “People: just tell me why these Sunday Uighers armed with petrol bombs to attack innocent people without provocation are not premeditated terrorists.”
Clearly there is some premeditation, but why “terrorists”? Petrol bombs are practically par for the course in a massive riot. I’m not condoning the behavior. Obviously it is completely illegal and murderous. But I don’t understand. ..
I really really really do NOT understand. ..
Why you are so utterly determined to label the rioters as “terrorists”. What does using this label achieve for you?
Oh, and what about the Han in Shaoguan who armed themselves with sticks and knives and then, with premeditation, indiscriminately murdered innocent Uigurs? Are they also “terrorists”?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
COMMENT DELETED FOR OFFENSIVE CRUDE LANGUAGE
July 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@ Shane 353.
You said: “A mob gathering with intent and action to kill innocent people out of racial hatred are a bunch of murderous terrorists.”
Are they? I’d call them a mob of racists planning a murderous rampage.
Why do you like this terrorist label so much?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I think what we agree is praying for the victims and condamning the killers. The cause of this riot is most properly the tension between Han and Uyghur. The tension has been highlighted these years as the imbalance development of economic among regions(Xingjiang locates in most west of China, whereas the east China develops fast, is more rich and people are more competent). Many of Han people in Xingjiang are newcome,and many of them are more competent in finding jobs than Uyghur people. These years Xingjiang is developing fast, but it still drops behind. But Chinese government does not have many method except for derating tax, money support for public infrastructure and some others. I agree on the idea that Chinese government is not democratic(i’m also strongly dissatisfied), such as marchrally is not easy to be permitted. But I don’t agree on Uyghur people are persecuted or discriminated as some organizations claimed. In fact, uyghur and other minority people in some fields have prerogative, such as lower scores needed in college entrance examination and more children are allowed(China practices one-child policy,and only one birth is allowed). Thus in my opinion, the underlying reason is the poverty and the lack of understanding or tolerance. Honestly, I’m Han Chinese. Sorry for my poor english.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@ Raventhorne 354,
You said: “The classic, “I murdered your family, but let’s talk about the REAL problem of you need to be nicer to me.””
And presumably the family were murdered by terrorists?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Think Ming,
“Unfortunately, that Uighur are collectively pissed off and frustrated is also a fact.
Doesn’t make murdering people right. However, like it or not, it is part of the story.
Actually, it sounds like those Han in Shaoguan who murdered the Uighurs were also pissed off and frustrated. Am I allowed to mention that they were pissed off? Must I label those Uighur murdering Han “terrorists” to demonstrate that I am not anti-China?”
You can mentioned that the Han Chinese were pissed off, but I don’t see you attributing their pain to fault of the Uighurs.
And you seemed to be ignoring how outsiders are amplifying the Uighurs’ pain and rousing them to violence.
Seems like you are the only one missing the big part of the story. Like it or not.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Shane 9219 350
Think Ming 365
Maybe you two have different definition of “terrorists”. I thik it is not fit to label these rioters as terrorists. This kind of riot is often out of control as hatred is easy to be excited. In such circumstance, the mind of people is full of hatred, and they would not consider the consequence such as the murders in Shaoguan. What in their mind is retaliating, so the murders in the Shaoguan riot shouted: “dare you rape, I will beat you to death” as a video recorded. But they forgot to consider the legal consequence and if the person under his truncheon is innocent.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Robert,
These riots are based upon rumors. Then the question is, who planted the rumors and for what purpose.
Terrorism is just an ordinary crime with a more specific intent to cause “intimidation to civilians” OR “force policy change in government”.
In Shaoguan, there was 1 disgruntled ex-employee who spread the rumors about the Uighurs, but he was actually disgruntled about the factory management, and he wanted a riot to damage the factory.
In Xinjiang, the rioters were motivated by rumors spread by WUC in the West, and to imitate what happened in Lhasa. Clearly the WUC intended to cause “intimidation to civilians” and to “force policy change in government”.
*The distinction between a mere riot and a terrorist act is not the criminal action taken, but the intent behind it.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@ Think Ming!: You may want to re-read the rules of the blog. I deleted #364 & 366 for obvious reasons.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
raventhorn
I agree with you on labeling WUC as a terrerist organization as most of their members are once members of World Uyghur Youth Congress, a worldwidely recognized terrerist organization including USA. The rumors, the murders and those intent to kill innocent people could be called terrerists. But if you label all these rioters as terrorists, maybe it is too extreme. By way, the rape event is obviously existed
July 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I have been following closely this long thread and I have found more useful opinions and links here than in any other media/blog on the internet. One of the best FM threads in my opinion. Since you started the moderation policies the quality of the debate has increased a lot. Congratulations FM!
BACK ON TOPIC-> I am a bit late on this, so I am not willing to re-open all the debates, but just to state my opinion for the record:
1 – I didn’t imagine I would be saying this, but, in the light of the information available, I think the Chinese government has handled the crisis remarkably well. Actually, the main objection I would make is that on Sunday they should have used MORE force to avoid the murders commited by criminal Uygurs.
2 – Still, I don’t think what happened can be labeled as terrorism. It is criminal, it is disgusting, and those who killed people need to be punished. But in my opinion it is not terrorism, unless we find some more information that proves it (ie. it was long premeditated, links with Al Qaida, etc.)
3 – Nobody should pay attention to that old lady in Washington, she doesn’t know what she is talking about. She is a mercenary and in the end she will only create problems for her own people. The Chinese government should completely ignore her, focusing attention on her is risking to create a new hero, and I dont think this is an intelligent move.
4- We have seen, as usual, quite a few biased Western media articles, but also some great examples of brave, unbiased reporting. Mr. Foster of the Telegraph is the best example I have seen up to now, pity he is leaving on holidays because people like him make a difference. Which comes to prove that it is silly to speak of “Western Media” as a whole. Unlike Chinese media, Western media is diverse and (relatively) free, and it is able to give many different angles for the intelligent reader to form an opinion.
5 – I would’t say this is a problem of Han being racist. Actually, from what I have seen, Uygurs seem to me in general more racist than Han, and even in Shanghai they often look down on the rest of the Chinese, and make disdainful remarks. Han Chinese are very proud of their country and their history, and they can be very nationalistic, but anyone who has lived in China for some time knows that there is no such thing as Han racism. They are proud of being Chinese, not of being Han.
6 – Having said all this, it is clear that the minority policies of the CPC have failed, and I have the feeling that the CPC one-party system is structurally unable to do any better. (this point for later discussion, not time to elaborate now,).
July 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Robert,
I would not label them as “terrorists”, but I would say that they were USED by “terrorists” to commit “terrorist acts”. Which is why China is only going after the ringleaders to get to the core “terrorist elements” among the rioters for severe punishments. The other rioters will be punished merely according to the specific acts, such as murder, looting, arson.
But that’s being generous.
In US, accomplice liability would be imposed on all those who participated with the same specific intent of the conspiracy of “terrorism”, even if the followers of the riot did not know or intend “terrorism”.
For example, a gang plot rob a bank, but unknown to all the followers, the ringleader intended to shoot the bank president for revenge. In US, the entire gang would be convicted of murder, under the accomplice liability theory and the conspiracy liability theory.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
FYI: In the China Digital Times appeared this article about which search words the government is blocking concerning the Urumqi riots.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Uln @375:
Regarding your point one that there should’ve been more police out on streets, I definitely read from some articles that police were out on the main streets where the “peaceful protest” happened, There were scuffle, but police were in charge. And according to doctor, most bodies were found in back alleys, at least initially, presumably when police were deployed on main streets.
So the question is, was the protest on main street simply to ruse to attract police attention, to provide cover and distraction for the killing in back streets?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@377
[blockquote]
以下关键词请屏蔽无结果，不设相关搜索，今日(8日)19时生效。
Please screen out the following keywords, no relevant search results. Effective starting 7 pm today [July 8, 2009]
“ 新疆汉族过的生活”、”Life of Han Chinese in Xinjiang”
“新疆汉族 悲惨”、“悲惨 新疆汉族” 、“新疆汉族 悲惨地位”、“新疆汉人 悲惨地位”“新疆汉人 悲惨”、“新疆汉人悲惨地位”、“ 悲惨 新疆汉人”、
“Xinjiang Han Chinese, miserable” “Xinjiang Han Chinese, miserable position”
[/blockquote]
Clearly the intent here is to reduce risk for escalating ethnic tension, to calm down the situation. Should western media decry the new steps of censorship like they’ve always been doing, or should they turn a blind eye this time?
On the otherwise, we have WaPo etc provides a platform for Kadeer to spread her liars, with clear intent to inflame an already volatile situation, who has no regards for further loss of innocent lives, all in the name of freedom of press. Is that really responsible journalism?
July 10th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
@wukong #379,
This is a topic worthy of a separate thread – the idea whether censorship for public safety (real, immediate public safety rather than just some abstract notion of political stability) is justified…
Starting tomorrow, I’ll be travelling for about a week – so I won’t be able to do this post.
If anyone submits a post, I’m sure we’ll publish it.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Very detailed article from Guardians UK on the event in GuangDong
“Old suspicions magnified mistrust into ethnic riots in Urumqi
— Job creation and integration went violently wrong in Guangdong”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/china-riots-uighurs-han-urumqi
July 10th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Gosh, how terribly this had gone wrong from the first arrival dancing to make friends, which would be cool to see…
July 10th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
@ Steve 373,
And did you also delete the equally offensive comment I was responding to in one of those cases?
I’m talking about Shane’s comment at 348.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@ Raventhorne 370,
You said: “You can mentioned that the Han Chinese were pissed off, but I don’t see you attributing their pain to fault of the Uighurs.”
No, In fact I have clearly said that many Uighurs have a big chip on their shoulder, and this can make them a real pain in the arse to deal with. I have said that I do not envy the task of the Chinese government in Xinjiang.
I have worked with Uighurs (unlike almost everybody else shooting their mouths off here) and, frankly, I dread dealing with them because they can be a real nuisance. Everyday situations so easily degenerate into squeals of ‘anti-Uighur racism’.
If you go around behaving in a totally negative manner, blaming the rest of the world for your failings, engaging in ‘face’ based gamesmanship (because ‘face’ is all you have), and so on, people are going to lose interest in trying to get along with you. Unfortunately, this is exactly how many Uighurs behave. . . Doesn’t mean they deserve to be murdered for it, or rounded up and arrested in their thousands, or presented with major hurdles in getting passports, or denied religious freedom, or strongly encouraged to shave when growing facial hair is part of their culture, or restricted from going on the Haj, or spied on by secret police, or dismissed as a load of thieves, but they absolutely do have a problem.
You said: “And you seemed to be ignoring how outsiders are amplifying the Uighurs’ pain and rousing them to violence.”
I’ve spent enough time in Xinjiang to be able to tell you that no outsiders are needed to instigate violence in Xinjiang. I understand that you are eager to blame outsiders because apportioning blame in such a way can feed the uniquely Chinese chip on your shoulder (the xenophobia chip), but the internal problems in Xinjiang are quite bad enough already.
You said: “Seems like you are the only one missing the big part of the story. Like it or not.”
And I’d say, completely confidently I might add (given that I know far more about Xinjiang and Uighurs than you do), that by obsessing about ‘terrorism’ and ‘anti-China forces’, you are the one missing the big picture.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:29 am
“Unfortunately, this is exactly how many Uighurs behave. . . Doesn’t mean they deserve to be murdered for it, or rounded up and arrested in their thousands, or presented with major hurdles in getting passports, or denied religious freedom, or strongly encouraged to shave when growing facial hair is part of their culture, or restricted from going on the Haj, or spied on by secret police, or dismissed as a load of thieves, but they absolutely do have a problem.”
Sounds like you have a real negative feeling about Uighurs. But doesn’t mean that your motives for disliking them is attributable to the official Chinese policies. The laws against “sedition” is applied uniformly. I see no singling out of any ethnic group by their ethnicity. If their conducts violate the laws, that’s their own guilt, not the law’s problem.
“’ve spent enough time in Xinjiang to be able to tell you that no outsiders are needed to instigate violence in Xinjiang. I understand that you are eager to blame outsiders because apportioning blame in such a way can feed the uniquely Chinese chip on your shoulder (the xenophobia chip), but the internal problems in Xinjiang are quite bad enough already.”
we have enough evidence of foreign support and organization of violence in Xinjiang. They might not “need it” to do violence, but outside instigation is still a factor. Obviously, it needs to be “apportioned”.
“And I’d say, completely confidently I might add (given that I know far more about Xinjiang and Uighurs than you do), that by obsessing about ‘terrorism’ and ‘anti-China forces’, you are the one missing the big picture.”
You are entitled to your personal opinion, I have an uncle who lived in Xinjiang most of his life. He went there in his teens.
And I have seen race riots in US. Bad as it was in LA gangland, only 53 people were killed in a riot that lasted over 6 days!!!
If you choose to believe Xinjiang could riot and kill over 150 over the course of a single night, purely because of internal problems, that’s your opinion. But I don’t think Uighurs are particularly more violent than any other people.
Killing over 150 people and injuring over 1000 in 1 night, takes a particularly set of aims, and specific target of innocent lives. The numbers show that it’s far more heinous in motive than mere “ethnic discontent”.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Raventhorne you said: “I don’t think Uighurs are particularly more violent than any other people.”
I’d classify them as fairly violent myself, and an awful lot of them wander around carrying knives – a great way to see fights escalate to become lethal.
And you have an uncle in Xinjiang? Give me a break. . . Have you ever actually been to Xinjiang? Have you lived there? Worked there?
July 11th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Does anyone remember that news from a few years back about rival Chinese villages in some backwards part of the country (Gansu? Guangxi?) who were going to war over land disputes and had actually built their own cannons and were firing them at each other? I can’t remember the details now, exactly where it was, whether people died, and so on. . .
But you can have this major events (involving freaking canons!) where it is Chinese-on-Chinese and not a question is raised about ‘external anti-China forces’, yet when similar chaos involves Uighur Muslims it suddenly becomes ‘terrorism’, and not only terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by external anti-China forces, and thus not a domestic Chinese problem at all.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am
@ Raventhorn 385,
You said: “Sounds like you have a real negative feeling about Uighurs. But doesn’t mean that your motives for disliking them is attributable to the official Chinese policies. The laws against “sedition” is applied uniformly. I see no singling out of any ethnic group by their ethnicity. If their conducts violate the laws, that’s their own guilt, not the law’s problem.”
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Can you clarify?
July 11th, 2009 at 1:14 am
The laws against “sedition” is applied uniformly. I see no singling out of any ethnic group by their ethnicity. If their conducts violate the laws, that’s their own guilt, not the law’s problem.
Whether your impression of Uighurs is a “nuisance to deal with” has nothing to do with the character of China’s policies.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:17 am
“But you can have this major events (involving freaking canons!) where it is Chinese-on-Chinese and not a question is raised about ‘external anti-China forces’, yet when similar chaos involves Uighur Muslims it suddenly becomes ‘terrorism’, and not only terrorism, but terrorism orchestrated by external anti-China forces, and thus not a domestic Chinese problem at all.”
Well, it’s evident that no one has found any external funding or support for these “Chinese-on-Chinese” violence yet, but if someone can trace the money to an external source, it would be a valid theory of “terrorism”.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:53 am
@ Raventhorn 389,
You keep talking about the laws against sedition. . .
I never mentioned laws against sedition.
I said:
1 – Uighurs can be difficult to deal with, because at the first sign of difficulty they tend to resort to crying ‘racism’, ‘discrimination’ and so on.
2 – Having said that, in fact Uighurs do face a fair bit of discrimination (religious restrictions, being spied on, ‘encouraged’ to shave, etc).
Now can you clarify the link to the laws against sedition?
By the way, have you ever been stopped and questioned by secret police in Xinjiang? I have. It wasn’t a bit deal, and within a few minutes I was again going merrily on my way. That said, it was still an unsettling experience. Just another of the many experiences of everyday life in Xinjiang that I possess and you do not.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:11 am
@ Think Ming! #383: Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it and it was over the line. Shane, you ought to know better.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Think Ming,
I used the law of sedition as an example of policies.
*
I had a Mexican friend of mine who was pulled over by police in Florida, while he was riding a bicycle. (He attributed it to racism, I can’t say for sure one way or another.)
I avoid the police like a plague and I blend in quite well. (my mild manner I suppose.)
I know what police can “stop” people for, and believe me, they need very little justification, even in US.
It’s unsettling. I have no illusions about it. I study law, I know exactly what police are capable of. (Read enough cases of police abuse to turn heads about the stories.)
July 11th, 2009 at 2:47 am
@ Raventhorn 393,
Not to split hairs on the police issue, but it is one thing to have officious uniformed policemen randomly pull you aside and quite another to have a couple of guys in plain clothes quietly follow you around town for an hour, then pounce and start demanding to search your bags. That’s just weird and scary, and you wonder how they have that much time to invest in following you.
I’m sure both situations occur in the US as well as in China, but in Xinjiang (or more specifically parts of Xinjiang – places perceived as ‘problem areas’, like Yili, Kashgar and Hetian) these plain clothes police seem to be all over the place.
Living long-term in those places must be weird.
I know for a fact that many young Uighurs from the smaller cities enjoy life in Wulumuqi because life is just ‘freer’ – less surveillance from the state (or at least greater anonymity given the larger crowds), and less surveillance from their own conservative Uighur society (mosques, elders, families, etc.).
Of course ironically Wulumuqi is where the worst trouble in decades occurs, so I guess Wulumuqi will now become surveillance central for the foreseeable future.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Think Ming,
You have never seen an undercover cop or an unmarked police vehicle? Of course it’s weird.
“Of course ironically Wulumuqi is where the worst trouble in decades occurs, so I guess Wulumuqi will now become surveillance central for the foreseeable future.”
Yes, no choice now. Even some of the Uighurs are asking for more security and more protections. You won’t get much more “plain cloth” police there, but there will be a lot more visible police.
That’s how they dealt with LA riot, and how they dealt with crimes in NYC, MORE visible police presence has been demonstrated to deter crime.
One can call it simple government “intimidation”, but it works.
Also why we had rifle bearing Military in US airports after 9/11.
*People sometimes complain about police intrusions, but always later screaming for more protections.
Sign of times, even in US.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Raventhorn, of course I realize that undercover police (plus paid informers etc.) exist in western countries.
However, they are present in Xinjiang (or at least parts of the province) on a massive scale.
Where I am from such a massive plain clothes police presence would only be deployed during a major event (say a when numerous heads of state are in town for a summit). In parts of Xinjiang this type of deployment is the regular state of affairs.
It creates a weird situation.
Seriously. . .
In most parts of China people freely speak their mind about politics. Their opinions may be a bit skewed (from my perspective anyway) but they are mostly voiced with gusto and without fear of repercussions. In Xinjiang even apparently innocuous things are discussed in hushed tones if at all.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:44 am
I have to take your word for it, Think Ming,
Though I have noticed that generally, some Chinese cities are more free in expression than others.
Probably due to local history and local issues. And some Chinese cities are far less likely to have brawls and riots in general. (Shanghai for example, has very little police presence, and is not known for having any kind of mass scale violence in its history. Yet some country side towns and villages have historical bloody feuds between clans and families.)
Weird perhaps, but I think there are probably historical reasons to justify the extra precautions.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Ha ha, we used to play the “find the undercover cops” game on Tiananmen Square every time we went there. It’s really easy to do once you start looking for them. 😛
July 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
My friend and I got pulled over by an undercover cop in South Carolina on our way to DC once.
He was driving his unmarked police vehicle and followed us closely for 5 miles, scaring the hell out my friend. I told her to drive normal, but she sped up, trying to pull some distance with the car.
Then he pulled us over and gave her a speeding ticket.
Talk about entrapment.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
A speeding ticket for speeding – how dare he! 😉
Whilst your friend might have been worried, from the cop’s POV it could have been a poor excuse to defend speeding.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
That’s what I told her.
Of course, now she’s paranoid about cops.
Funny thing about law enforcement and civilian tensions.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
If she’s paranoid about the Police because she’s been given a speeding ticket, that really is her problem. I must admit that I find it hard to accept that even a significant minority, let alone a majority, of people would become paranoid because of a £60 fine (whatever the US equivalent is). Whereas the sort of poor treatment that some people suffer in Xinjiang justifies suspicion of the authorities much more than would be the case with your friend.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
She’s paranoid not just because of a ticket, it was the unmarked police car that followed us up close for 5 miles.
But hey, I guess undercover cops don’t make everyone paranoid. I’m not paranoid, just some people.
🙂
July 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
R4K: He probably followed her because of the suspicious looking passenger in her car. 😉
July 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Steve, I’m not falling for your attempt to make me paranoid. 🙂
Oh yes, it was my rental car afterall, and the CIA was trying to send me a message and warn me not to talk about them any more on the FM forums.
🙂
And of course, at the time, I was going to DC to expose all of their black-ops programs to the Chinese media.
Because, as you know, every Chinese person could be a spy. 🙂
July 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Chinese guy with curly hair? Probably a wig; the cop thought you on your way to rob a bank.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Yes, to some police, a Chinese with curly hair would be a reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop, but I think the Supreme Court would rule otherwise.
In which case, I’m not the paranoid one. The undercover cop needs some psych evaluation.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:08 am
@Raj (#402): “I must admit that I find it hard to accept that even a significant minority, let alone a majority, of people would become paranoid because of a £60 fine (whatever the US equivalent is).”
The US equivalents, based on all the signs I’ve seen in the Bay Area, are very strange numbers like $204, $271 etc. These are not all for speeding, but I guess the same standards apply. It’s one of the mysteries of the US (or perhaps just California) for me – I’ve always wondered how they came up with those and not just something like $200.
As for being paranoid, I possess that trait and will be nervous just by being questioned by somebody in authority. Luckily it doesn’t happen too often, but it singles me out not by being a wrongdoer, but because I appear nervous.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:35 am
RT, why would she be paranoid now about being “followed” by an unmarked Police car? Surely after finding out it was driven by a policeman she’d be ok. Unless she started turning left and right down different streets randomly it’s possible for much of the time the copper was on a planned route.
Wukailong, but you’re not paranoid of the authorities because you’ve been questioned sometimes, right?
July 12th, 2009 at 12:42 am
@Raj: “but you’re not paranoid of the authorities because you’ve been questioned sometimes, right”
No, that’s right. I’m just worried about people who have too much power, in general. 😉
July 12th, 2009 at 1:14 am
“why would she be paranoid now about being “followed” by an unmarked Police car? Surely after finding out it was driven by a policeman she’d be ok. Unless she started turning left and right down different streets randomly it’s possible for much of the time the copper was on a planned route.”
Let me put it this way, perhaps you will understand: Next time, you are being followed up close by someone, will you just then assume “Oh, must be an undercover cop”?
Or would you be more unsure about what you are supposed to do? Is it some gangbanger following you around? Is it some cop? Did you do something wrong? Should you call the police, if it is a gangbanger?
You tell me, what would you do next time you are followed up close by some car for 5 miles?
Like I said, I’m not paranoid, but some people would be concerned.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:07 am
“Charity follows Xinjiang Violence”
“Maolaxifu Rishat, a businessman of the Tartar ethnic group who was the first to propose a comfort fund for riot victims, donated 5,200 yuan on behalf of 14 donators from 14 different ethnic groups.
“We pray for national unity in Xinjiang, so that we can have a peaceful and harmonious environment,” he said. ”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/12/content_11693797.htm
July 12th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Wow, this thread has sprouted wings. Nothing like a minority issue in China to get people good and lathered. Also notable that, if you replaced Kadeer and WUC with Dalai Lama and TGIE respectively, this thread would probably be superimposable onto any given 3/14 riot thread from the last year and a half. On the one hand, I wonder if that suggests that the grievances of minorities in China are more similar than they are dissimilar; on the other, I wonder if some people’s reflex responses are already so stereotyped to render them unable to tell the difference, if any such difference existed. On the third hand, illegal violent riotous and destructive/murderous acts should be condemned without qualification; on the fourth, while stipulating that the underlying ethnic problems may be deep-seated and difficult to resolve, it never ceases to amaze me that so many are willing to place the straw that broke the camel’s back in the hands of a senior citizen sitting miles away. Of all the issues facing minorities in CHina today, should gullibility and susceptibility to manipulation be tacked on the list?
July 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Readings from NED propaganda, and one would find the same assertions.
Ever watch that short lived online video “bum fighting” series? They paid homeless people $20 to beat the crap out of each other on US streets, and videotaped it.
Hmm… Does that say something about exploiting poor people?
July 12th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
A friend of mine, who is a journalist for a major Chinese TV station, has been in Xinjiang since 7.5 to report on the riot. I talked to him on phone twice since.
The first call was on the last Friday, he told me:
– The foreign journalists have been very free to report on the riot this time. The Chinese government made effort to accommodate them. Their treatment was even better than the Chinese journalists. For instance, the hotel they stayed had internet access which was not the same for others
– ‘How is Urumqi now?’ I asked. There are strong presence of the security force in the city. there were messages everywhere showing on banners, slogans, and by louder speakers, telling people ‘we are a big family… we should be united’
– My friend was supposed to go to Kashi for reporting at that day, but couldn’t make it.
The next day, I saw several reports by western journalists complaining that the government had ordered them to leave Kashi with reason of ‘for their own security’. When reading these articles, I was wondering what happened there.
Today, I talked to him on phone again.
-I asked him why the western journalists were not allowed to stay in Kashi? He said it’s not true. Western journalists have their own information source. Last Friday, all of sudden, half of western journalists left Urumqi for Kashi without informing the Chinese side. But, the government allowed them to stay in Kashi except several who have no press cards.
– He said Chinese soldiers had been really professional so far. They were very cautious, specially when dealing with Uighurs, even when talking, the soldiers would pay attention to their tone.
– He told me an incident he had heard. Two American journalists interviewed Uighurs in such a way that they were actually inciting violence. Seeing this, the Chinese staff tried to calm down the situation and got beaten badly by Uighurs.
Out of angry, my friend said ‘I feel these journalists just wish some thing bad happen. they don’t care the security of the Chinese staff at all (这些记者就希望有点儿事发生，才不管你中方人员被打死了怎么办！)‘
July 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
BBC:Turkey attacks China ‘genocide’
July 12th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
One does get the feeling that Western Media are beyond criticizing now, and they are actually inciting for further violence.
July 12th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
115
it was not true government had ordered several of western journalists to leave Kashi, just several (western journalists?) who have no press cards were ordered to leave?
interviewed Uighurs western media inciting violence – they arrest them?
July 13th, 2009 at 4:09 am
@RT #417
What they were doing make business sense. Journalism is about selling paper and is not about bring in justice. “More violence happening”=”more stories”=”more paper selling” . I experienced this few years ago when a beach side bashing involved a ethnic gang then turned to a race riot a week after. The local media has been blamed by many of inciting the violence.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Regarding the comment made by myself at 270:
I do not see the problem with this comment. The only reason it was voted down so aggressively (causing it to be hidden) was because various xenophobic Chinese nationalists disagreed with the sentiment.
I do not like the way that Fools Mountain allows what amounts to mob censorship by xenophobe nationalists.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
BMY,
Yes, makes “business sense”. Only proves that they are heartless toward the lives of people in China.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:25 am
421
so is there something concrete about them? any us article they published?
now i can just expect that, because of lack of foreigner journalists, violence was originaly iniciated by local newspapers
July 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Here is an article updating Turkey’s position in this incident. Turkey has really come to the fore this time.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0714/p06s16-wome.html
July 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
@Nimrod #423
Good link. Turkey officials (not just politicians), PM and CM, jumped out attacking China in gunslinger style, even before facts were known to them.
This Turkey country and its people should be worried.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I’m not sure it’s the people per se at this moment, rather than one political party, but as we know from DPP’s history, people’s strange ideas and such politics can amplify and reinforce each other over time. Therefore, this renewed strain of pan-Turkism is of some concern.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Yes,
Turkish nationalism is definitely becoming a problem.
But I wouldn’t worry much about it.
This kind of gunho attitude won’t last longer than the eventual diplomatic game of chicken.
If Turkey wants to support Eastern Turkestan, I think we will see an independent Kurdistan before that happens.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Turkish President just signed several deals with Chinese businesses before the riot.
Especially several deals to help build Turkey’s controversial Ilisu dam project, short on money because of inability to obtain sufficient funding from EU credit agencies.
If Turkey wants to boycott China, let them. They can kiss their dam good bye.
(Honestly, in this time of recession, Turkey wants to boycott China? Nationalism definitely trumped rationalism in that country.)
July 15th, 2009 at 7:30 am
1. the altering population in China
The population of the whole China is 582 million，besides, ethnic Uyghur Chinese is 3,6401 million in 1953.
The population of the whole China is 695 million, besides, ethnic Uyghur Chinese is 3,9963 million in 1964.
The population of the whole China is 1008 million, besides, ethnic Uyghur Chinese is 5,9635 million in 1982.
The population of the whole China is 1,134 million, besides, ethnic Uyghur Chinese is 7,2144 million in 1990.
The population of the whole China is 1,266 million, besides, ethnic Uyghur Chinese is 8,3994 million in 2000.
2.people who is belong to the other 55 ethnic minorities except Han can get access of high education with lower score and even get less punishment than Han if they made the same crime in China. It was written by formal rules.
http://www.chinavalue.net/Article/Archive/2009/7/10/184890.html
3. my conclusion. The hypocrisy of communist party in china would destroy Chinese unity.
May 7th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you really recognise what you’re speaking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also seek advice from my website =). We can have a hyperlink change contract between us