I have 8 cousins on my father side of the family, and 3 cousins on my mother side. We all call each other brothers and sisters.

My parents, being academics, knew long before, that having too many kids is bad for China at that time. They voluntarily decided to only have 1 child.

Even before 1979, Chinese government began to give incentives for couples to have 1 child. Stipends for school books, etc.

I kept my certificate of “1 Child status”, issued by the Shanghai city government, because my parents did the right thing for China, even though they were always critical of CCP, (My father was locked up in jail during the Cultural Revolution for political activities. He was lucky, he got out in 1 month.)

*
I give thanks and respect to my parents, who say the right things, and do the right things.

“Companies”, even state owned companies have no such authority to allocate extra child “permits”. Couples must petition to the government directly for exemption from the 1 child policy.

And approvals are done on case by case basis, not for “companies”.

I don’t even know what these “permits” would look like.

Non sequitur alert! Non sequitur alert!

Also, I would direct your attention to Steve’s comment #27. If I had written that comment, it would have been addressed to you by name.

Oops, I didn’t mean to be so calous in my statement about Shanghainese “absolutely hate” migrant workers. Actually, what I really wanted to say China has a lot of “immigration” goin on all over the place, and people naturally resent new comers. This type of “resent” should be distinguished as I see those on other side of the debate tend to not.

Anyways, thx for the correction and your views – interesting usually!

Surely you are not suggesting the Chinese do to Uyghurs what we do to the NA, so they too can claim “Uyghurs regulate immigration”?

The reason that the Indian nations should regulate immigration onto their territory is the same as the reason that the United States or any other nation should regulate immigration.

But here we are.

On balance, things changed, some good, some bad. People got accustomed to the changes.

I do not believe that minorities cannot handle the change.

In fact, I believe, the inevitable frictions are necessary part of learning to accept change, in every country.

Shanghai farmer markets depend on “countryside” people who earn money by bringing provincial produce, etc.

Hell, Shanghai also depended on Uighurs who add to Shanghai’s culture.

*Maybe some Shanghainese are narrow minded to have some superiority complex, but not all of us.

*
As for relocation and desegregation, Speaking as a Shanghainese whose ancestors were from all over Eastern Chinese provinces, I would say, I would not be here, if my ancestors didn’t relocate and desegregate with other Chinese.

We are 1.2 Billion Chinese People with over 4000 years of history. We had our shares of wars and peace.

Getting along is not that hard. We had a long history of it, without killing ourselves (too much).

We don’t need to be geniuses, humanitarians, or even Democrats to do so.

I think desegragation in the long run is better also. Hopefully majority of the world think this way as well.

Hi Steve,

I agree with your view about Hawaii and California. Your view about the American Indian is interesting. I understand the legal part. The “should” part – is that because their numbers have dwindled towards “extinction”? The number of Hawaiian “pure bloods” have dwindled too.

Regarding your second paragraph, this is my view:

“why is the government encouraging immigration to a region with high unemployment and ethnic tension and why is the government encouraging emigration from the region for young women to work in factories on the coast?”

I haven’t done much homework on the unemployment issue. I saw a report from the Chinese government that by the end of 2004, unemployment rates was 3.8%. Could you share credible information about Xinjiang’s current unemployment rate?

I also know that China has a “go west” development plan – to even out the economic growth between the coastal regions with the inland poorer regions. That policy should be lauded by all.

If you looked at what happend to Hawaii and Alaska – if the European Americans didn’t go in to help develop the local economy (plantations, tourism, oil) initially, I strongly believe the race issue within these places would be extremely pronounced today due to uneven standards of living.

Was it a massive migration of European Americans into these areas? Yes. In fact, in Hawaii, the European Americans even brought in the Japanese, the Chinese, and other minorities which the Hawaiians resented as well.

Regarding the government’s policy for Uyghur women to relocate to work in factories elsewhere – I am not sure I buy that as a government policy. That sounds illogical to me as a policy.

I agree – given the resentment that exists, for those who resent, immigration of Han Chinese into the region furthers the divide. There is an important nuance. I can tell you, Shanghainese absolutely resent the migrant workers coming in from other parts of China. We ought to be careful not to lump together these “resents” under the same umbrella.

If longer term desegration is the goal, and if Han immigration into Xinjiang gives the region a much needed boost in developing its economy (because the Han immigrant/businesses will be able to tap into the capital markets in Shanghai, etc lot better), then I think the key issue is the short term ethnically based pent-up resentment stemming from ignorance on all sides.

I’d argue this is similar to what transpired in Hawaii.

So the question in Xinjiang becomes, why is the government encouraging immigration to a region with high unemployment and ethnic tension and why is the government encouraging emigration from the region for young women to work in factories on the coast? Should the government restrict relocation from other parts of China until the current ethnic ratios adjust to each other and end the segregation between the groups? I don’t know the answers to those questions. But it seems as if the current “solution” isn’t working too well.

I’d just like to pose this question to everyone here: in the long run, is it better for societies to desegregate?

Should Hawaii enforce a polulation ratio?

Should California?

What’s the right balance?

If we don’t agree on this, I guarantee you we are not going to agree on our views about population control in Xinjiang.