Xinjiang

[BlackCat]

AC actually have a point. Why didn't the old system just clean this area (and tibet) when they had the power to do it without any interference ?

Best guess is that they intended it but didn't expect the fall of the wall.

[Alinestra Covelia]

My take is they fully intended to count ethnic minorities as Chinese citizens, but screwed up along the way. In some provinces, it's worked. (Yunnan province has several ethnic minority groups that have continued in their cultural traditions without friction with the Han - including the Naxi matriarchy, where the women live in such privilege that the men have formed a liberation front demanding equal rights. Far out.)

In Tibet and Xinjiang, resources have been scarce and development has been uneven. From what BBC and western news services suggest, religion is also a major stumbling block in China's governance over Tibet. Specific to Xinjiang, the cause of the friction has been the influx of Han Chinese and the sentiment that the majority of the economic development in the region has favored them disproportionately.

I consider it unlikely that the Chinese government has intentionally targeted Uighurs for negative treatment. I'm not familiar with the statutes on the books, but most of their de jure treatment of minority groups is intended to be favorable to them. The problem appears to be that the Chinese government's policies end up favoring Han Chinese moreso.

One situation that happened in Tibet (which may well apply here in Xinjiang) is that citizens get a stipend allowance for relocating to Tibet, and also get some medical benefits, to deal with the altitude adjustment. Tibetans already live there, and they're already adjusted to the altitude, so if you get a Han Chinese and a Tibetan Chinese in the same post, the Han Chinese will end up with a fistful more money than the Tibetan. It doesn't take a genius to see that these laws can easily lead to resentment.

The more I study American jurisprudence, the more I come to respect it. In U.S. constitutional law, for example, the courts are skeptical of any affirmative action laws to positive-discriminate in favor of a minority. The reason being that many a well-intentioned law can backfire and actually end up disadvantaging an already minority group.

China's constitution facially ensures that minorities will receive equal (or possibly even slightly favorable) treatment. But you look at a) how the law has been interpreted by the local governments, and b) how the law is applied by the executive branches, and you can see clearly the Chinese have a lot of catching up to do - and they don't have much time to do it in. This isn't like the 1700s, where you can paper over interracial violence with theories of Manifest Destiny or spreading the light of civilization. People will find out very quickly if your laws or police forces screw up.

[Kuciwalker]

...So, it's okay to blow off slavery because all the black people who were enslaved in history are now dead?

It's OK to not criticize 2009 USA for slavery because 2009 USA doesn't practice it. However, 2009 PRC is actively practicing ethnic cleansing or something like it.

[Kuciwalker]

If you want to criticize 1870s USA for ethnic cleansing you're welcome to, but most responses will be something like "yes, we knew that already, there's nothing we can do about it, so what?"

[Alinestra Covelia]

So we'll wait a few years when all the Uighurs are dead and by your theory the Chinese won't have anything to regret. Because history moves on and the violations of a previous regime wash cleanly from the conscience of the populace, who regain their moral authority.


Seriously though, I repeat that China's acts are not somehow justified by the fact that America did something similar many years ago. But it does strike me that if you're going to argue that this approach won't work (and I agree, it won't) then it's going to be more effective if your stance is "it won't work because our precursors tried the same thing and it has created serious lasting problems" rather than "we don't think you should do it, and by the way our history is irrelevant - ignore it please". By taking the latter stance, you run the risk of coming across as anti-Chinese just for its own sake, and alienating those who have legitimate critiques of the Chinese system. You strengthen the hardliners in their government and society who can point to the bogeyman of foreigners bent on dismantling the society.

(By the way, I'm still trying to parse out your statement about having "forgotten" the genocidal policies against Native Americans. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you meant it as an idiomatic flourish or maybe you meant it as a cynical explanation rather than an excuse - but as it stands, I'm trying very hard to see it in a way that isn't just a huge racial dismissal. Many Native Americans are living today in extremely limited socioeconomic situations brought about by precisely those policies, and I'm quite serious when I'm asking you whether it would be okay to blow off slavery merely because there are no survivors left. I don't mean to hold your feet to the fire publicly here, and if you like, I'm happy to delete this post and continue in private by PMs - but damn, if that post of yours was in earnest, I really have no common ground with you on this topic Kuci. )

[Kuciwalker]

So we'll wait a few years when all the Uighurs are dead and by your theory the Chinese won't have anything to regret.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Kuciwalker]

If the Chinese are successful then at some unspecified point in the future it will no longer be worthwhile to ***** at them about it.

[Kuciwalker]

Much like I wouldn't protest Greece's unfair trial of Socrates.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I really have no common ground with you on this topic Kuci.

^ This.

[Space05us]

"it won't work because our precursors tried the same thing and it has created serious lasting problems"

We only have problems because they were incompetent and didn't finish the job.

At the time genocide was a perfectly reasonable way to solve what they viewed as a problem.

[Jon Miller]

No, it wasn't. Otherwise it would have been done.

You have to go back 100s if not 1000s of years before genocide was 'OK'.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

(By the way, I'm still trying to parse out your statement about having "forgotten" the genocidal policies against Native Americans. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - maybe you meant it as an idiomatic flourish or maybe you meant it as a cynical explanation rather than an excuse - but as it stands, I'm trying very hard to see it in a way that isn't just a huge racial dismissal. Many Native Americans are living today in extremely limited socioeconomic situations brought about by precisely those policies, and I'm quite serious when I'm asking you whether it would be okay to blow off slavery merely because there are no survivors left. I don't mean to hold your feet to the fire publicly here, and if you like, I'm happy to delete this post and continue in private by PMs - but damn, if that post of yours was in earnest, I really have no common ground with you on this topic Kuci.)

Jesus. It was an obvious rhetorical device - I was paralleling your usage! Could you actually miss that?

[Kuciwalker]

My point is not so much that "the Americans did it, therefore it makes it okay" moreso that "the Americans did it and everybody appears to have forgotten in their sanctimonious outrage".

No, it's closer to "the Americans did it 150 years ago and everyone appears to have forgotten because EVERYBODY WHO WAS ALIVE THEN IS DEAD." i.e. for the same reason nobody remembers that Nebuchadnezzar did it.

[Kuciwalker]

The relevant point wasn't that there are no persisting consequences of the action, but that by now there's no meaningful remedy that can be applied, nor can any consequences be visited on the perpetrators.

Therefore the topic is irrelevant, because RIGHT NOW something bad is happening and RIGHT NOW we can, in some small measure, attempt to stop it. Even if the bad thing somehow is wholly completed, our actions RIGHT NOW to punish the perpetrators could serve as a deterrent to future bad things. But we cannot punish the perpetrators of American slavery [rather, a group of people that vaguely overlaps with their descendants] RIGHT NOW because no one will be deterred by a punishment that's 150 years late.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Okay, your posts are much clearer. I still disagree with you, particularly on the issue of "no meaningful remedy" (federal cases still crop up over Native Americans' reparations every few years), but if nothing else I understand them.

Looks like I touched a nerve. It wasn't my intent to anger you.