Chimerica: James Fallows & Niall Ferguson
Filed under:culture, media, News, politics, video | Tags:america, China, culture, democracy, economy, environment, financial crisis, freedom of speech, government, human rights, internet, media, nationalism, politics, reform, taiwan
Add comments
This is the full session between Niall Ferguson and James Fallows at the recently held Aspen Ideas Festival. Allen had posted excepts and we promised you the complete discussion as soon as it became available. Niall Ferguson had coined the term “Chimerica” to describe the symbiotic relationship between the economies of China and the United States. He currently sees this relationship as being in jeopardy, while James Fallows feels the relationship is far stronger the most realize. This video is slightly over 75 minutes.
Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Ferguson is the author of many books, including The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700-2000 (Basic, 2001), Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (Basic, 2002), Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (Penguin, 2004), The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West (Penguin, 2006), and The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World (Penguin, 2008). Ferguson writes for the British and American press and is a contributing editor for Financial Times.
James Fallows is National Correspondent for The Atlantic, where he has worked for more than 25 years—based in Washington DC, Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and now Beijing. In addition to working for The Atlantic, Fallows spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for President Carter, two years as editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction. Fallows has been chairman of the board of the New America Foundation since its creation in 1999. His latest book is Postcards from Tomorrow Square: Reports from China (Vintage, 2008).
I’d also like to include two recent pieces from Jim Fallows from newest to oldest, regarding the recent events in Urumqi. The first is called A Uighur Speaks About Pork:
13 Jul 2009 09:58 pm
After I posted this picture from Shannon Kirwin, three days ago, of a help-wanted notice at a restaurant in Kashgar that said “Han Chinese only,” one response ran through the vast majority of messages from readers in China. It is the argument I quoted here. “Uighurs are Muslim,” many correspondents said. “Chinese restaurants serve pork. It would be an insult to the Uighurs to suggest that they apply.”
I had my own guesses about the response, but I asked another correspondent who (to the best of my knowledge) is a Muslim Uighur who reads Chinese. I asked: would Uighurs in Kashgar view the sign as a favor to them? Here is the reply I just received, with some addenda from the same correspondent after the jump.
“Han Chinese only” simply is a discrimination. Uyghurs are desperate to have jobs and long have been complaining about “Han Chinese only” requirements. Uyghurs don’t eat pork, but “Handling pork” doesn’t mean eating pork. That ad includes not only chef position but also waiter/waitress and supervisor positions, which don’t require to taste the food. In fact, I’ve seen many Uyghur students both in United States, Europe and Japan work as waiters/waitresses. They don’t eat pork and bacon, but happily perform the task. They have no problem with carrying the plates, and cleaning them.
“The job ads I’ve sent to you earlier [quoted after the jump here, and very much worth re-checking] was posted on Kashgar Teacher’s College web site. One of them is about “Dean of College” position, which also has “Han Chinese Only” requirement . The other ad is about several positions, including computer instructor and lab assistant position. Most of them have “Han Chinese Only” requirements, which explain that an Uyghur can not apply for the jobs even if she/he has the similar educational background and skill set to her/his Chinese counterpart, simply beacuse she/he is Uyghur.
“Postal service is a government institution in China. “Postal Hotel” [the one with the “Han only” sign] is Postal service owned company. The Kashgar Teacher’s College is, an institution which has has more than of half of the student population is Uyghur, also a government owned institution. If the job ads by government institutions are so discriminative, the situation in private chinese companies is anybody’s guess.”
To repeat the correspondent’s important previous post: the two sites below, http://www.uyghuramerican.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13929
http://www.uyghuramerican.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13942
are ads for colleges in Xijiang, which specify “Han only” as a requirement for the job. The ads are in Chinese, but that part is clear. The correspondent adds:
“I want to stress couple things to the “angry” Chinese people.
“1) On the first day of the demonstration, Uyghur students brought Chinese flag. They’ve asked government to bring justice who killed Uyghurs in Guangdong [who were beaten to death after being accused of rape]. Nobody said they were against the Han people. The demonstration was about complaining government’s handling of the case, not expressing hatrid to Han people. It was not even splitting the nation. If Chinese government and media are fair, why they never mention it was a demonstration (at least at first), not a riot. I urge every “angry” Chinese think about it.“2) Even Chinese media reported that the demonstartion started much earlier than the riot. If the original plan of Uyghur students was to attack Han people, why they waited until the late evening until they got shot. If they have started the attack earlier, couldn’t they attack more Han people? ( Don’t get me wrong, I condemn physical attack they did).However, I wonder why those Chinese people don’t think something happened in between. I believe the “hatred” is the product of Chinese government action.
“3) Again, here is some information about what happened. I urge every “angry” Chinese take a look and think by themselves. Loving their country is shouldn’t be blindly trusting their government. Nationalism might be good thing, but it should come after being a good and thoughtful human.
http://www.uyghuramerican.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15886 “
There is more to come, from the “other side.” Because of travel and, gasp, “work” I have let a lot of these back up.
Here is another called On Uighurs, Han, and General Racial Attitudes in China:
13 Jul 2009 06:57 am
Three more views on racial attitudes and tensions in China, following this and previous dispatches.
From a foreigner with experience in China:
Regarding the “no Uighurs” sign, that type of thing is pretty common in China. Many advertisements for foreign English teachers will include something like “Whites only” or a “Looking for Caucasian teachers” sentence somewhere in the text. Additionally, many a native speaker have flown from their country to China only to find upon arrival that regardless of the applicant’s qualifications, the job could only be performed by a white person. At these times the Chinese are usually polite and a little embarrassed (most Chinese are very nice people and mean no harm), but they will remain very firm in their conviction that a person with darker skin than theirs could not possibly make a good teacher.
I have experienced this on a number of occasions. But after living in China for a while I realized that what we would consider racism in the West is simply a deeply ingrained cultural characteristic of mainland Chinese people. White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Dark skin or not being Han means a person is inferior (and more likely to be a bad guy/a thief/incompetent etc.). It does not equal KKK style hatred. It does not even mean a Han Chinese wouldn’t be friends with a person from India or Africa. It simply means that if a person is non-white or a member of certain Chinese minorities, they simply are to be considered less smart, less competent and less trustworthy than the average white person or Han. [Ed note: This accords with my observation, with the caveat that I have observed this all as a middle aged white guy. Early discussion of Obama in China fit this pattern — but changed after he took office.]
On a lighter note, the Chinese are not inflexible and when exposed to nice people of color they usually will change their minds quickly. [Agree, as with Obama.] However, the tendency towards ethnic and racial chauvinism is a current running through Chinese culture that is unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon. “Truths” are rarely challenged here.
From a person with a Chinese name:
Your mentioning the sign [“Han Chinese only”] in Xinjiang provides half the question. It’s pretty obvious why the Uighurs are angry, but that doesn’t explain why Han Chinese in Xinjiang are angry. I think that if you see this simply as a majority group trying to crush a minority group, then you miss the fact that the average Han Chinese in Xinjiang probably feels as oppressed and repressed as the Uighurs, and since they are competing for the same pool of jobs. Just because you are Han Chinese doesn’t mean that you are going to be in the Politburo.
One very tricky problem for the government is that if they start encouraging preferential treatment for Uighurs, this may have the effect of increasing resentment among Han Chinese in Xinjiang. Remember that this whole thing started in Guangdong, when you had a Han Chinese worker that spread a very nasty rumor against Uighurs working for a toy factory, because the Han Chinese worker was fired.
This seems similar to the situation in the US south where you had class conflicts on top of racial ones. There tended to be less racial tension in the upper classes, because people weren’t fighting each other over jobs. This also accounts for another curious thing which is that while there is a lot of sentiment among college educated Chinese against the foreign press, I’ve detected absolutely no sympathy for the Han Chinese demonstrators in Xinjiang amount college educated Chinese. In fact, if you ask them privately I think that most Han Chinese outside of Xinjiang think of them as thugs and hooligans. Also, the amount of anger directed at the foreign press seems to be a *lot* less than it was during the Tibetan protests a year ago.
There is another irony here and that a lot of the condescending attitudes that Han Chinese have toward Uighurs, and which provoke a nasty reaction are pretty much the same condescending attitudes that the West has toward China. in both cases, what causes the anger is this idea that “you aren’t smart enough to solve your own problems so we smarter people have to solve them for you.” Something that I’ve noticed is that there are a lot of people that have been quoted offering advice for what China should do, and this misses the point that given the mess in Iraq and the long struggle for social equity in the United States, there is no particular reason to think that outside solutions would work better than the solutions that Chinese come up with.
Self-explanatory:
I am Chinese American and I think that Uighurs are “Chinese too” and should be treated fairly and their rights and interests should be respected.
Anyway, as long as they are not fairly treated, the they will continue to agitate and Han Chinese will suffer too.
I think we should have a civil rights law in China (like we do in the USA) that protects Chinese minorities too and that bans discrimination.
Besides, just because you don’t want to eat a certain type foods, does not mean that you can not cook it. [This in response to Chinese arguments that since Uighur Muslims can’t eat pork, the restaurant is doing them a favor by saying they can’t apply for a job.] A lot of Han Chinese have food preferences, but they can cook whatever on the menu that the customer wants.
I have traveled to many countries around the world, including Europe, Asia. and South America. and the USA is only one of the very few countries that have laws protecting minorities and baning discrimination.
I think that this is an American example that the rest of the world needs to adopt.
Many more in the queue.
I’d suspect most here are more in agreement (including myself) with James Fallows than with Niall Ferguson, but there are salient points made on both sides that can hopefully add to our discussion.
There are currently no comments highlighted.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Steven.
Where is the evidence to back their claim that 800-1000 peaceful Uygher protesters killed by the Chinese government? If that many people had died then surely there would be more evidence than a piece of glass with “bullet holes”? That photo could be fake too?
July 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Re: “Uyghurs don’t eat pork, but “Handling pork” doesn’t mean eating pork. ”
According to my experience with Uyghurs in many areas within Chiina, it is an insult even only by mention the word “pork(猪肉)”. When we have to come across such term, we replace it with the word “Big Meat (大肉)”. I have never met an Uyghurs out of China, so I don’t know what’s the situation in Europe. It could be just personal choice overthere. However, I don’t think my Uyghur friend is happy to “handaling pork”.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
@ kui: Allen is on holiday and asked me to post the debate with Fallows and Ferguson. While I was at it, I added those two articles he had written. These aren’t my opinions, it is for the consumption of the group.
What evidence? Good question. So far, I’ve only heard accusations from both the CCP and the Uighur factions but haven’t seen much hard evidence on either side. I did notice that the Chinese government raised the figures this morning on both dead and wounded, but there was no ethnic breakdown given.
Could the photo be fake? Sure, we’ve already seen fake photos from this incident. I just don’t know to what extent either side is exaggerating. All I know is that many people died for absolutely no reason, both Han and Uighur, and instead of hearing about that I seem to be hearing more about which ethnic group suffered more. It’s already gone from cold-blooded murder to the usual political blame game.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Peter Foster of London Telegraph, who is on the ground, already contradicted Kadeer’s “hundreds Uyghurs killed in crackdown” claim:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5778736/China-mounts-massive-security-operation-to-contain-ethnic-violence.html
“Miss Kadeer, 62, has denied the accusations and on Wednesday repeated her claims that 400 Uighurs had been killed in Urumqi and a further 100 in Kashgar, the second-largest Uighur city in Xinjiang.
However her claims appear to conflict directly with witness testimonies and other reports gathered by international media on the ground in Urumqi over the last three days.
In the People’s Hospital No.2, the overwhelming number of the 360 casualties were Han Chinese who, according to doctors, had injuries consistent with being beaten with rocks, sticks and other blunt instruments.”
– The only source I can find on the “800 Uyghurs killed” claim – it’s from Kadeer and WUC:
http://www.uyghurcongress.org/En/News.asp?ItemID=1246985091&rcid=-768458094&pcid=1110134820&cid=-768458094
“paramilitary forces started to shoot at any Uyghur protester on sight in the evening, chasing them around in alleyways, and killed an estimated number of 800 young Uyghurs.”
– Here’s an example of a 2007 video showing beating of theif twisted into “Chinese police stoning Uyghur student”:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-296101
– As to the ethnic break-down, Anthony Kuhn of NPR reported majority of the death from 7/5 riot were Han Chinese:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106333891
“Anthony Kuhn: Well, I’ve heard from one official that of those killed only 30 were Uighurs, the rest [126] were Han and other ethnic groups. But it suggests that the Uighurs killed were in the minority.”
Here’s an updated figure:
“The government said earlier that the 184 confirmed dead by Saturday included 137 members of China’s Han majority and 46 members of the city’s Uighur minority.”
Is that enough proof for ya, Steve?
July 15th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I do wish to stress 1 point I made earlier regarding the Employment advertisement:
If one read carefully through ALL the Chinese job advertisements in the links above, 1 can find multiple variations of “ethnicity requirement”. Most of the jobs have no limitations of ethnicity, even though they were for the same employment place.
1 entirely salient issue of law should be brought clear:
UNDER the PURE ethnic QUOTA system of China, advertisement for SPECIFIC ethnicity is allowed, “to preserve ethnicity ratio”!!!
Consider the fact that Minorities in China have a specified share of government employment, there are dedicated slots of positions allocated for minority ethnic groups, and others are for Han. (might I add, typically at higher proportional representation for minorities.)
For example, the advertisement for Education department:
“学前教育专业3名
本科或硕士研究生
可承担《学前教育史》、《学前教育� �价及手工制作》等技能课程，擅长幼� ��歌舞表演、创编；维吾尔族，女性1� �，汉族，女性1名”
indicating 3 positions, with 1 slot for Uighur Female, and 1 slot for Han Female. (and presumably 3rd slot with no specific requirements).
WHY?
Because the QUOTA system for ethnicity and gender.
It allows for specific allocation of specific ethnicity and gender to maintain balance of ratio of quota allocated.
if 1 Han person retires, 1 can specifically allocate for a replacement Han Chinese person.
*This is a different affirmative action system than US and EU, who do not use the Quota system.
But, in a legal system of QUOTA based affirmative action, such advertisements are perfectly within legal parameters. In fact, they are necessary to maintain the Quota ratio of ethnicities, per government QUOTA policies.
(the system is not perfect, but it is what it is.)
July 16th, 2009 at 1:42 am
raventhorn4000 #5,
Good point. I read through the advertisements in those links, too, and I agree these are quota-targeting job listings. It may be worthwhile to forward your findings to Fallows.
Whether the restaurant ad was of this nature is unclear (probably not), but in any case, the fact that Fallows’ “Uighur correspondent” — if he indeed did read Chinese — was willing to twist the case to make his point to Fallows, should raise some alarm bells when reading politically motivated commentary by overseas Uighurs who have no first hand accounts of the situation. Kind of like Cubans living in Miami, I guess.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:20 am
BTW, this kind of stuff is exactely how America’s “official narrative” and public opinion is manufactured:
1) The Congress pays NED to support any and all dissidents against China
2) Such patronage generates stuff like Kadeer’s “800 Uyghurs killed in crackdown” lie
3) The Whitehouse pays some religious freedom commission to broadcast what Kadeer says
4) Yet another buracracy, in this case the BBG, pays for Radio Free Asia to also echo Kadeer’s lies
5) Supposedly independent academic discussion like what’s in the OP gets on the box and slips in Kadeer’s lies
6) Our supposed free and fair media picks up these reporting and continues the “echo chamber”
Bam, suddenly instead of 130 Hans, it’s 800 Uyghurs massacred. Now, can you blam the majority of the American public for seeing China in certain light? With this kind of military-industrial-media-complex manufacturing our thoughts for us, how could we not?
July 16th, 2009 at 5:47 am
@ Charles: The majority of Americans never heard of Xinjiang, don’t know what a Uighur is and have a vague idea there was a riot somewhere in China and some people died. They wouldn’t know Kadeer if they ran over her in the street. That’s the God’s honest truth.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Hi Steve, #8,
I agree with what you said is true about the interest level of Americans about Xinjiang and Uyghurs.
However, what Charles Liu says has a big impact. Those Americans will vaguely remember the headlines as another case of Chinese oppression of minorities – or brutal killings – or “cultural genocide” of minorities.
If day in and day out, this “sentiment” is continuously fed to the American public, then on real issues, the American public is ready to jump the guns.
We see this “free” media pattern repeating again and again.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:12 am
@ Charles & huaren: Do you think it also comes down to which media a person watches? Some are downright horrible and others are pretty fair. I think highly of James Fallows’ commentary and read him regularly. I’m not as keen on the NY Times, who to me spend too much time editorializing inside their “news” articles. I want the editorials on the editorial page, not on the front page.
But if you look at the new media and the new viewer, the younger generation, they don’t watch network TV, they don’t read their local newspaper, they watch The Daily Show and read their news on the net. If they want to know about China, they read several sources including Xinhua, etc. I do it so I assume others also do it.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Hi Steve, #10,
It is true – traditional media in the U.S. has lost their appeal. Again, on the whole, the average American consumes very little news, and even less of international news.
I am impressed that Xinhua is one of the sources of news for you. However, I doubt you are a “normal” American in this regard.
I did some digging about media.
1. This study shows which “news” media is most “prominent” around 2004-2005 through Google News:
http://searchenginewatch.com/3330311
Note that NY Times is at the very top.
2. digg.com is a good representative of the younger generations view into what’s relevant about news. Go there a do a search on “china” and see what’s on the first page. I fret looking in the comments section for each article that turn out. Here is a snapshot of the top news media companies that show up on the first page:
1. latimes.com: “In China, job seekers are resorting to plastic surgery”
2. time.com: “Hot Dogs{Image} view! ”
3. indiatimes.com: “China overtakes US to become world’s largest auto market”
4. discovery.com: “Secrets of the Scorpion’s Sting: Discovery News”
5. cnn.com: “Over 100 Killed in Ethnic Unrest in China”
6. brentcsutoras.com: “Is China Banning Submissions to Digg?”
7. ecnmag.com: “China blasts US climate bill”
8. sciencedaily.com: “Faults And Earthquakes In China Monitored From Space ”
9. bbc.co.uk: “China babies ‘sold for adoption'”
10. washingtonpost.com: “Death Toll Still a Mystery In China’s Rioting”
This list worries me a lot. For the fraction of Americans who do seek out news, they are getting a big dosage of disinformation as relates to China. Time.com, CNN.com no longer can be considerred “news” media any more in my opinion. They are hate mongers.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am
To Steve:
since the usual suspects are on the prowl for the usual tidbits, this might be a good time for another of Fallows’ articles that casts aspersions on such habits.
As for the younger generation, if you can’t find out about it via a tweet or a poke, many probably wouldn’t care. So if the US is in the business of “manufacturing” opinions, I wonder who she is manufacturing it for. Doesn’t seem like a growth industry to me.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Steve, your “no one listens to our government’s Echo Chamber” rather proves its existence.
SK, as to why we do it – to me is boils down the the simple fact America always need an enemy, and China has always been near top of our list.
You two may be the discerning 0.01%, but what about the rest of us? I can’t reconcile how I’ve manged to protest the Iraq war in vain, only to vote for the war in Afghanistan.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hi Steve, #10, S.K. Cheung, #11,
Just to put things into perspective: The Pew Reasearch Center for the People & the Press is one of the most credible entities in the USA on matters concerning the American public and media. For the week of July 6-12, following is “Percent who followed this story most closly:”
Michael Jackson 29%
Economy 20%
Obama’s trip 12%
Health care reform 11%
Palin’s resignation 8%
Riots in China 2%
So that we are on the same page – this is the “amount” of interest in the American public about the Xinjiang riot – which is very very low.
You guys are absolutely wrong to say that the younger generation no longer reading “traditional” media and therefore they are not getting slanted information. Go on twitter or digg.com and search for China or Xinjiang. These “online” sources are traditional media with some new ones and they are basically in strides on the bias part.
Even this 2% can have a huge impact. If Kadeer’s WUC gets donations from some of this 2%, and what the Chinese government’s claim about her connection to the riot is true, then this is a very divisive effect on the ethnic relations problem in Xinjiang. The “free” media is very guilty for this.
Again, I am not disputing the fact that there are racial problems in Xinjiang between the Uyghurs and the Han and other ethnicities. If the root-cause problems are not there to begin with, then external influence won’t have this adding fuel to fire type of effect.
This biased nonsense in the “free” media has to stop to allow the positive steps to progress.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Is Washington playing a deeper game with China?
China Daily 2009-07-16 03
After the tragic events of July 5 in Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region in China, it would be useful to look more closely into the actual role of the US Government’s “independent” NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). All indications are that the US Government, once more acting through its “private” Non-Governmental Organization, the NED, is massively intervening into the internal politics of China.
…
Is it merely coincidence that the riots in Xinjiang by Uyghur organizations broke out only days after the meeting took place in Yakaterinburg, Russia of the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as Iranas official observer guest, represented by President Ahmadinejad?
Over the past few years, in the face of what is seen as an increasingly hostile and incalculable United States foreign policy, the major nations of Eurasia—China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan have increasingly sought ways of direct and more effective cooperation in economic as well as security areas. In addition, formal Observer status within SCO has been given to Iran, Pakistan, India and Mongolia. The SCO defense ministers are in regular and growing consultation on mutual defense needs, as NATO and the US military command continue provocatively to expand across the region wherever it can.
More: http://english.sina.com/china/p/2009/0715/256034.html
July 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Rolf, I’ve submitted the Engdhal article to FM, but it seems to be stuck in the approval queue…
July 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I submit the self-evident conclusion that Western (and Westernized) analysts have no basic understanding of laws that they wish to criticize.
Once again, ignorant assumptions lead to ridiculous assertions.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I would also like to add that, IMHO, in this particular case I fail to see why or how Fallows’s articles should have any particular connection with the factual truth on what happened in Urumqi…
July 17th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Fallows is attempting to show the “deep-seeded racism” in China, with annecdotal evidence, some of which are contradicting.
For example, 1 self-described “white” commenter wrote that Chinese just think that people with “whiter skin” are smarter, or more trustworthy.
Hello? Uighurs have whiter skin than most Chinese!! By that observation, Uighurs would have been preferred!!
July 17th, 2009 at 1:40 am
“But after living in China for a while I realized that what we would consider racism in the West is simply a deeply ingrained cultural characteristic of mainland Chinese people. White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Dark skin or not being Han means a person is inferior (and more likely to be a bad guy/a thief/incompetent etc.). It does not equal KKK style hatred. It does not even mean a Han Chinese wouldn’t be friends with a person from India or Africa. It simply means that if a person is non-white or a member of certain Chinese minorities, they simply are to be considered less smart, less competent and less trustworthy than the average white person or Han.”
Is this guy joking? Is this intended as very subtle and dry irony? Otherwise, this is a bizarre and freakish statement. The idea that light skin means someone is a good person, and dark skin or not being Han means someone is less good — that idea is racism, pure and simple. Or, if you choose to call it by another name, it is obviously not very nice, and it’s not worth making a material distinction between it and racism.
Also, Han Chinese people are not white.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:59 am
This guy, for what his opinion is worth, knows squat about China.
*If one really wants annecdotal evidence about “racism”, we can certainly find some real life racist campaign posters for Obama, to suggest the extent of “deep-seeded” racism in US.
And then go on to predict “continual problems” in US, if US does not “reverse” its racist policies of locking up disproportionally high number of minorities as “criminals” in prison.
*
I think we get the idea of the usual gleeful predictions of “doom” in such shallow journalism.
Just for once, I like to read 1 Western Media print the words “We don’t know what’s going on. End of story.”
Of course, that would be the truth. But that kind of Truth doesn’t sell advertising space.
It’s amazing really, all that freedom, and always boils down to old fashion greed as the primary motivator.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I have a very strange feeling that a few Westerners probably have confused what an Asian prostitute told them for the sake of a few more bucks with the general attitude of Chinese toward foreigners.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
The fact that some jobs have separate slots for Uighur and Han does not change the reality that Uighurs face widespread employment discrimination, even in areas where they are the majority. The ad from Kashgar Normal College is a case of blatant discrimination by a government institution in a town that is more than 90 percent Uighur. There is more. Below you can find a job advert from a teachers college in Hotan for four teachers in maths, chemistry, Chinese and art – all the jobs are reserved for Han Chinese in a city that is 95 per cent Uighur.
http://www.uighurbiz.net/html/2009/0617/13119.html
There simply is no excuse for such job discrimination, anywhere. A remember that Chinese in Hong Kong were subjected to similar treatment by the British, just to quote Au Loong-Yu from an interview that was posted by Perspectivehere to the thread on Hong Kong:
National oppression took a very visible form: nearly all high-ranking posts were occupied by Brits, and English was the only official language; at school, we would be refused permission to go to the bathroom if we didn’t ask in English.
That kind of discrimination protests in 1967, that sometimes turned lethal. Many of those violent protesters are now regarded as patriotic heroes by the HK government.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I think we already talked about these ads.
And the hiring quota is not necessarily based upon local population ratio.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:54 am
@raventhorn4000
And the hiring quota is not necessarily based upon local population ratio.
That is an incredibly insightful comment. Why should it matter that only Han Chinese teachers are wanted in a city with 95 per cent Uighurs? Completely irrelevant. I mean, there are only some eight million Uighurs in a country of 1.3 million people. And only 20 per cent of the worlds population are Chinese. And you are only one of them! Why should anyone expect teachers in your own school to understand the local language? Let’s make Spanish or Hindi the official language in Beijing! I am sure the people of Beijing would be able to understand this in the large scheme of things. Just a modest proposal.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:12 am
why should it matter that you only show 4 positions for the whole city?
I mean, God knows, there must be only 4 teachers in that city!
July 19th, 2009 at 2:14 am
语言系4人
英语专业
硕士研究生或已通过英语专业8级的本� ��生。
可承担英语专业本科基础课教学和大� �英语教学任务；有一定的组织管理能� ��，可胜任班主任工作，男女、民汉不 限。
汉教部3人
中国少数民族语言文学（维吾尔语）� �课程教学论专业，研究方向为汉语教� ��、汉维双语对比、维吾尔语研究。
硕士研究生
可承担基础课和技能课的教学任务。� �族（或民考汉），男女不限。
艺术系3人
音乐类作曲理论专业1名
本科及以上学历
必须是音乐学院作曲理论专业（方向� �，民汉、男女不限
美术类专业2名
其中
中国画方向1名
汉族，男女不限
美术理论专业，美术史论方向1名
民族，男女不限
人文系3人
广播电视新闻专业新闻学1名
硕士研究生
民族，男女不限
历史专业世界史方向1名
历史专业新疆地方史或区域史方向1名
民族，汉语授课能力强，男女不限
July 19th, 2009 at 2:15 am
See how many “民族，男女不限”?!!
July 19th, 2009 at 2:22 am
@raventhorn4000
Jag håller med dig. Varför göra en så stor sak av bara fyra lärare i en stad. Det är ju helt ovidkommande huruvida dessa egentligen kan kommunicera med lokalbefolkningen eller inte. Den där annonsen du klistrade upp på kinesiska, var kommer den ifrån förresten och vad har den att göra med den länk jag först lade upp? Bara en fråga.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:34 am
You are right, Han Chinese teachers can be hired with the ability to communicate with local people.
don’t know why you are hung up on their ethnicity.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:40 am
It’s from the website from the ORIGINAL POST above!! Why don’t you be less selective in your readings?
http://www.uyghuramerican.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13929
July 19th, 2009 at 3:04 am
*Sigh* These people …. whatever sells their expanist ideas and newspapers and benefits their Military Industrial Complex…
“In the case of North Korea, a bizarre world shrouded in secrecy, it is a source of urgent fascination for the country’s neighbors and for the United States, especially since the prize includes control over nuclear weapons and, possibly, the eventual capacity to launch them on Tokyo—or Hawaii.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207407/page/1
“it is a source of urgent fascinationI”
Really? Man, I have had absolutely no interest in North Korean until I started getting questions for my POVs constantly on whatever the hell it is the Western Government can’t get over, i.e. perhaps until they have raped, spelt their toxic seeds and kill millions — again — to quell their insatiable desire for blood & mayhem —like they do with so many other countries since WWII, god damn it~!
July 19th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Yeah, that’s what they said about Libya. Until somehow, miraculously, Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi “transformed” himself into a “Friend” and Ally in the War on Terror.
(with much help or eyes-shut from the Western Media.)
Secretary Clinton just visited Libya in April 2009, here is she smiling with Gaddafi’s son, who happens also be in the “family business”, and the Libyan National Security advisor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mutassim_Gadaffi_Hilary_Clinton.jpg
Hmmm…. I guess don’t need “democracy”, when it’s so much easier just to enjoy the warm feeling of being kissed on the ass.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:16 am
RV4000:
“why should it matter that you only show 4 positions for the whole city?
I mean, God knows, there must be only 4 teachers in that city!”
i was with you man until you got here… C’mon, already…We got it, it’s true: the usa is full of racists, govt-influenced media propoganda,CIA plots and military campaigns aimed at interferring in the internal affairs of other countries, greedy wall-street bankers, bigoted, anti-Chinese, and let’s throw in wasteful, bloated, fat and obnoxious over-sexed fellow americans.
really, tell us something we dont know… what about building some bridges instead of trying to provide more arguments for chinese nationalism? Is there something useful now you could contribute about the Urumqi riots beside the point you’ve been bashing?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Keith,
read all the jobs available in the above posts in Xinjiang.
and read the linked sites I have provided on Xinjiang. Plenty of good work being done in Xinjiang. 1 of the biggest wind farms in China is in Xinjiang, and being expanded.
I would love to discuss all of these new developments with people, who are not interested in mere 1 sided selective reporting of facts.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
新疆新大地实业有限公司2009年度人力资源需求：
机关综合部：文秘1名，女，汉族，25-30岁，大学，新闻写作专业，符合任职要求，有工作经验、端庄、身体健康
机关财务部：会计3名，性别不限，汉，25-30岁，大学，财会专业，初级以上，有工作经验优先
经 销 部：销售员2名，性别不限，汉，25岁，大学，营销专业，有营销成品油、润滑油经验优先
工贸公司：保管员2名，女，汉族，25岁以上，大专以上，聚氨酯、电器
质检员1名，女，汉族，25岁以上，大专以上，聚氨酯
统计员1名，女，汉族，25岁以上，大专以上，统计，有财务经验者优先
销售人员4名，性别不限，汉族，25岁以上，高中以上，聚氨酯、电器，有销售经验、会驾驶、复转军人及专业人士优先
车间主任1名，男，汉族，30-40岁，大专以上，聚氨酯，有管理工作经验，复转军人优先
办公室文员1名，女，汉族，22岁以上，大专以上，文秘，有文字功底、端庄、身体健康
http://www.xjxdd.com/cn/rlzy/zpxx/
=================================================================
招聘信息
2009年2月27日
招聘单位：富蕴县金豹运输有限责任公司
单位性质：企业
招聘人数：2名
招聘人员及条件：
一.配件库管：1名、男性、汉族、年龄22岁以上、 高中以上文化程度。
二.车辆业务员（车辆审验、二级维护）：1名、男女不限、汉族、年龄不限、大专以上学历、有一定的工作经验、熟悉审验业务流程。
工资待遇：试用期800元/月
联 系 人：人力资源管理中心
联系电话：8720044
http://www.xjfy.gov.cn/fydata/news_view.asp?newsid=4271
================================================================
July 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Is there a point to all these job postings? Or did someone miss the point about “Ethnicity Quota in job advertisement is allowed”?
July 19th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
If nine out of nine jobs advertised are reserved for Han Chinese, where is the quota?
July 19th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Are there only 9 jobs in that company?
July 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
That’s up to you to find out, you are the one talking about quotas. The fact that they – and many, many other companies in Xinjiang – put up ads asking for “Han Chinese only” speaks volumes about the discrimination Uighurs and other ethnic groups are facing.
Have you ever been to Xinjiang, even once?
July 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I think I already proved it once, I have no need to keep trying to “disprove” everyone of your selective job postings.
You are just spamming this forum.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Let me tell you this: you are in denial. And I don’t think you have ever been to Xinjiang. Because if you had, you would know one basic fact of life in Xinjiang: Han Chinese rule the place. Han Chinese hold all important jobs, be they in government, education or business, regardless whether we talk about an area where Uighurs are in majority or not. Yes, there are jobs that are reserved for Uighurs, but the jobs are comparatively few and fluency in Chinese is a requirement. By contrast, Han Chinese who work in majority Uighur areas are not required to speak the majority language.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Get over yourself. I disproved you already.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
You haven’t proved or disproved anything. And you don’t have any personal experience of Xinjiang.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
See how many “民族，男女不限” in original post?
No? I guess you don’t have much experience with “seeing”.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hemulen, blanket statement like “Han Chinese hold all important jobs” can be easily disproven by one example – XUAR govenor Nur Bekri is Uyghur. I just proved your “all” wrong.
Also, for every one of your “Han only” job posing, there’s one “Uygur only” job posting:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%8B%9B%E8%81%98+%E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E4%B8%8D%E9%99%90+%E7%BB%B4%E6%97%8F
http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%8B%9B%E8%81%98+%E7%94%B7%E5%A5%B3%E4%B8%8D%E9%99%90+%E7%BB%B4%E6%97%8F+site%3Agov.cn
What does this fact say about your “discrimination” claim? The discrimination protrail of China’s ethnic police is simplistic, inaccurate, and self-righteous.
Twisting well-intended but ineffective ethnic policy under the same old “Evil Red China” ideology is simply outdated given the reality of today’s China.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
@Charles Liu
Wow. Nur Bekri is an Uighur, how magnanimous of the central government! Now, if Uighurs are that empowered in Xinjiang, why is it that almost every party secretary is Han Chinese? And how could it be that party secretaries invariably outranks governors? And how comes that out of 15 members in the Xinjiang regional committee, only three are Uighurs? Could it be that Uighurs are only good enough for ceremonial posts in the People’s Government, but not for the Party, which wields real power?
Nice work with the Google, Charles. You are suggesting a one to one ratio, I would say a 1 to 3.6 ratio in favor of Han Chinese. I did a search on gov sites using Hanzu, and got about 820 hits as against your 228. Now we do know that there are quotas for Uighurs, but somehow that doesn’t seem to have any dent on Uighur unemployment that is fueling resentment in Xinjiang. Somehow, employment practices seem to default to hiring Han Chinese, even in areas where Han Chinese are not the default majority. You can do another Google search, but you only need to make one trip to Xinjiang to see who really gets the jobs – and they are Uighurs. But you have never been there, I guess?
July 19th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“but somehow that doesn’t seem to have any dent on Uighur unemployment that is fueling resentment in Xinjiang.”
That’s a double assumption on your part.
Still don’t know what you are implying, if the policy is the quota system.
Do you want a higher quota for Uighurs?
July 19th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“…And the hiring quota is not necessarily based upon local population ratio.But, in a legal system of QUOTA based affirmative action, such advertisements are perfectly within legal parameters. In fact, they are necessary to maintain the Quota ratio of ethnicities, per government QUOTA policies.
(the system is not perfect, but it is what it is.)”
“…Plenty of good work being done in Xinjiang. 1 of the biggest wind farms in China is in Xinjiang, and being expanded. I would love to discuss all of these new developments with people, who are not interested in mere 1 sided selective reporting of facts.”
RV4000:
If hiring practices in xinjiang are based on the govt quota system you mention, then as you say, employers are permitted to hire Han even where there are majority numbers of Uighurs present, as long as it preserves the status quo ethnic ratios of the country. And, what that means is, Uighurs in some places, wont have the same access to a job that they may be qualified for simply because employers are allowed (and maybe prefer) Han people. Don’t you think it’s reasonable, at minimum, to regard such quotas/laws/practices as unfair? and, wouldnt it even be possible to say this policy, in these particular locations, is racist and discriminatory? Doesnt this kind of unfairness cause the resentment and bitterness of these minority people? I am not sure it matters really, as you have argued, that some here in this blog are misrepresenting the Chinese law on ethnic hiring ratios. What really matters, wouldnt you agree, that all people have a fair shot at a job and that the rules/laws in place should not give employers the license to indiscrimately reject people because they are not Han or because they are within the laws of the land?
It seems to me this last question is what we should be talking about and what the Chinese could do about it, and not whether the american press is biased (a waste of time….and irrelevant). how does that help those jobseekers in xinjiang that rightly have a “beef”? or really get at the source of the problems and tensions in xinjiang? Of course the issue is for the people of xinjiang and china to resolve, but it doesnt make us all evil or interferring with the internal affairs of China, to express our concerns at the apparent unfairness that has partially led to these riots and the deaths of some 197 people.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The last sentence in my post above should read:
“You can do another Google search, but you only need to make one trip to Xinjiang to see who really gets the jobs – and they are not Uighurs. But you have never been there, I guess?”
July 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
If the uyghurs in the united states really do handle pork meat or dishes, that’s most likely due to the absence of peer pressure. In Xinjiang, they’d more likely adopt a holier-than-than attitude among their own plentiful kind. The religious belief would be more rigorously observed and enforced to uphold the Uyghur/Muslim identity. This sort of thing is not unusual for any community that feels its values and identity under threat.
putting up signs that are regarded as discriminatory in other places may not be PC, but it could just be Chinese pragmatism. Why waste your own time or a hopeful candidate’s.
Some Chinese people at least are sensitive to the values of others. During a really late supper in Shanghai, the restaurant waitress rushed over to caution the Muslim woman in our group that some dishes were not halal, and the kitchen would prepare something else for her.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
@raventhorn
Higher quotas for Uighurs? I think that about I would suggest that the XUAR outlaws all employment discrimination and gives the Uighur language an equal footing with Chinese in government, education and business. As of now, most government websites in the supposedly autonomous Uighur region of Xinjiang don’t even have an Uighur version.
And again, just look at who is in charge of the party committees in Xinjiang and the Bingtuan, they are 80-85 per cent Han Chinese. In a region where only 40 per cent are Han Chinese, supposedly. And look at the ratio of Uighurs in the still powerful Bingtuan as a whole, about 7 per cent of Bingtuan’s 2.5 million employees are Uighurs. 7 per cent! If the party committee of Beijing was run by a group of Uighurs who didn’t even speak Chinese, you’d have riots…
July 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Keith,
“Don’t you think it’s reasonable, at minimum, to regard such quotas/laws/practices as unfair? and, wouldnt it even be possible to say this policy, in these particular locations, is racist and discriminatory?”
Valid question.
But some countries have similar quota systems, and on the opposite end, there are positions that Han people might be qualified for and not allowed to fill the spots that are reserved for minorities.
Legal experts debate the “fairness” of such race/ethnic quota systems, but it’s entirely within each country’s own preferences.
Even in US, we have what’s called the “Race factor Plus” diversity system, but that system merely considers “race” as 1 of the factors. And there are still people who complain about the “unfairness” of such a system.
“Race” factor based employment lawsuits are continuing in US.
Who is to say what is “fair”?
July 19th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Higher quotas for Uighurs? I think that about I would suggest that the XUAR outlaws all employment discrimination and gives the Uighur language an equal footing with Chinese in government, education and business.”
No problem, discrimination should be outlawed. Doesn’t say anything about “no advertisement for specific ethnic quotas”.
And Uighur language on “equal footing” in government?! “most government websites in the supposedly autonomous Uighur region of Xinjiang don’t even have an Uighur version.”
define “most”. There are separate Uighur language classes and schools and newspapers in Xinjiang. Do you want a higher quota for that too?
*
“just look at who is in charge of the party committees in Xinjiang and the Bingtuan, they are 80-85 per cent Han Chinese. In a region where only 40 per cent are Han Chinese, supposedly. And look at the ratio of Uighurs in the still powerful Bingtuan as a whole, about 7 per cent of Bingtuan’s 2.5 million employees are Uighurs. 7 per cent! If the party committee of Beijing was run by a group of Uighurs who didn’t even speak Chinese, you’d have riots…”
Who says the Han Chinese in these organizations can’t speak Uighur? I have heard of a lot of Han Chinese in Xinjiang learning Uighur since they were very little. Many of them grew up along side of Uighur children in schools that teach Uighur language.
Seems like you are implying that by virtue of their ethnicity, Han Chinese have no interest in other people’s languages?!
July 19th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
汉教部3人
中国少数民族语言文学（维吾尔语）� �课程教学论专业，研究方向为汉语教� ��、汉维双语对比、维吾尔语研究。
硕士研究生
可承担基础课和技能课的教学任务。� �族（或民考汉），男女不限。
Oh yeah, that must be why there is a department hiring 3 positions for Uighur language studies here, with no ethnicity requirements.
From Fallows’ own article links.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
For an overview of Affirmative Action / Race quota systems around the world.
Brazil. Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are efforts to create quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.[11]
China. The People’s Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9 percent of the population) to be exempt from the One-child policy, and there is a quota for minority representatives in the National Assembly in Beijing, as well as other realms of government. In addition the certain state-run universities, such as the Central University for Nationalities, located in Beijing, operate on a quota system, with spots reserved for members of all of China’s state recognized “nationalities”.[12]
France. The French Ministry of Defense tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African origins. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant in the Ministry of Defense newspaper (Armées d’aujourd’hui), this project was canceled. A 1987 law requires companies of more than 20 employees to ensure that 6 percent of their workforce consists of persons with disabilities[13]
Germany. Article 3 of the German constitution provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race, or social background. There has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. In August 2006, an anti-discrimination law (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) following EU-standards, that aims at improving the protection of minorities, passed the German Parliament .
India. Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the form of reservation or quotas in government positions, employment, and education for lower castes and minorities.
Indonesia. In Indonesia, affirmative action programs give natives of Malay origin (Pribumi) preference over the Indonesian Chinese in the country.
Japan. Spots for universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by entrance examination, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity, or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.
New Zealand. Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.[14]
Norway. All public company (ASA) boards with more than five members must have at least 40 percent women (can not be made up of more than 60 percent). This affects roughly 400 companies.[15]
Philippines. State universities implement a modified version of affirmative action. Secondary schools, both private and public schools, are each assigned a quota on how many students from that high school are accepted for admission, in addition to each student’s score during the entrance examination. This was done to address the situation wherein a majority of the university school population was composed mostly of students who came from well-off families and private schools.[16]
South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed “equity”), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all people of color, white females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term “black economic empowerment” is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any member of the designated groups, regardless of race. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.
United Kingdom. Positive Discrimination is unlawful in the UK and quotas/selective systems are not permitted.[17][18] A singular exception to this is a provision made under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which required that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics as non Catholics.[19]
United States. In the United States, affirmative action occurs in school admissions, job hiring, and government and corporate contracts. Its intended beneficiaries are ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and veterans. Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on constitutional grounds. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against some forms of affirmative action in Michigan required some colleges to set new admissions criteria.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
@raventhorn4000
Well, if you had ever been in Xinjiang (which you obviously haven’t), you would know that it is much harder to get hold of a Uighur language newspaper than a Chinese. And if you were more up to date on Xinjiang affairs, you would know that party chief Wang Lequan has downscaled Uighur language education and abolished most university courses in Uighur. He has even denigrated the Uighur language as unfit for the 21st century. Some autonomy.
Who says the Han Chinese in these organizations can’t speak Uighur? I have heard of a lot of Han Chinese in Xinjiang learning Uighur since they were very little. Many of them grew up along side of Uighur children in schools that teach Uighur language.
Was that my main point? I gave some numbers on how Uighurs are unrepresented in the Xinjiang party leadership and in the Bingtuan, which is a major employer in Xinjiang. 7 per cent Uighurs in an province-level organization of 2.5 million is a pretty awful low figure for a government that claims it gives Uighurs preferential treatment.
Anyway, if you contend that Uighur proficiency is widespread among Han Chinese, I would happily admit my mistake if you could give me some evidence. My impression is based on my experience in Xinjiang, where I could find a single Han Chinese who could speak Uighur. As a matter of fact, a lot of people found the whole idea of learning Uighur ludicrous. Some autonomy.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
“you would know that it is much harder to get hold of a Uighur language newspaper than a Chinese.”
Define “much harder”. How much “easier” would you like it to be?
“7 per cent Uighurs in an province-level organization of 2.5 million is a pretty awful low figure for a government that claims it gives Uighurs preferential treatment.”
7 per cent is approximate minority representation in China. If you want more, that’s certainly within debate, but that still does NOT say anything about the quota system and “advertisement with ethnicity requirements”.
“if you contend that Uighur proficiency is widespread among Han Chinese, I would happily admit my mistake if you could give me some evidence. My impression is based on my experience in Xinjiang, where I could find a single Han Chinese who could speak Uighur. As a matter of fact, a lot of people found the whole idea of learning Uighur ludicrous. Some autonomy.”
You are the one contending that Han cannot speak Uighur. I think we know what your “evidence” look like. Your “experience”?! I would be thankful if tomorrow you don’t tell another group of people that Chinese people you have met on this forum do not speak English either.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Media
The Xinjiang Networking Transmission Limited operates the Urumqi People Broadcasting Station and the Xinjiang People Broadcasting Station, broadcasting in Mandarin, Uyghur, Kazakh and Mongolian.
As of 1995, there were fifty minority-language newspapers published in Xinjiang, including the Qapqal News, the world’s only Xibe-language newspaper.[43] The Xinjiang Economic Daily is considered one of China’s most dynamic newspapers.[44]
July 19th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
7 per cent is approximate minority representation in China.
The Uighurs are not a ethnic minority in Xinjiang, the Han Chinese are an ethnic minority there. Yet they are overrepresented in leading government bodies and disproportionately employed by state organizations such as the Bingtuan. The fact that only 7 per cent of Bingtuan employees are Uighur is simply grotesque.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Xinjiang Economic Daily (新疆经济报) is indeed a dynamic newspaper, but you forgot to mention that it appears in Chinese only.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“The Uighurs are not a ethnic minority in Xinjiang, the Han Chinese are an ethnic minority there. Yet they are overrepresented in leading government bodies and disproportionately employed by state organizations such as the Bingtuan. The fact that only 7 per cent of Bingtuan employees are Uighur is simply grotesque.”
These are National universities, and National companies, why should that be grotesque quotas?
You might as well require Intel corporation to meet all local population ratios in every city they have an office.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“Xinjiang Economic Daily (新疆经济报) is indeed a dynamic newspaper, but you forgot to mention that it appears in Chinese only.”
As usual, you only read the line you want to read. You forgot to acknowledge that “there are fifty minority-language newspapers published in Xinjiang”.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:39 am
“…But some countries have similar quota systems, and on the opposite end, there are positions that Han people might be qualified for and not allowed to fill the spots that are reserved for minorities.”
“Legal experts debate the “fairness” of such race/ethnic quota systems, but it’s entirely within each country’s own preferences.”
“7 per cent is approximate minority representation in China. If you want more, that’s certainly within debate, but that still does NOT say anything about the quota system and “advertisement with ethnicity requirements”.
“These are National universities, and National companies, why should that be grotesque quotas?
“You might as well require Intel corporation to meet all local population ratios in every city they have an office.”
RV4000:
Clearly, your arguments/interests here have NOTHING to do with fairness to Uighurs, or the causes of the Urumqi riots, or what’s an accurate representation of the current situation in xinjiang, for that matter. Your comments from the very first are solely about defending the status quo in china, and attacking anyone or anything who might challenge it. your position doesnt look any more tenable than the distorted media reports, or the misinformed foreigners you rail so vociferously against. in fact, they bear a frightening resemblence to other nationalistic arguments from the past…maybe that currently sells well in haerbin or hangzhou, or huzhou, but the product definately smells and looks like shit here….
July 20th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Hemulen, you have again shown your simplistic, ideological bent, without considering the facts:
” I would say a 1 to 3.6 ratio in favor of Han Chinese.”
Even if search result is representative – pray tell, what is the ratio of Uyghur/Han? If it is not 1 to 3.6, then the job posting are in fact in favor of Uyghers, isn’t it?
Unless you are prepared to prove over 28% of Chinese population are Uyghur.
BTW, there are plenty of Uyghurs in XUAR leadership. XUAR party chairman, Ismayil Tiliwaldi, is Uyghur too.
As to the newspaper being in Chinese, I’d like to see you find one major newspaper in US that is published in Native American language.
And there’s Keith and his “causes of the Urumqi riots” – can you clarify what the “causes” are? And do they justify killing of innocent people? Boy us enlightened Americans really should set a good example for the Chinese by having Osama Bin Ladin to give us a lecture on the casues of 9/11.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:06 am
“.. And do they justify killing of innocent people? …”
no more than any other biased racist policies justify ‘quotas’ in places where han people are the overwhelming minority. perhaps, liu, you and RV4000 could go back to the good life in heilongjiang and urumqi and enjoy the preferential han policies you seem to be so proud of defending. maybe some day, together with the ccp, you can rule the world.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Keith, I ain’t from mainland China. Your “go back”, based on my last name, even after I’ve told you I’m American, seem bigoted to me.
If you truely believe whatever causes don’t justify the killing, then stop justying it.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
“If you truely believe whatever causes don’t justify the killing, then stop justying it.”
you can try to twist the discussion if you like, but It wasnt me that was defending the causes or the system behind it(and especially not the killing)..If you and RV4000 want to defend racist chinese govt policy you are more than welcome to do so, but i was rather suggesting the audience would be more favorable on the mainland. as for me, my “valid” questions about fairness were merely fodder for RV and you to justify programs that stop people from having legitimate chances to get work. Like your bro RV said, “it is what it is..” What’s the point of defending it? because western media are biased? or we waiguoren’s are bigoted and misinformed? Give me a break..there’s no country here on high moral ground, including the chinese.
As i said when i first entered this, i am interested in knowing how RV’s defense of the policies really bring about real understanding of what’s happening in xinjiang, or how it promotes justice there. Educate me, i’d like to know that. I fail to see however, how the phony notion that these quota policies are justified (as you both have implied) because western media are biased, western govts have their own corrupt policies, or western observers like me are bigots and uninformed. Or worse yet, because chinese sovereignty allows them to do whatever the hell they want, so dont us folks here challenge it!
But i I have wasted enough of my time with this back and forth trash. It’s enough…
July 20th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@Charles Liu
Even if search result is representative – pray tell, what is the ratio of Uyghur/Han? If it is not 1 to 3.6, then the job posting are in fact in favor of Uyghers, isn’t it?
Unless you are prepared to prove over 28% of Chinese population are Uyghur.
You forget one thing: the ratio Uighur/Han is 1.1 in Xinjiang. But surely the result of Googling “招聘 男女不限 汉族 site:gov.cn” must result in other provinces showing up? One would think so, but look at the first twenty results: Yining, Shihezi, Urumqi…
BTW, there are plenty of Uyghurs in XUAR leadership. XUAR party chairman, Ismayil Tiliwaldi, is Uyghur too.
Check your facts. Tiliwaldi was the chairman (i.e. governor) of Xinjiang between 2003-2007 and thus had lower rank in the party hierarchy than Wang Lequan, who has been party chief in Xinjiang since 1995. Except for the years 1972-1978, every party chief in Xinjiang has been Han Chinese. Some autonomy.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:31 am
@ huaren #9: Sorry it’s taken me so long to answer you. I was out of town on business and just got back.
While I was there, I asked others I met about the riots in China. No one knew about them except in some vague way. They heard that Chinese had been attacked and murdered by one of the minority groups. These were mostly artists and architects. I believe people on this blog overestimate typical American interest in internal Chinese affairs and the degree of knowledge of internal Chinese affairs.
To be honest, the initial headlines were about the murder of Han by Uyghur and the follow up murder of Uyghur by Han was not reported anywhere to the same extent, so the people who are aware of this incident kept the impression of the initial murders. That’s exactly opposite of what most here have suspected from what I have read so far.
One publication that I think has really gone downhill is Time magazine. I remember when it was the biggest weekly but these days it is pretty pitiful, and that also includes the China coverage. I really don’t think it’ll survive. These days, a weekly magazine that just reports news is too out of date to have much use.
@ Charles #13: I never mentioned anything about the government, I was talking about traditional media.
@ huaren #14: I think there is biased nonsense in ALL media. Chinese and non-Chinese. Each side seems to want to acknowledge each others’ bias but not their own. For the other side, look at rolf’s referenced article in #15.
After this, everything started to get very silly…
First of all, I noticed that everyone commented on the two articles but no one seemed to have bothered watching the video. In the video, Fallows is pro-China and Ferguson is anti-China, to sum it up in a simple way. Fallows is probably the most well known pro-China newsman writing about China today. No one seems to want to acknowledge this.
Second, I noticed that everyone (with a couple of exceptions) seems to have opinions about what’s going on in Xinjiang though they have never been there. I have also never been there. To act like you know what’s actually happening there is rather presumptuous, isn’t it? How can you know just by reading media? And the only way to know if the Uyghur encounter racial bias is to ask a Uyghur. That rule applies anywhere in the world. So for me, most of this ‘back and forth’ is endless spinning around and around with nothing that can be determined since none who are discussing it have ever been to Xinjiang and thought they might think they know the true situation, in reality they have no real clue.
The only conclusion I’ve been able to figure out is that there is an intrinsic problem there that needs to be solved. Throwing blame around doesn’t solve anything, for either side. What is needed is to recognize the problem, acknowledge the problem, work with both sides to find workable solutions that both sides can accept, and then to implement the solution. All the rest of it just hardens both sides and actually makes the problem worse, with a greater potential for the problem to escalate in the future.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:16 am
@Steve (#70): Great post, especially the second paragraph from the end. It’s amazing how much people understand about the situation in Xinjiang without having been there 🙂
July 21st, 2009 at 4:46 am
@steve
I have been to Xinjiang. And that visit was an eye-opener, to say the least.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:51 am
Hi Steve, #70,
Welcome back. It appears you are a few trips into China more than me as of late.
I agree with basically everything you said. In case it wasn’t apparent from my other comments – I think there are ethnic tensions within China, and absolutely between Uyghurs and Han and other minorities. It is a serious problem not to be taken lightly or dismissed.
For me personally, the thing that got me all upset was WSJ’s op-ed of Kadeer. Yeah, I used to read TIME 10 years ago, and they have now turned into trash. To me, TIME has become a promoter of hate for the Chinese government as far as China is concerned for them.
I don’t think its fair to dimiss the “blame” part. On the blame part, some of what other FM readers here (and I) have pointed to – Kadeer inciting racial tension – that is directly working against reconciliation. WSJ amplifying her voice is very irresponsible.
So, I hope you understand – my issue is with those contributing to the problem – being as difficult as it is generally of things of this nature.
Also, I’d say most people on the other side of the debate never acknolwedges the bias problem in the “Western” “free” media.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:52 am
Steve, I’ve laid out the facts that show you the traditional media’s role in our government’s Echo Chamber.
And will you once and for all make it clear if the stuff you say, like “intrinsic problem”, justify the killing on innocent people?
If not then none of it means anything to the Urumqi citizens, Han and Uyghur, who are basically living in a war zone right now. The issue of violence need to be address first.
Should we Americans thank Osama Bin Ladin for showing us the “intrinsic problem” with our middle east policy? I think the answer is clear.
The facts prove Kadeer and WUC, under patronage of the NED, twisted the well intentioned (thou ineffective) minority works program into accusation of slavery, and exaggerated the Guangdong factory brawl into genocide, in order to inflame anti-Han sentiment.
And the Chinese government have collected evidence that prove the riot was orchestrated:
http://www.usqiaobao.com/wulumuqi0705/2009-07/19/content_230757.htm
– WUC called the illegal protest
– large volumn of inflammatory message on internet from overseas
– messages preceeding the chaos (even Kadeer herself called family with warning)
– most perpetrators were assembled from out of town
– 50 simultanious attacks occured in Urumqi night of 5/7
– survillance camera showing women hiding weapons under burkas (seldom worn in Urumqi) and handing them out on the streets
July 21st, 2009 at 6:05 am
@Charles Liu: “Should we Americans thank Osama Bin Ladin for showing us the “intrinsic problem” with our middle eastern policy?”
Good question. I think at least some self-reflection on the part of the US government is in order, and there has certainly been more signals of that coming out after Obama was elected. Nobody deserves violence and in the short run it’s probably best to take it out with standard “allopathic” measures focusing on the symptoms rather than the underlying causes, but in the long run…
Tibetans rioted last year and this year Uighurs are in for the ride. What are the reasons for this? Did outside forces just choose this particular time for their nefarious purposes? Or was it a mix where people’s grievances made them more prone to accept violence?
July 21st, 2009 at 7:24 am
Wukailong, last year’s Tibet riot was even more evidently fomented by Tibetan Youth Congress’ uprising manifesto, again under the patronage of certain western GO/NGO.
I don’t suppose the victims of Tibet riot deserved it too? Let’s make it clear one way or the other. Either this kind of violence can be justified, or it can not.
To say when it happens to us (9/11) or India (Mumbai) it’s not justfiable, but when it happens to China or Russia (Chechnya) let’s focus on “legitmate grievences” that may be used to justify the violence. This is the impression I’ve gotten from America’s “official narrative”, and it is disheartening.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:37 am
“Second, I noticed that everyone (with a couple of exceptions) seems to have opinions about what’s going on in Xinjiang though they have never been there. I have also never been there. To act like you know what’s actually happening there is rather presumptuous, isn’t it?”
Actually, Stephen, it’s not any more presumptious than saying I’m an economist because I’ve taken an undergraduate microeconimics course. I’m sorry, but visiting or living in Urumqi doesnt make me an expert on what really happened there and why it happened several weeks ago. I have been to Urumqi and my last girlfriend was born and raised there, but I’m still pretty much ignorant about the life there and especially the riots and the reasons for their happening… Look, even the chinese govt, while they keep updating the events through their official news sources:
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009xinjiangriot/index.html)
and continue to have their own spin on it:
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/20/content_8446795.htm)
still hasnt issued a final word or report on it yet. There are some very complex issues involved that go way beyond a brief visit or even living there for some time would allow for explaining.
But Charles and RV4000 and others raise very legitimate points about the accuracy and biases of the western filtered media reports. We would do well to pay attention…It reminds me to some extent of the events last year after the riots in Lhasa. My Chinese friends on the mainland were incensed (and with good reason i think) by reading western media reports about those events, the Dalai Lama, and the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.
What i fear in all this is a rising and potentially destructive chinese nationalism that reacts to the negative face portrayed in western media when similar events, such as the Urumqi riots, take place. Again, we would do well to pay attention and try to understand in a genuine way the significance of these things. Whether it’s the excesses of Wall Street, the intrusive nature of american and european foreign policy, or the bad elements of our society that get portrayed to young chinese, they are questioning more and more and watching…They deserve better from us, not only in how we report these events, but in many other things as well.
BTW, i tried sever times to watch the Fallow video, but couldnt get it to play.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:40 am
@ Hemulen #72: That’s why I put in the qualifier, since I know that a couple of people here have actually traveled to or lived in Xinjiang. Now traveling to a place is, as you said, an “eye opener” and living there for a time is an even greater eye opener, but both of them are only important if you spend time with all the cultures rather than with just one of them, so you can get different perspectives. I’m sure you did just that and felt richer for the experience.
@ huaren #73: Just to make it clear, I wasn’t in China on this trip but San Jose, CA. I had a chance to ask people at this convention, from all over the States and also a woman from South Korea, what they knew about the riots in Xinjiang. I haven’t been in China in about three years but was in Taiwan (some would count that as being in China while others would not) last year.
Seems we’re both of the same opinion concerning TIME magazine. It wasn’t just the Kadeer piece but a lot of other articles they’ve written in the last couple of years that were just garbage. It seems all their best reporters have gone on to other things.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you (and Charles) about the WSJ and other pieces concerning Kadeer. As I’ve said before, I think she was a two bit player that China amplified into a media superstar by plugging her as the “brains” behind these riots. Once she became a central figure, it was only natural that media would seek her out for her side of the story. I think Charles has done a good job documenting her phony photos and misleading statements so if someone takes the time to investigate her, her story falls apart pretty quickly but I still lay a lot of the blame on China’s turning her from a nothing into a player.
I agree with you about the ‘bias’ problem. Each side refuses to acknowledge the its own culpability but takes great delight in documenting the other side’s.
@ Charles #74: Charles, if you read my very first comment about the Urumqi riots, I strongly and in no uncertain terms condemned the Uyghur killings of Han, and later just as strongly condemned the Han killing of Uyghur. I have admonished people quite a few times for talking too much about the politics and not enough about the suffering. So I have already “once and for all” condemned all the violence, except for when the cops shot those Uyghur guys who had the swords/machetes/whatever they were. Then I strongly supported the police in their action.
If you want to address the issue of violence, you need to address the grievances behind the violence. Violence is an unacceptable way to handle grievances but simply locking everyone up and restricting their movements for the next ten years without addressing the grievances that caused the initial protest is just as foolhardy as not punishing anyone for the violence. Do you want to see future riots? If not, then you need to find the causes for the initial protest. Blaming it on outside forces, to me, is just avoiding the problem, because you can’t solve a problem unless you acknowledge it. Anytime anyone brings up the intrinsic problems between Han and Uyghur, you postulate that there is a link from that to justifying violence. There is only such a link in your mind, not in reality.
Charles, you think any organizational structure can influence people, even if they don’t want to be influenced and are happy with the current situation. I have read many times that there are about 80,000 protests in China per year and even if the number is somewhat exaggerated, I haven’t heard anyone deny that there are a huge number. Many of these protests turn violent. They are Han on Han. Do you really think all of them are caused by NED sponsored organizations?
Osama bin Laden? First it was silly and inaccurate comparisons between Chinese and Native Americans which were not only inaccurate but irrelevant, and now you come up with another irrelevant comparison having nothing to do with the current events in Xinjiang. Yes, there was a problem with American foreign policy in the Middle East before 911 and the aspects of that policy and eventual repercussions that took place make for an interesting discussion, but there is no comparison between that and the present situation in Xinjiang. For you to even consider it boggles my mind!
You can start up all kinds of NGOs and they can give all kinds of money to Swedish revolutionaries, but in the end there won’t be any riots or revolutions in Sweden because the people there like things the way they are and wouldn’t buy into the arguments of the financed revolutionaries, no matter how much money they had. An outside force is only as effective as its argument. Money can be a multiplier, but if you multiply anything by zero, it’s still zero. Outside influences and money cannot start a riot or a revolution, they can only magnify it.
Sorry Charles, I cannot read Chinese so your link isn’t any help to me, though thanks for providing it. However, so far all I’ve seen are accusations and not proof. Saying something happened isn’t the same as proving it happened. So these are not facts, they are accusations. They might all be facts, but there’s no way to know it until China offers proof.
You might think you’ve laid out facts in linking traditional media to the government’s ‘echo chamber’ but I haven’t seen much of a case. You can say there is an ‘echo chamber’ in government information, you can say there is an ‘echo chamber’ in traditional media, but you haven’t shown any causal link between the two, you’ve just speculated that one exists.
@ keith: If you can’t get the Fallows/Ferguson video to play on the site, follow the link in the first sentence. That will get you to the actual site where it should play. When I add a video, I usually also add the link to the original site, just as a backup.
You raise some good points. Yes, visiting a place doesn’t make you an expert in it but it sure gives you a better insight than not visiting if you spend time to talk to people there. At least that’s been my experience in life. Maybe yours has been different but when I go somewhere, I usually ask people I meet about these sorts of things and soon they are telling me what they think. Talking to ten people might not be scientific, but it gives me a ‘feel’ as to what the locals are thinking. My wife always does the same thing every time she visits Taiwan and can soon figure out how the mood of the country has changed from her last visit.
The legitimate points that you, Charles and R4K raise (and I believe they are legitimate) can also be balanced by the legitimate points that others raise about Chinese media. That was my point; that each side beats on the other without ever acknowledging that their own side does exactly the same thing as the side they condemn.
Keith, I was wondering… do you really think that most Chinese living in China read western media? When I was there, I didn’t know anyone that did. They read Chinese media.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:53 am
Keith, who are we to say that whatever nationalism the Chinese chose, and what kind of destructive consquence occurs in its course, is not their perogative exclusively? Our own destructive “freedom fry/war on terror” nastionalism after 9/11 should serve as a good example.
Should the world have stopped us from invading Iraq on false pretext? Should the world have sided with the terrorist and focus on why we deserved the WTC attack? Or should the world have sided against those who commit violence?
Had the NED not taken my tax dolloar to foment violence in China, there wouldn’t be a nationalist backlash to be weary of. If nothing else these NED patronage precisely does the opposit; by making the CCP more popular, and China’s people more nationalistic, democratic progress and prospect for improving ethnic policy is marginalized.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am
“And will you once and for all make it clear if the stuff you say, like “intrinsic problem”, justify the killing on innocent people?
“If not then none of it means anything to the Urumqi citizens, Han and Uyghur, who are basically living in a war zone right now. The issue of violence need to be address first. ”
Charles, we’ve been down this road earlier, but you’re missing the point..it’s not, this issue is first and this one is second or third…Violence doesnt just happen in a vacuum..boom..people just start killing each other. BOTH the killing and the origins of it need attention. And please stop peddling your phony high moral ground that somehow Stephen can’t talk about the “reasons” for the killing as if he is “justifying the killing”.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:13 am
“Keith, I was wondering… do you really think that most Chinese living in China read western media? When I was there, I didn’t know anyone that did. They read Chinese media.”
Of course. I worked in an american company in hangzhou for 3 years and developed many EXCELLENT chinese friends who read many western sources. And as i said before, they got really angry last year. Be careful here Stephen cause some of them are quite sensitive, even insecure, about the way we tend to generalize and unconsciously create condescending stereotypes…
July 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am
“Keith, who are we to say that whatever nationalism the Chinese chose, and what kind of destructive consquence occurs in its course, is not their perogative exclusively? Our own destructive “freedom fry/war on terror” nastionalism after 9/11 should serve as a good example.”
Charles, you’re a smart man, so you should not be trying to justify any sovereign national decisions or creating bad govt policy on the basis of foolish Bush Administration choices. If it’s racist it is; if it’s intrusive it is, if it’s propaganda..it is…they’re all bad and all of us should oppose them, Charles, no matter if it’s the Bush Administration, the KKK, the Nazi’s or the CCP, if they chose to do it. Remember, what RV 4000 said (thank you RV, wherever you are…), “…it is what it is…”
July 21st, 2009 at 8:26 am
@Charles (#76): Steve already made the answer I wanted to write in #78. I want to add that I don’t think anyone deserves violence (I made this point explicitly in my last post) but there is a difference between understanding the underlying causes and justifying violence. I get your point about different standards, but I think this applies to any case, Western/Indian or not.
@Steve (#78): I like the example with Swedish revolutionaries. 🙂 Back in the 60s and the 70s, China actually did sponsor a Swedish communist party, though not the one that took part in parliamentary elections. They were especially vocal during the Cultural Revolution, but probably didn’t have more than a hundred followers, and most of these members were university students. A competing, pro-Soviet organization proved more successful and have survived to this day, though they too are a very marginalized group.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:49 am
Excuse me Keith, but on this I feel I’ve got to side with Charles…In my book (and hope in the books of many other people) there exists no reason whatsoever that can justify or explain the planned and violent murder in cold blood of innocent civilians in the streets, including children, women and old people. In western countries these acts are labelled as TERRORISM, and whoever try to justify or examine what causes could have led to those kind of acts are very much likely to be addressed as “supporting terrorism and terrorists”: If in any way I’d dare to say that maybe USA foreign policies and imperialistic attitude is a reason to start to understand why 9/11 has happened, i’d be, usually and fastly, labelled, also here in Italy, as “anti-american” or, even worse and more stupidly, “anti-West” and that would quickly delegitimize any and all kind of reasoning, however rationale or documented, from my part.
In my view we should first and foremost call things with their name, and agree that this was indeed an act of terrorism, which must be dealt with severely..then, of course, we can reason on whatever social and political shortcomings. Till now i’ve seen very few people, also here, calling this episode with its real name, and i’m getting really sick of this istitutionlized double-standards way of adressing facts..according to which Mumbai’s attacks (cause India is US friend) were an act of terrorism, iraqis attacking the US illegal invading forces are a bunch of terrorists..but, cause it is in China (and China is perceived and propaganded as an “adversary”), organized Uygur mobs murdering in cold blood people in the streets with sticks, knives, stones and bricks, in 50 different places around town at the same time etc. is..what? Ethnic grievances being addressed in an “un-orthodox” way? Come on, it’s terrorism, plain and simple….(as for grievances…any form of terrorism that I know of originates from some kind of grievance – political, social, historical or ethnic – real or simply perceived or propagandized as such for hate, ignorance or any number of ulterior motives).
The sooner we agree on this, the sooner we can move on:)
Of course my remark is not, in any way, directed to Steve’s post or opinions…It’s just a general reflection
July 21st, 2009 at 9:41 am
Allesandro,
Thanks for your comments and clarifications. I do agree the killing is wrong and it is not justified by any alleged unfair labor policy or any similar excuses. Charles and others have raised the same point about the particular events in Urumqi should be labeled “terrorism”. Again, i really appreciate your perspective here cause it illustrates the bias elements very well. I do acknowledge your point about the double standard; it’ can be very subtle at first, but no less pernicious.
We (in the west) tend to justify the killing in the Gaza strip partly because, the argument goes, that palestineans keep launching rockets,etc. and maybe the same thinking is present here in this situation. Really appreciate your post. Tell me about your book please.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
People’s Government of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
18 Hans – 17 from the minority peoples. That’s actually very impressive!
Chairman Nur Bekri 努尔•白克力
Vice Chairpersons:
Yang Gang: In charge of government’s executive work, coordinate with the Corps.
Kurax Mahsut: Responsible for industrial economy, safety production, electricity and others
Qian Zhi: Responsible for agriculture and animal husbandry, supply and marketing, poverty alleviation and development, agricultural production, disaster relief, flood control and others.
Jappa Abibulla: Responsible for ethnic, religion, language, civil affairs, letters & visits, relief of production and living to victims.
Hu Wei: Responsible for investment, foreign trade, domestic trade, tourism, industrial and commercial administration, quality and technology supervision, port management, development zone construction. In charge of contacting trade promotion Association and other relevant communities.
Dai Gongxing: Responsible for development and planning, structural reform, statistics, transportation, information industry, telecommunications, food and others
Jin Nuo: Responsible for science and technology, education, contact Science and Technology
Tieliwardy Abdurexit: Responsible for culture, health, sports, press and publication, film and television, food and drug supervision.
Arkin Tuniyazi: Responsible for labor and social security, population and family planning, environmental protection and etc
General Office of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: Director-General: Ailati Aishan
Development and Reform Commission: Director-General: Liu Yanliang
Economic and Trade Commission: Director-General: Wang Yongming
Education Department: Director-General: Tursun Ibrayim
Science and Technology Department : Director-General: Zhang Xiaolei
Public Security Department: Director-General: Liu Yaohua
Justice Department: Director-General: Abuliz Usour
Finance Department: Director-General: Wan Haichuan
Construction Department: Director-General: Li Jianxin
Communications Department: Director-General: Nijiati Sulitang
Agriculture Department: Director-General: Eziz Kerim
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Department: Director-General: He Yiming
Health Department: Director-General: Mamtimin Yasin
Information Industry Department: Director-General: Su Guoping
State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission: Director-General: Wang Jiwen
Local Taxation Bureau: Director-General: Wan Haichuan
Industry and Commerce Administration: Director-General: Younusi Yusufu
Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau: Director-General: Jing Wufeng
Environmental Protection Bureau: Director-General: Dulihong Abuduerxun
Water Resources Department: Director-General: Wang Shijiang
Press and Publication Bureau(Copyright Bureau): Director-General: Mijeti Karder
Food and Drug Administration: Director-General: Litip Imin
Information Office: Director-General: Hou Hanmin
Foreign Affairs Office (Overseas Chinese Affairs Office)
Director-General: Nishan Ibrayim
Tourism Department: Director-General: Naisierding Yinamu
http://www.prcgovernment.org/xinjiang.html
July 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
@Rolf
The list of people in the Xinjiang people’s government and the representation of the Uighur ethnic majority there should not be taken at face value. The PRC always makes sure that local non-Han are well represented. But every decision in the “people’s government” has to be taken in the party first, which is done in formal and informal caucuses. In the Xinjiang party, the dominance of the Han ethnic minority is striking.
Here is the list of the Xinjiang party committee, out of 15 members ten are Han Chinese, and the notorious party secretary Wang Lequan has been in charge of it since 1995…
Wang Lequan (secretary)
Nu Bekri (deputy secretary, Uighur)
Nie Weiguo (deputy secretary)
Yang Gang (deputy secretary)
Zhu Jinlin
Fu Qiang
Han Yong
Li Yi
Shaokaiti Yimin (Uighur)
Nuerlan Abudumajin (Kazak)
Song Airong
Zhu Hailun
Bai Zhijie
Kurexi Maihesuti (Uighur)
Erkenjiang Tulahong (Uighur?)
In the member party committee of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which runs large parts of Xinjiang, there is only one Uighur and one Kazak. Some autonomy
July 21st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Bingtuan historically served more a defensive mechanism than anything else, but overtime it has morphed into a strange entity. FWIW,
* Bingtuan represents more of the ethnic composition of the military, not XUAR.
* Bingtuan has built most of its towns/cities on no-man’s land. By and large, it didn’t drive anybody else out from their homeland, with the exception of some areas directly bordered with former USSR when the Sino-Soviet tension was high.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hemulen, your “non-Han” description is far from factual. If the “large influx of Han” statement is true, then long time residents and their children born in Xinjiang have just as much right as Uyghurs to govern.
For example Yang Gang migrated to Xinjiang in 1969 as a bingtuan laborer. He wasn’t even a soilder or CCP member then. His children are native born Xinjianger.
Some of the named are from near by Sichuan. For example Fu Qiang is a life-long resident of the region, began as youth volunteer teacher in Korla and Urumqi. His children are also native Xinjianger.
What about their rights? You seem eager to deny them their rights simply because they are Han – ironic isn’t it?
July 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@Charles Liu
What about their rights? You seem eager to deny them their rights simply because they are Han – ironic isn’t it?
Did say that. Just saying that the rights of long term Han residents seem to be more respected that the rights of long term Uighur residents.
It is interesting that you take Yang Gang’s experience as a Bingtuan laborer as an example. Bingtuan was created with the explicit purpose of colonizing the region with Han Chinese in order to create a demographic fait accompli, often called 掺沙子 in Chinese. In principle, this strategy is not very different from the Japanese strategy of transferring population and troops to Manchuria in the 1930s.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Hi Steve, #78,
Fair enough.
“Each side refuses to acknowledge the its own culpability but takes great delight in documenting the other side’s.”
That’s true. Each side will put itself in obviously better light than the other, regardless of their media being “free” or not.
I think its healthy to expose the failings of “free” media, so those within China can see things for what they are.
I think its also healthy to expose the failings of China’s media – especially if it lies or unfairly portrays the “West.”
July 21st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Hi Hemulen, #87,
I am sorry – I haven’t followed your discussions thus far, but I noticed you said this:
“The PRC always makes sure that local non-Han are well represented. But every decision in the “people’s government” has to be taken in the party first, which is done in formal and informal caucuses.”
I would say this is a really big accusation. Do you have data or evidence to support what you say here?
July 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@huaren
When it comes to the fact that it is in fact the party that determines policy and not the people’s government, I really hope that I am not the first person that has told you this. All you need to do is to read a pol-sci text book on the PRC. That’s the way the PRC works.
When it comes to the way this works in “autonomous regions”, just go on a fact finding tour on your own. Most of the facts are already there on official government pages. Check out who has been first party secretary in regions such as Tibet or Xinjiang, They are almost always Han, with just one exception or so. Or look at the composition of the regional party committees. Always a Han majority. Check who is the party secretary in major Xinjiang cities in Southern Xinjiang, where Uighurs are in majority. In Kashgar: Zhang Jian. In Aksu: Sun Xiuqin
Here is the party website for Aksu, by the way. It doesn’t even have an Uighur language version:
http://akssdj.cn/index.html
If an Uighurs feels like a foreigner in his own hometown, I don’t think we can blame him or her.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Or the “fait accompli” white colonizers created in North America and Hawaii. Now, Should Americans an Canadans revert to Native American or Hawaiian language, along with restoration of Native/Hawaiian statehood, at the detriment of established sovereignty and non-natives born/living here?
Why is that when we do the same thing, it’s not evil – but when the Chinese does it, it’s measured with a bar we can’t live up to ourselves?
We excuse our own transgression with stuff like “long, complicated history”, yet when it comes to China we stand on our blood soaked ground and scream “independence” and ignore their longer, more complicated history.
Even if “rights of Han residents seem to be more respected” is true, does it justify the violence and killing? All I see in these ungodly long thread is wave after wave of attempts to justify the violence that we’ve already agreed is not jusfiable.
Some of you really need to have the courage and say what you feel in your heart – those 130 Hans deserved it.
ps Here’re more examples to demonstrate how superficial your “non-Han” characture is:
– Song Airong is a life-long resident of Tulufan; she moved there as a student, before she joined CCP.
– Zhu Hailun moved to Xinjing in 1975 as a student, before he joined CCP.
– Bai Zhijie is a forestry worker who moved to Yilihasake in 1973, before he joined CCP, and have lived in western Xinjiang since.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@Charles Liu
Well, Charles, all I can say is that the Japanese were saying very much the same thing when they were criticized for colonizing China. That didn’t make it right. And who is screaming “independence” here? I am not.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Don’t try to change the subject. Should Americans an Canadans revert to Native American or Hawaiian language, along with restoration of Native/Hawaiian statehood, at the detriment of established sovereignty and non-natives born/living here?
It’s a very simple question. As to who’s screaming independence, try Kadeer, WUC, and millions in “Blue Team” US Congressional funding behind them.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:26 pm
@Charles Liu
Thanks to massive American colonization, Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawaii and their language is extinct. It’s impossible to turn the clock back. But we’re not there yet in Xinjiang. I don’t see how exterminating Uighur identity now is somehow justified by what the US government has engaged in in the past. Two wrongs don’t make one right.
Where does Rebiya Kadeer or the WUC argue for independence? As recently as this spring she stated that independence is not realistic.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
@Charles
You said you are an American, I suppose you know that the Native Americans do have sovereignty over their own land. The division of power in U.S qualifies Native Americans to have the same level of sovereignty over their own land as State power. I bet you do know this because every American learned this in their civics or basic poly sci course.
Yes they do live on reservations, but however, the states themselves have given a lot of their lands back to them or declare it as a national park to protect it from outsider intruding. On reservations and any tribal land, if you violate any law you have to go forward to the tribal council. The Native Americans govern their own land. For example, in my state, there are many different tribes of Pueblo Indians. Even though they were not happy about the past history with the white man, but they govern over their own land and make their own laws on the land as long is it doesn’t violate Federal power. If you get murdered on tribal land and the criminal that murdered you have to go through tribal court. It is fair to say that the White man took the Native American’s land and they are evil for doing that. But why are the Native Americans not revolting anymore? They can bear guns and lead a riot if they want to, but the question is why aren’t they revolting? Could it be that they are satisfy with the way the system work where they have the complete sovereignty over their own land and the state government can’t interfere with their rule?
So I don’t understand your question, because what I listed above is basic knowledge(Maybe in New Mexico and Arizona (and its New Mexico, not Mexico)). Do you think that Native Americans do not have sovereignty over their own land?
How does this compare to the Xinjiang movement? In our capitalistic society, are the non Native Americans overtaking the reservations and creating businesses that forbid hiring of Native Americans?
Are you making the accusation that the U.S government is disturbing the livelihood of the Native American? Do you know that many university in the SW have a Native Americans studies program and they offer Navajo and other Native American languages?
I don’t understand your point in bringing in Native Americans and Hawaii.
The root problem of this whole riot is not the outside source. It is the Xinjiang government’s failure in making sure that its people can survive. The independence movement outside just took advantage of the situation.
That is only a side affect to the root problem. I have read many articles written by people who has lived and been to Xinjiang, they all have quoted that many simple Ughers do not wish to be apart from the government. The unhappiness does not justify the killing, but how do you know who are the criminals? The whole Ugher people in Xinjiang? Where is a legitimate place where Ughers or any other minorities voice their concerns and their dissatisfaction?
July 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Keith,
“As i said when i first entered this, i am interested in knowing how RV’s defense of the policies really bring about real understanding of what’s happening in xinjiang, or how it promotes justice there. ”
It’s rather simple. Law is never fair to everyone. It’s a give and take. Someone will always be put in some disadvantages.
And the Chinese system of quota hiring, is no less fair than any other “race factored” Affirmative Action system.
You can choose to disagree, but legal experts are still scratching their heads about what’s “fair” for an Affirmative Action system, which by their very nature will deny “opportunity” to some in favor of others.
A quota system will deny “opportunity” to Han Chinese as well as to minority ethnic groups in China, (again, to impose a quota ratio)
(And you are assuming that this system is cause of “unfairness”, and caused the “riot”, which is hardly proven.)
July 21st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Hemulen, #90
That’s pretty much how we humans do to each other, when a nation and a civilization is in an expanding mode. The Chinese expansion can be argued quite possibly one of the most benign types of expansion. You ought to see the very long list of accused ethnic cleansing from 1800 and on (still ongoing in case you are not a one-topic activist) — I think China is not on the list. Even taking my inner Chinese out as a bystander, I tend to think being a subject into which the Chinese civilization expands, compared with others, is all in all among the least traumatic.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Hemulen, how convienent of you to write off the Hawaiians. Your statement “Hawaii and their language is extinct. It’s impossible to turn the clock back.” is simply false:
http://www.geocities.com/~olelo/
Trust me I vacation in Hawaii quite often. Kauai is still full of Natives speaking their language.
Or you are arguing the Chinese are too nice to the Uyghurs, and to fix this they should do what we do, in order to satisfty your “they are minority, too late to turn back the clock” rationale you use to excuse our own transgression?
And where did Kadeer/WUC call for independence? Just check their website:
http://www.uyghurcongress.org/En/news.asp?ItemID=-240876752
July 21st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Hemulen,
“Thanks to massive American colonization, Hawaiians are now a minority in Hawaii and their language is extinct. It’s impossible to turn the clock back.”
Who says it’s impossible to turn the clock back? That’s rather subjective.
Hey, you apparently think you can reverse policy in China, Why not try it in US or in Canada or in Australia?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
@JXie
Well, last time I checked Chinese people were not so happy when the shoe was on other foot – when China itself was object of outside colonization.
You ought to see the very long list of accused ethnic cleansing from 1800 and on (still ongoing in case you are not a one-topic activist) — I think China is not on the list.
China is on the list. The conquest of Xinjiang 1755, the Kunming massacre 1856, the Taiping conquest of Nanjing, the Boxer rebellion 1900, the Xinhai revolution 1911, the war against the persecution of the Neirendang 1968-71, the Shadian massacre 1975, and so on. I have argued this point before with Allen Yu and I’m loath to repeat myself.
I tend to think being a subject into which the Chinese civilization expands, compared with others, is all in all among the least traumatic.
That attitude – that people should be happy to be sinicized – is at the core of the conflict in Xinjiang. If you really believe what you say, it is very difficult to argue with you.
@Charles
I was referring to the language, which according to Wikipedia is almost extinct.
“As of 2000, native speakers of Hawaiian amount to under 0.1% of the statewide population. Linguists are worried about the fate of this and other endangered languages.”
July 21st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“I was referring to the language, which according to Wikipedia is almost extinct.”
Almost, well, it’s not too late for you to make a difference. Go for it.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Hemulen,
China is on the list. The conquest of Xinjiang 1755, the Kunming massacre 1856, the Taiping conquest of Nanjing, the Boxer rebellion 1900, the Xinhai revolution 1911, the war against the persecution of the Neirendang 1968-71, the Shadian massacre 1975, and so on.
The nature of some of those are debatable, but the key question is, are those ETHNIC CLEANSING? I would like to see you make a case of it (1800 and onward).
That attitude – that people should be happy to be sinicized – is at the core of the conflict in Xinjiang. If you really believe what you say, it is very difficult to argue with you.
You are not reading what I wrote, which isn’t surprising BTW. I am perfectly willing to accept that some Uighurs may not be too keen to be under the Chinese control, but it surely beats losing your homes and sometimes your lives regardless you accept that or not.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
“The conquest of Xinjiang 1755, the Kunming massacre 1856, the Taiping conquest of Nanjing, the Boxer rebellion 1900, the Xinhai revolution 1911, the war against the persecution of the Neirendang 1968-71, the Shadian massacre 1975, and so on.”
Oh sure, so I guess LA riot, Tampa riot, Oakland riots were all “ethnic cleansings”?
How about Wounded Knee?
Better yet, Trail of Tears?
July 21st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Hemulen, now the truth comes out – it is not “extinct”, it is “almost extinct”.
That’s very different isn’t it? It’s not too late if it’s not extinct, and the situation for the Hawaiians is more dire, require more urgent attention than the Uyghurs.
Did Wikipedia say it’s impossible to change? You demand the Chinese do the right thing, yet when it comes to US suddenly you have a different standard that’s hypocritical and self-serving.
Again, your duplicity really shines thru.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
@JXie
We can debate some of the events, to be sure, but Taipings did wipe out the entire Manchu garrison in Nanjing in 1856, not just as a military expediency, but men, women and children. The same thing happened at many locations in the wake of the 1911 revolution.
In the 19th century, Moslems in Yunnan were targeted repeatedly at several occasions for persecution by Han Chinese settler and they were sometimes aided by local officials. The Kunming massacre is one example. The demographics of southwest China have changed as a result of events like these. Let me also stress than genocide does not necessarily mean that you just wipe people of the map physically, it can also be achieved by forcible assimilation.
The point is not to say that China was any better or worse off when it comes to genocide, but yes, it has happened.
Sorry if I misrepresented you, but Uighurs have been persecuted for being Uighur and do lose their homes. Well, yes, Uighur farmers do find that their land is being confiscated and taken over by settlers in Bingtuan state farms. Their language is being marginalized and is no longer used by the government in any meaningful sense.
@raventhorn4000
You are unbelievable.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm
“You are unbelievable.”
You are not the 1st one to use that line when lacking in arguments.
Try to be more specific next time.
*
and for your information, “ethnic cleansing” is not the same thing as “genocide”. So maybe you shouldn’t use them interchangeably in your argument as if they were the same.
It only demonstrates further that you don’t know what you are talking about.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@Charles Liu
Are you real? Due to the colonization of your country (not mine), Hawaiian is spoken by a couple of ten thousand people (0.1% of the population) in a state with several million people. I do support the efforts to revive the language, but there are separate fora for that discussion. This blog is about China. If your point is that the rest of the world has to become perfect before we can criticize the mismanagement of the CCP, well, perhaps we should change the name of this blog.
Uighur is the native language of 45 per cent of the population of Xinjiang, yet the local government is dismantling Uighur education and making it difficult for monolingual Uighurs to get jobs. If this state of affairs does not change in the next generation or two, perhaps Uighur will be reduced to the same state as Hawaiian. But we are not there yet.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@ Alessandro & Charles: “…there exists no reason whatsoever that can justify or explain the planned and violent murder in cold blood of innocent civilians in the streets, including children, women and old people. In western countries these acts are labeled as TERRORISM, and whoever try to justify or examine what causes could have led to those kind of acts are very much likely to be addressed as “supporting terrorism and terrorists”.
That’s a fair statement, Alessandro. We can say that the initial massacres were acts of terrorism because many of the Uyghur participants engaged in cold blooded murder of innocent Han citizens. We can also say that the next day the resulting massacres were acts of terrorism, this time perpetrated by Han participants engaged in cold blooded murder of innocent Uyghur citizens. So far I’ve read a lot about the causes of the first acts but not much about the causes of the second acts. I’m with both you and Charles but after this I diverge from Charles’ POV when I ask the following questions:
Does this mean that a foreign organization was responsible for agitating the Han into their acts of retaliatory terrorism? Where did the organization and funding come from? How were they able to react so quickly and organize so well? Why didn’t the police stop them right away since violence had already occurred the day before?
These are rhetorical questions but I posed them to show how cutting off discussion from one side also cuts off discussion from the other side. If someone condemns the Uyghur murders, does that make them instigators of and share culpability in the Han murders? I certainly don’t believe so.
Charles, you wrote “Some of you really need to have the courage and say what you feel in your heart – those 130 Hans deserved it.”.
Can’t I just rephrase that to read “Some of you really need to have the courage and say what you feel in your heart – those Uyghurs deserved it.”??? There’s no difference in saying that compared to what you wrote. You keep talking about the dead on one side and forgetting to mention the dead on the other. Don’t they count as much?
Once again, you make a false comparison between Xinjiang and other cultures. China has colonized Xinjiang for far longer than Europeans colonized North America and Hawaii, yet Hawaiians can freely elect their own representatives. In fact, both Hawaiian senators are of Hawaiian ancestry. Is Wang Luquan even from Xinjiang? No, he’s from Shandong province. Why are you always comparing apples and oranges?
@ Keith #81: BTW, I’m actually a Steve and not a Stephen. 🙂
I’m not sure if I understand your reference to “condescending stereotypes”. Could you please explain that one in more detail? I deliberately used “most Chinese” rather than “all” since the percentage of Chinese who are educated in the top universities and work in international companies is quite small.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Hemulen, “If your point is that the rest of the world has to become perfect before we can criticize the mismanagement of the CCP”
Not at all, my point is China shouldn’t be measured by a different standard. Your “too late for the Hawiians” is the perfect example of this duplicity some of us on FM have noticed. It’s not too late for the Hawaiians, let’s set a good example for the Chinese by donig the right thing for a people under more dire circumstance, using the same standard.
@ Steve, don’t try to twist my words. I have consistently condemned Kadeer and WUC’s role in fomenting the violence. All deaths resulted from the violence they fanned, Han or Uyghur or Hui, is their responsibility. I made no distinction.
Rather, It is the likes of “legitmate grievences” that’s taking foucs away from all the victim of the violence and putting it on the “Han majority” Chinese government, while ignoring any good intention, effort, and difficulty in manging the most populous nation in the world.
Any well-intended but ineffective policy is not the cause of the violence – Kadeer’s false “slavery” and “genocide” accusation is.
“If someone condemns the Uyghur murders, does that make them instigators of and share culpability in the Han murders?”
Does your example single out somone goiong to Chinese Urumqi blog to fan violence with false accusation? Kadeer and WUC did that.
July 21st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
No, Charles, it’s not. The most responsible people for the violence on both sides were the perpetrators. The Uyghurs who committed the murders are the most responsible. The Han who committed the murders are the most responsible. Your argument has moved into the absurd.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 am
Steve, I disagree with you. Instead of verifying facts and calling for calm, Kadeer and WUC exploited the Guangdong brawl and inflamed sentiments with false slavery, genocide, lack of police response accusations. The violence ensued, from any side, happened because of her speech inciting violence.
Please don’t cop the “I can’t read Chinese” stuff, there are translators, and I provided a summary of the evidence for you. 50 simultanious attacks with team leads handing out weapons from under burkas is not evidence proving orchestration?
If dry wood is set on fire, is it the wood’s fault for being dry, or the match that lit it?
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 am
“yet Hawaiians can freely elect their own representatives.”
True, but there aren’t that many “true Hawaiians” (who preserve the Hawaiian language/culture) left.
Most “Hawaiians” are either non-native or “assimilated”.
Of course, NOW they have vote, after assimilation.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 am
Oh, oh – forced assimilaton! Oh wait, the hate-China rule doesn’t apply to America’s transgression.
Darn that duplicity.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 am
@Charles Liu
You are getting increasingly incoherent. If you want to make this a forum to condemn transgressions against human rights in your own country, please go ahead and reuqest that admin make this a blog about US history and politics. Until then, it might be a good idea to discuss the things the original post raised, which includes oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 am
Hemulen, does “oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang” justify the violence? Stop justifying the violence.
And I’ve made it clear the compare and contrast is aimed to demonstrated the hypocrisy and duplicity in holding China to a different standard. Why is what we do not forced assimiliation, but when the Chinese do it it’s forced assimiliation???
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 am
“You are getting increasingly incoherent.”
Yet another repetitive classic 1 liner.
Why am I not surprised.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 am
@Charles: It looks to me as if you are actually holding China and the US to the same standards, which is good. The problem for me is that these standards seem to be that the governments of both countries are always justified in what they do. As an example, you write that
“Rather, It is the likes of “legitmate grievences” that’s taking foucs away from all the victim of the violence and putting it on the “Han majority” Chinese government, while ignoring any good intention, effort, and difficulty in manging the most populous nation in the world.”
So there’s basically only good intentions coming out from the government. Also, when you say it’s not the fault of the dry wood that it is dry (and subsequently burns) when somebody holds a match to it, and you mention Al-Qaeda, I wonder if you think there’s even an inch of a possibility that US involvement in the Middle East added at least some fuel to the fire that is international terrorism?
I’m not putting any words in your mouth, I’m just wondering. Personally, I’m more upset at US international politics than Chinese domestic (in general), so that’s why what you’re saying strikes me as so odd.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 am
@Charles Liu
Has I ever denied that the US has oppressed its ethnic minorities and still has to come to terms with it? And I have never said that the killing of innocent civilians is justified.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
“We can also say that the next day the resulting massacres were acts of terrorism, this time perpetrated by Han participants engaged in cold blooded murder of innocent Uyghur citizens.”
Steve, what next day massacre? Next day saw Han taking the street seeking a (comprehensible, but as I said not justifyable) revenge..but there was no massacre whatsoever, cause police WAS THERE to stop them, rightly, and this time, finally timely. If there have been killings (I didn’t hear about them in the next day, but I can’t rule out there were a few), those are crimes whose perpetrators must be bought to trial according to the law of course, but it’s not in ANY WAY comparable to what happened the day before in the city: that was planned, organized, unprovoked terrorism which left on the street almost 200 people, murdered in very cruel ways in 50 – I’ll repeat this for u, 50! – different locations in the city, with no regard for kids or old people or women. Now, is it Steve? What problem do u have in using the word terrorism when this kind of attacks happen in China, and not in a US friend country?
I respect you for being a fair guy, but this last post of yours let me very very puzzled for its “naivete” to say the least. If some of the relatives of the victims of Mumbai’s attacks did the following days go down trying to hunt down those involved in the attacks, and be stopped by police…would it be terrorism too, would that be comparable to the attacks the day before? Should we have tried to find foreign or organized sponsorship for them, or wouldn’t it be quite clear those were acts of revenge? Are we joking here, or what?
“Charles, you wrote “Some of you really need to have the courage and say what you feel in your heart – those 130 Hans deserved it.”.
Can’t I just rephrase that to read “Some of you really need to have the courage and say what you feel in your heart – those Uyghurs deserved it.”??? There’s no difference in saying that compared to what you wrote. You keep talking about the dead on one side and forgetting to mention the dead on the other. Don’t they count as much?”
I would prefer to skip this part, cause it really really make no sense to me…which Uygurs are u talking about? The very large majority of the victims, again, were Han; a large part of the MINORITY Uygur victims were mobs killed by police (some 12 or more, I don’t clearly remember), some other were killed by the mobs -cause there have been witnesses stating that some Uygurs tried to protect and save their fellow Han citizens – some others may have been killed in self-defence by some innocent civilian attacked, that managed to kill his attacker…Does it look the same to u Steve?? Or should we mourn for the terrorists killed by police in Mumbai?
Whatever innocent Uygur civilian died that day, deserves the same respect and sorrow as all the other victims of the episode, that goes without saying…but it looks to me those are really really really a tiny few compared to the total of the attack, doesn’t it look like this to u, Steve?
Is it really really so difficult for u to accept and condemn an act of terrorism when it happen in China?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 am
@ Miaka
“You said you are an American, I suppose you know that the Native Americans do have sovereignty over their own land. The division of power in U.S qualifies Native Americans to have the same level of sovereignty over their own land as State power. I bet you do know this because every American learned this in their civics or basic poly sci course.”
Are u serious with this?? Sovereignty over their own land? U really think that is what their own land used to historically be,or isn’t it the crumbs US government let them after taking away all the rest? Having let them live in tiny parcel of the territory that was once theirs, after it was conquered, colonized and stolen is something they should be grateful for, or u should feel good about?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
This video sums up the whole thing pretty well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jul/20/urumqi-protests-han-uighur
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Can anybody give a summary?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aa8_1248037806
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Alessandro
If you look at U.S federal law Native Americans do have control over their own land. Yes partial land was given back to them after U.S colonization, however, both the Native Americans and the white people have learned to get along under the system. I don’t understand your point because I couldn’t care less if Native Americans should or feel grateful for it at all. All I am saying is that CURRENTLY majority of them are content with the way the system works and pointing out that they DO have sovereignty over their own land. (how many native americans do you know? or have talked to) Do you know on tribal land, they make their own laws and rules independent of the state that it is in?
P.S This is not a thread about native americans, it is irrelevant and therefore this is going to be my last response to the subject.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Guys,
Suggesting Native American’s “sovereignty” over their reservations is hardly a practical solution to the Xinjiang ethnic problem.
I mean, by that logic, why not extend the same solution over to the Hawaiians? The Alaskans? The Mexican Americans.
Also, I agree with Alessandro, #123 – this “sovereignty” is essentially subject to state and federal law. For those living in California should know that the Indians were not allowed to have casino’s until they get a Proposition to pass.
Also, miaka9383, #126 – “content” is a very subjective and relative term. If the number of Native Americans alive are 5x the size of today, then the dynamic would be completely different. Ever look up stats on number of Native Americans who are clinically drunk?
Don’t get me wrong – the state of ethnic relations in the U.S. is actually commendable. The “fault lines” are very large at the same time.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
@charles 74 and @steve 80
Osama bin Laden? ……. you to even consider it boggles my mind!
_______________________________________________________
Actually, I don’t see why it is so mind-boggling to compare 9/11 and the Xinjiang riot, in the sense that violence can spin out of major grievances, and whether you address the root of the grievances will ultimately determine the fate of the fight against terrorism/separatism/ethnic tensions. In my mind, 9/11 was a tragedy, but also a missed opportunity to address the grievances of the middle eastern population against the American policy in the region; Likewise, if the Chinese government could use this opportunity to re-examine the ethnic tensions in various regions, and come up with a better working strategy, as a result of the riots. Otherwise, similar events will no doubt happen again, just like the failed policy of the Bush era did not stop terrorism against the US-led western countries/people.
There are a lot of parallel in American’s foreign policy and China’s ethnic policies. (OK, they are not the same — but I’m only pointing out what’s similar) The attitude, the arrogance, the failure to understand why the aid-receivers are not grateful … China could learn a lot from America’s success; but in the long run, even more can be learned from the USA’s failures.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Steve, “next day the resulting massacres”
Just for the record, contrary to Kadeer’s claim large number of Hans took revenge, Peter Foster of London Telegraph reported police in Urumqi protected Uyghurs from Han protesters following the 7/5 riot:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002643/urumqi-criticism-and-credit-for-the-chinese-police/
“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.”
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@Miaka
Huaren partially answered u on how sovereign they are…as for the “content” part, as he also pointed out is a very subjective term. Anyway, if it is not a thread dedicated to native americans, why did u even pointed them out, given the fact that the historic, social, economic situation are totally and completely different to that of Xinjiang? To make a comparison between the native americans situation (that till some 250-300 years ago were free on their own lands, and were later subjugated by US..after many treaties signed and not respected) and Xinjiang, in which many ethnic groups have cohabited for thousands of years, which have been under chinese influence/direct control for many centuries, and in which the first chinese settlements date back to I century b.C. is, IMHO, without sense. To start with, Uygurs do not live in reservations (unless u think they should start to..) and they were not the ancestral inhabitants of those lands.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur54815.cfm
HARVARD SCHOLAR HENRY LOUIS GATES ARRESTED for trying to break into his own residence.
“Racial profiling” against 1 of the few African American professors in Harvard?
(Incidentally, he had just returned from China after working on a documentary film. Apparently, he’s dropping the Chinese film project to start a new documentary on “Racism in US”.)
hmmm….
*
*
“Gates became irate and repeatedly called the white officer a racist.
After asking Gates to step onto his porch, in view of passersby, Crowley arrested him for causing a public disturbance.”
Hmmm… US cops arresting an African American professor for calling the cops “racist”? Shocking.
*
Well, I guess all you “democrats” online better beware. You too can be arrested for “public disturbance”.
🙂
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Wow, this thread started out slow but really got going! 😛
@ Charles #114: “If dry wood is set on fire, is it the wood’s fault for being dry, or the match that lit it?”
Going more in depth with that analogy, if someone took wood, split it, dried it out in a kiln, put it next to a house and then added dry tinder next to it all, then someone else left matches next to the house and finally another person took the matches and lit the fire, are we just going to blame the person who left the matches next to the house? Is the match supplier culpable? Sure. Are they the only ones who are culpable in terms of starting the fire? You say yes (Kadeer & the WUC) though I would say no. Even fire itself needs three agents: fuel, oxygen and a spark. (well, for most things but there are exceptions like SiH4 which actually don’t need a spark to ignite) You can’t start a fire unless all three are present.
I think a few of you all misunderstood me on my post since I was being ironic in part of it. I shouldn’t have done that since it’s tough to pick it up if English isn’t your primary language, so some might have caught it while others did not. It’s also why I labeled them as “rhetorical” questions.
I’m no fan of the WUC or Kadeer. My impression of Kadeer is that she is a populist, not a serious politician. I also don’t find her statements to be very intelligent nor her arguments persuasive.
But that’s not my gripe with the way this thread has been developing. What irks me more than anything, a personal pet peeve, is “kneejerk” political opinions. I’m not talking about China, I’m talking about all politics. Let me explain…
What’s your opinion on this issue?
I agree with whatever Rush Limbaugh says.
I agree with whatever Keith Olbermann says.
I agree with whatever the Republican party says.
I agree with whatever the Democratic party says.
I agree with whatever the CCP says.
I agree with whatever the WUC says.
I agree with whatever the NED says.
These are all kneejerk positions. No thinking is required. Everything is black and white. My side is good and the other side is evil. My side is right and the other side is blatantly wrong. Don’t confuse me with the facts. I have no interest in understanding the other side because they’re wrong. God says it; I believe it: that does it. You’re going to hell!
Senator George Mitchell negotiated the peace between the Northern Ireland government and the IRA. He said that the difficulty was in getting both sides to listen to the other and accept that the other side had legitimate grievances and a valid viewpoint. He maneuvered them both from kneejerk positions to more empathetic ones. Once both sides were able to do this, the peace accord rapidly followed.
What I detect too often with the situation in China is that the forum breaks up into two groups. One side we can call the “pro-CCP” side and the other the “anti-CCP” side. I don’t think any of our regular bloggers are anti-China per se. I’ve been told I float between the two sides depending on the issue. I’ve changed my viewpoint at times during the middle of a discussion because someone made a point that really made sense to me or allowed me to see the situation in a different way.
Now I’ll be honest: I’ve never met a Uyghur in my life. I don’t particularly care for conservative Muslim culture as it has developed and in my opinion, hardened and become less tolerant over the centuries. I have lots and lots of Han Chinese friends (and a Han Chinese wife) so my natural inclination is on that side of things.
I can certainly understand and share Charles’ disgust with what happened. Though we may bicker at times, I respect Charles because he is consistent in his views and usually stays away from ad hominum attacks. (except when he and FOARP get into it 🙂 ) But on this particular issue, I feel his placing of all blame on the WUC and Kadeer is a kneejerk reaction to an emotional experience. It’s the classic “bogeyman” approach.
Does the US government also use this tactic? As they say in Minnesota, you betcha! “Either you’re with us or against us!” This attitude (kneejerk politics) is what I’m detecting here. If you don’t place 100% of the blame on the WUC, you hate China, you hate the Han, you hate decency and morality, etc. If I or someone else look to see what made the wood so dry, to use Charles’ analogy, or to condemn the people who actually lit the match, we’re condemned for not putting all the blame on the WUC who supplied the matches. Sorry, that’s not a very good argument.
About the Uyghur/Han murders: Yes, absolutely more Han died from Uyghur attacks than Uyghur from Han. Charles, I also read that article you referenced a few days ago and thought it was excellent. In fact, I complimented the job the police have done throughout this crisis. (remember, those questions were ironic and rhetorical) Allen had linked to several videos that showed the violence from the other side so I’m not sure why anyone is denying that some innocent Uyghur were murdered by Han. But is this a numbers game? Do the innocent Uyghur who had nothing to do with the attacks on Han the day before, deserve to die because they happen to be Uyghur and less of them died? Does the fact that some Uyghur killed Han the day before excuse the Han who murdered those innocent Uyghur the next day? Where’s the perspective here? If your opinion is so kneejerk that you can condemn Uyghur murder but dismiss Han murder or blame all murder on the WUC and absolve the murderers themselves, then it’s best that I just cut out of this discussion because my view would be irrelevant.
@ R4K #115: Actually, there are quite a few Hawaiians that can speak the native language, so I think the Wiki numbers might be in error. You might want to spend more time there if you get the chance, just to check it out. (not a bad place to go on assignment, ha ha) You can even find really nice music sung in Hawaiian that has a pretty big local audience. Most slack-key songs (a native style of guitar) are also sung in Hawaiian. Funny, I heard the same remark about spoken Hakka in Taiwan, yet in Miaoli almost nothing else is spoken in the stores there. In fact, if you bargain in putonghua, you pay more. 😉
@ Charles #118: I’m not following your argument here. Who said it wasn’t forced assimilation of Hawaiians and Native Americans? Of course it was! You’re making an argument out of something that no one disputes.
@ Alessandro #122: I hope I’ve answered some of your questions previously but I wanted to address a couple of specifics. Firstly, when did I ever say it wasn’t terrorism? Of course it was. I have no problem using the word. However, terrorism is an act while revenge is a motive. Revenge can be a motive for terrorism. Using the definition of terrorism that was defined as the killing of innocents, both would be terrorism. If the Han had killed the Uyghur actually responsible for the murders of Han, that would be vigilantism.
You said, “Whatever innocent Uygur civilian died that day, deserves the same respect and sorrow as all the other victims of the episode, that goes without saying…but it looks to me those are really really really a tiny few compared to the total of the attack, doesn’t it look like this to u, Steve?”
My response is that the value of the life of any innocent individual is equal to the value of all the others. Because less Uyghur were murdered doesn’t absolve those murders or give the innocent lives any less value. Emotionally, my sympathy is more on the side of the murdered Han but morally, every life is equally sacred.
Again, why is it that when I condemn the Uyghur murders of Han as terrorism and then condemn the Han murders of Uyghur as terrorism, many of you seem to forget about the first part and act like I never said it? That’s a classic kneejerk response to a nuanced argument. Alessandro, since you came into this discussion after it had been going on for awhile, you might have missed my earlier comments but as soon as the riots and murders occurred, I was practically the first person to condemn it and specifically write that there is NO justification for the killing of innocent people.
@ Charles, Hemulen, miaka, R4K, Alessandro: Please, please stop with the Native American references. Outside of miaka, no one has shown any understanding of tribal structure or history. If we were as inaccurate talking about Chinese history as you are in talking about Native American history, you’d all be going bananas and hurling epithets at us. I don’t expect any of you to be up on Native American history anymore than I’d expect most Americans to know that much about it, but the individual tribes know plenty about their own cultural past and they’d be laughing at you, (actually not since that would be unacceptable in their culture), ok, INWARDLY laughing at you amongst themselves for the ignorant comments you make. Can’t we just stick to China?
@ huaren: I respect your open-mindedness and wanted you to know that alcohol is forbidden on Native American reservations. It’s actually illegal to drink a beer in your own house or even have one in your refrigerator. There are no bars on the reservation, no private clubs, no liquor stores. When I lived in Farmington, New Mexico, there were “Navajo” bars in town (this is off reservation) and some of the Navajo would drive a hundred miles just to go drinking. They just don’t have the “alcohol” gene and it makes them almost numb when they’re drunk. Navajo say non-Indians don’t have the “peyote” gene and act like complete idiots when they use it. 🙂
I was once in one of those bars with a really big half-Navajo/half Cheyenne Indian (his uncle was the tribal chairman) and was the only non-Navajo there. Two guys threatened me but then a couple told me they’d cover my back if anything happened. Ended up one of ‘my’ guys was a two time New Mexico golden gloves boxing champion. Goes to show that if you’re nice, people will befriend you anywhere you go.
Incidentally, most Native Americans live off the reservation by choice. They are also extremely patriotic Americans.
@ neutrino #128: Your comment was very, very well put. I agree with everything you say and you were able to compare the two incidents in a very valid way. My problem with Charles’ comment was that he just threw out bin Laden’s name as a superficial comment. 9/11 wasn’t American attacking American, it was Saudi Arabians attacking Americans. The perpetrators had been trained for a very long time to engage in specific attacks against famous American symbols. As you said, one involved foreign policy (American troops on Saudi soil) and one involved domestic policy (Uyghur/Han relations in Xinjiang).
In fact, your analysis, though I agree with it, is antithetical to Charles’ view of the Xinjiang riots. You are not blaming the WUC for everything but mentioned the ethnic tension in the region that needs to be addressed, just as the US presence in Muslim countries needs to be addressed. Fortunately, I think that Obama’s election has started to change perceptions in the Muslim regions. My son just got back from two months in Europe and he also was able to visit Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Israel on this trip. He had long discussions with Egyptians about the whole Middle East situation, Israel and Iran and suffice to say it was not what most non-Arabs would expect to hear. I sometimes wonder if what we’d expect to hear if we traveled to Xinjiang is actually what we WOULD hear. Sometimes a specific perception can become so embedded in our minds that we are oblivious to the facts until one day they bop us in the head.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
@ R4K#131: I collapsed your comment because it was completely off topic. I’d suggest you move it to the open thread except that it has absolutely nothing to do with China in any way. To be honest, I’m not sure why you wrote it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Thanks Steve,
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
@ R4K: No problem. It was eventually posted on the open thread anyway.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
Steve @ 132, feel free to twist my words in order to obfusicate the real issue.
You’ll have to ask Hemulen on why he thinks it’s too late for the Hawaiians, yet it’s not too late for the Uyghurs.
The point is the duplicity in holding China to a different standard (a bar we can’t measure up ourselves), not wether the comparison/contrast is absolutely equivlant.
As to your accusation of factual errors wrt Native Americans, please cite specifics in the open thread so we can discuss it further. I’m American, I live in America; I know what I’m talking about when it comes to my own country.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
@Steve
“You said, “Whatever innocent Uygur civilian died that day, deserves the same respect and sorrow as all the other victims of the episode, that goes without saying…but it looks to me those are really really really a tiny few compared to the total of the attack, doesn’t it look like this to u, Steve?”
My response is that the value of the life of any innocent individual is equal to the value of all the others. Because less Uyghur were murdered doesn’t absolve those murders or give the innocent lives any less value. Emotionally, my sympathy is more on the side of the murdered Han but morally, every life is equally sacred.
Again, why is it that when I condemn the Uyghur murders of Han as terrorism and then condemn the Han murders of Uyghur as terrorism, many of you seem to forget about the first part and act like I never said it? That’s a classic kneejerk response to a nuanced argument. Alessandro, since you came into this discussion after it had been going on for awhile, you might have missed my earlier comments but as soon as the riots and murders occurred, I was practically the first person to condemn it and specifically write that there is NO justification for the killing of innocent people. ”
Steve, again, I really don’t follow u, and it more and more looks to me that u’re trying to avoid some parts of the discourse, while emphasizing other that are easier for u to answer….what Han murders of Uygurs are u referring to? There was no such “massacre” in the aftermath of the event in Urumqi, so what r u talking about?
All life is to be respected, but excuse me if I don’t show the same simpathy to the mobs (which in this specific case were Uyigurs) killed in self-defence (if it ever happened) by the attacked victims, or by the police in the fulfilment of its duty….Uyigur killed in the riot by mobster have my complete and total respect, as much as the Han have, have I ever written something different? I think it’s plain and normal…But in the little minority of Uygurs killed in the riots, a very very little part consists of victims, another good part consists of mobsters killed in self-defence or by police? Are u implying that those deserve the same respect and the same pity? I think if u’d find urself in such a situation, u would feel in a very different way.
AGAIN, and I hope it’ll be clear to u this time: victims – of whatever ethnicity they are – are to be respected and the killings condemned..Terrorists/mobsters killed are a different story.
“Again, why is it that when I condemn the Uyghur murders of Han as terrorism and then condemn the Han murders of Uyghur as terrorism, many of you seem to forget about the first part and act like I never said it? That’s a classic kneejerk response to a nuanced argument.”
Again Steve, as there were NO WHATSOEVER MASSACRES in the following days, I’d like to (and I think others too would) understand to what murders/terrorism are u talking about?
Terrorism has a defined meaning that can’t be distorted to fit ur personal use…
Just to finish…letting aside what u think or don’t think about the knowledge others have or don’t have of Native Americans – which really is of little interest here, and which is a pure speculative statement on ur part -, hope u’ll at least could agree on the fact that to compare that situation – and pointing out that some of the “solutions” (and I’m being euphemistic here) could work in Xinjiang or wherever else – with the Xinjiang situation is utterly useless and devoid of sense, being them two culturally, sociologically, historically, antropologically, economically completely different situation…..
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 am
@Steve
“9/11 wasn’t American attacking American, it was Saudi Arabians attacking Americans. The perpetrators had been trained for a very long time to engage in specific attacks against famous American symbols. As you said, one involved foreign policy (American troops on Saudi soil) and one involved domestic policy (Uyghur/Han relations in Xinjiang). ”
On these Steve, I believe u’r quite off the road.9/11 was also Americans attacking Americans (for a profit) and Urumqi riot was also financially, organizationally and materially supported (and in a quite large way) in foreign country, including US…Financial and material aid (and also MARKETING) given by US (and others) to WUC and Dharamsala are a fact, and a well documented (sometimes also openly claimed) one at that.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
@Steve
“About the Uyghur/Han murders: Yes, absolutely more Han died from Uyghur attacks than Uyghur from Han. Charles, I also read that article you referenced a few days ago and thought it was excellent. In fact, I complimented the job the police have done throughout this crisis. (remember, those questions were ironic and rhetorical) Allen had linked to several videos that showed the violence from the other side so I’m not sure why anyone is denying that some innocent Uyghur were murdered by Han. But is this a numbers game? Do the innocent Uyghur who had nothing to do with the attacks on Han the day before, deserve to die because they happen to be Uyghur and less of them died? Does the fact that some Uyghur killed Han the day before excuse the Han who murdered those innocent Uyghur the next day? Where’s the perspective here?”
As I already wrote Steve, but u decided not to take into account: if after Mumbai’s attacks, some people out of revenge would took the street and kill some muslim, or some of the terrorists who escaped or their families, would that be terrorism, or CRIMES committed out of revenge, which, of course should have been dealt with according to indian law?
If after 9/11 and what said about it, some people would took the street in the heat of the aftermath, and out of vengeance started killing some muslims, would it be terrorism or CRIMES committed out of revenge, wich should have been dealt with according to US law?
As I ALREADY wrote (but u decided not to take into account) even if someone managed to to pass the police controls in place after the “riot” and killed some innocent Uygur out of revenge – and I don’t have info about it, but am open to accept -, would it be terrorism or a CRIME committed out of revenge that should (and I’m quite sure it will) be dealt with according to chinese law?
Who ever said that if some innocent Uygur was killed he deserved it? Where did u ever read it in the comments posted above? What perspective are u talking about?
I think u’r perfectly up to understand what is terrorism and what is not (a planned, organized, carefully put into practice carnage of hundreds of innocent people -with people taken in from outside town, weapons prepared in advance and so on – in cold blood IS.Some MURDERS committed in the heat of the aftermath of the events, out of a WRONG thirst for vengeance IS NOT), and it’s ur perspective here to be heavily flawed, with a strange and clumsy desire to make it all appear as it is all the same…When it clearly is not.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
People mentioned the Uyghur employee ration in XinJiang Production and Construction Corp. It’s too simplistic to draw a conclusion based on the surface statistic. We have to look into the bigger picture under then planed communist economy and social structure. I admit I never lived/worked in XinJiang nor in the Production and Construction Corp. But I believe there are some similarities between P&C.Corp and the third front” where I grew up and worked in my first 30 years of life.
In the late 60s, there were massive industry construction and relocation in North West and South West of China called the “third front”. Tens of thousands of (or millions) workers were relocated together with their work units from more industrialized North East and South East to the west. There was one work unit left Nanjing and settled down in a mountain county in a western province. My parents were assigned to that work unit when I was one year old and we left our home province in central China.
The work unit was basically a isolated community from the surrounding local villages. It had it’s own factory, office, employee housing buildings, hospital, school, shops etc . The workers came from all over of China and spoke all different dialects, we kids only spoke mandarin which was taught in school . We hardly had any interaction with locals 200 meters away. We had brick houses/apartments with tap water and central heating system in the winter while villagers lived in the mud brick house or caves(窑洞)。We kids attended the work unit attached school which had college graduates as teachers while the primary school in next door village only had high school graduates as teachers. I only started to learn to speak local dialect after I went to local senior high and never be able to master that dialect.
As the work unit was directly managed by the industry ministry on the provincial lever and Beijing . the work unit manager and party secretary were on the same official rank with the local county governor and party secretary (县团级干部）。Some other work unit might even had higher rank (地市级)than local county officials. There was almost no any inter-contact between the two sides on all aspects . The recruitment was planed and directed from industry ministries in Beijing and provincial level. There was hardly any recruitment in the early 70s. From the mid-late 70s, there were massive recruitment targeted ZhiQqing! (知青进厂)who majaroty were urban younth grew up in the cities. The locals didn’t get chance to have the jobs.
From the 80s, the second generation of “third front”workers grew up.The job opportunities in the work unit generally were given to these group and graduates from colleges. Many of my junior high classmates, graduated from the attached school ,walked in the work unit’s gate in the mid 80s and have been working there since then .
From the late 80s and the 90s, the state owned SOE reform started and many work units’work force have shrunk and many workers were forced to retire in their late 40 of age. Till very day today, if you walk in the street my parent’s work unit located which also has few other work units and each of them has few thousands of workers and you hardly hear anyone speak local dialects. You hear more people speak mandarin with NE accent or south accent.
It’s the same phenomenon in every “third front “work unit I know. Two of my team members (both college graduates) got the job because their parents were in the other related work unit.(兄弟单位子女) . The state owned work units like my parents worked for and I worked for , the recruitment source were mainly from the second generation and assigned college graduates (子女进厂和大学生分配) till very recent even after many of the third front moved back into the nearby cities in the 90s .
The local population hardly had the chance (there were small portion of them)to get into the work units. The locals could be Han like where I am from. The locals could be ethnic miao where some “third front” factories located in south west.
It’s not a phenomenon resulted by ethnic policy. It’s a phenomenon cross the whole country caused by old communist social and industry practice.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@ Charles #136: If you think I twisted your words, please refer to the specific words you think I twisted so I have some idea of what you’re talking about. I can’t answer such a vague comment.
Charles, I’m done with the Native American discussions. If you want to compare, go ahead. It seems others have no problem with it so why should I? To me, the comparisons are stereotypes and I don’t like to stereotype Native Americans, Chinese, Americans, etc. That’s just me.
@ Alessandro #137: It seems you don’t believe any Uyghur were killed by Han mobs on the second day and the Uyghur that were killed, were killed by other Uyghur as they tried to protect Han on the first day. The only Uyghur that were killed were terrorists trying to kill Han or the police. Do I understand you correctly?
I have no problem with terrorists being killed by the police, absolutely none at all. The police are only doing their job and protecting society. I’ve never blamed the police in this for anything.
Actually, I know a lot about Native American history and culture. I completely agree with your last statement that there are no valid reasons to compare the two but as I said to Charles earlier, if people want to attempt it that’s fine. I’m not going into that discussion anymore because for me, it’s just a waste of time.
@ Alessandro #138: Since I don’t think 911 and Xinjiang are comparable either, I’m just going to skip this one. I’m not sure what you mean about Americans attacking Americans, but it really doesn’t matter.
@ Alessandro #139: “As I already wrote Steve, but u decided not to take into account: if after Mumbai’s attacks, some people out of revenge would took the street and kill some muslim, or some of the terrorists who escaped or their families, would that be terrorism, or CRIMES committed out of revenge, which, of course should have been dealt with according to indian law?”
You’re talking about different scenarios here, so I’m not sure why you tied them together. If after the Mumbai attack some Hindu killed innocent Muslims, that’s terrorism according to the earlier definition posted here that everyone decided to use as the definition of terrorism, which is the wholesale murder of innocent people. I didn’t come up with that definition, it was the general blog consensus. If some Hindu killed terrorists who escaped (I didn’t realize any escaped), that would be vigilantism. If there are crimes committed out of revenge and those crimes included murder, the blog consensus reached in an earlier thread would call that terrorism.
“If after 9/11 and what said about it, some people would took the street in the heat of the aftermath, and out of vengeance started killing some muslims, would it be terrorism or CRIMES committed out of revenge, wich should have been dealt with according to US law?”
Again, the consensus of the blog was that this would be a crime of terrorism. Incidentally, I argued against calling this definition a terrorist attack but was shouted down so I accepted this definition as a consensus one. If you read earlier posts, you can see how it developed.
“As I ALREADY wrote (but u decided not to take into account) even if someone managed to to pass the police controls in place after the “riot” and killed some innocent Uygur out of revenge – and I don’t have info about it, but am open to accept -, would it be terrorism or a CRIME committed out of revenge that should (and I’m quite sure it will) be dealt with according to chinese law?”
Blog consensus was that this would fit the terrorist definition.
“I think u’r perfectly up to understand what is terrorism and what is not (a planned, organized, carefully put into practice carnage of hundreds of innocent people -with people taken in from outside town, weapons prepared in advance and so on – in cold blood IS.Some MURDERS committed in the heat of the aftermath of the events, out of a WRONG thirst for vengeance IS NOT), and it’s ur perspective here to be heavily flawed, with a strange and clumsy desire to make it all appear as it is all the same…When it clearly is not.”
Alessandro, you’ve basically summed up my initial argument on why these weren’t terrorist acts. But that’s not what the blog consensus reached, so I’m not arguing with you about it, just telling you that others have a different viewpoint so for the sake of discussion, I used their definition.
Today on another thread there is discussion on Hezbollah being behind the initial riot. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. That would mean outside planning and training, and fall under MY definition of a terrorist attack.
In the future, you might want to read earlier posts just so you can be aware of what definitions are being used and how those definitions were reached.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“In the future, you might want to read earlier posts just so you can be aware of what definitions are being used and how those definitions were reached.”
Steve, rest assured I read carefully most of the comments in this page (as I usually do with many of the articles posted here), agreed with some, disagreed with others, but that goes without saying..as it goes without saying one has not necessarily to agree with the “definitions” reached or not reached…But I sincerely have some problem in understanding ur “answers” and ur reasoning, especially in these last few comments…They do look to me kind of a circular reasoning, stating everything and its exact opposite with little logic, for the sole purpose of keeping a point….But as u said many times, that really is not important, is it?
July 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
@ Alessandro #142: There have been quite a few posts on these riots so I’m not even sure which one that definition was on anymore. If you want to disagree with the definition, that’s fine but I used it in relation to what others wanted to use.
If you don’t understand my reasoning, please be specific in what you don’t understand. If you feel I am using circular logic, please be specific in your accusation. I can’t answer you if I have no idea what you’re talking about. You spent most of your post arguing a definition that I didn’t even agree with in the first place but used to keep discussion on the thread from bogging down in back and forth definitions. I answered your questions as best I could, then you accuse me of a logical fallacy without telling me anything specific.
I also asked you a specific question but you did not answer it. You accuse me of stating everything and its exact opposite with no examples, and say there is little logic but you never state where the logic broke down. When did I say “that really is not important”? How can I argue correlations when I don’t see any?
I wrote you an extensive reply and you gave me a generalized paragraph. If you want to end this discussion, that’s fine but then just say so.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@ Steve
Be serious, would u? 🙂
“There have been quite a few posts on these riots so I’m not even sure which one that definition was on anymore. If you want to disagree with the definition, that’s fine but I used it in relation to what others wanted to use.”
Really sound as u urself are not even sure of what u are saying.
Anyway, comments, answers and counter-answers are visible for all to read and make their own judgment, I’ll let them decide by themselves if ur’s answering or just going round in circles like this last post of urs…As far as I am concerned, there really is little point in keep on discussing this way
April 7th, 2016 at 7:07 am
di Tokootomotif Jual Mata Gerinda dan Jual Mata Bor Set Berbagai macam Ukuran terlengkap dan Berkualitas dgn Harga Murah