Xinjiang

[DaShi]

It's impossible not to anger him. Like most youths, he relies on imitation to develop his personality. Thus, he picks people like Krazyhorse, who are very smart but also very impatient, so get a bit snarky. So in an attempt to imitate (and completely screw it up), he gets angry at the slightest provocation and, as you've seen, won't even consider the otherside's argument or perspective. To him, this is what smart people do. And who doesn't want to be smart?

[DinoDoc]

Who's mitigating?

That'd be you, UR. Or what do you think the phrase Nothing the American government hasn't done, of course. implies? Maybe you'd prefer that I use the term excusing instead?

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".

Your point makes little sense as the Chinese aren't invading a foreign land to attack the Uighur people on soft/misguided intelligence, so the digression about Iraq only detracts from your supposed point. Also I don't see what centuries old events no one is defending have to do with events happening today thousands of miles away? Nor do I see how it detracts from the ability of a populace or even a government to complain about ethnic cleansing happening today in China.

[DaShi]

I agree with DD. While similar, the situation is not EXACTLY like anything that has occurred in American so they can't be compared. Oh wait, I don't agree, because I'm not retarded.

[Winston]

You're mostly posting like one who is, though.

[DaShi]

No, you are. Like I'd expect anymore from you. You achieved the level of Sloww and Docwhateverhisnameis. Congratulations on the step up. Now, since I won't be able to read your inane insults anymore, there's no reason to reply. Ah, this will spare me your embarrassingly unfunny pictures as well. Thanks. :cheer:

[MrFun]

score results: DD and Kuci, 100 points

Dashi and AC, 0 points

[fed1943]

Sorry but I cannot agree with the score.
Both American and Chinese authorities are right
Their words are backed by Atomic Weapons.

[DaShi]

score results: DD and Kuci, 100 points

Dashi and AC, 0 points

Can you back this up or is it another band playing on?

Who am I kidding? If you're such a coward to sit back and make potshots, then you clearly aren't able to standup for yourself. And you clearly don't understand what is going on (I'm not talking about the OP). Why don't you open those dim little peepers of yours and take a look? I mean, seriously. A bunch of thugs come in taking things out of context and lay down non-sequitors while preaching that "Murder is wrong and bunnies are adorable," and you're all patting them on the back saying, "Well done. Good show. You sure showed those nitwits. Bunnies soft."

Are you retarded or just really really slow? Has television so rotted your brain that you can no longer make a coherent argument let alone recognize one? I can't really blame the perpetrators. They're just arrogantly reactionary or arrogantly decietful. But they are the ones who take mysterious umbrage at other people's posts, so it's reasonable that they need to vent. But you idiots should be able to recognize a divergent rant when you see it. So how can you not see what Kuci and DD did here? And if you did, why tolerate it?

I've been using my ignore list to filter those who treat this forum like a sock after being aroused by American Gladiators. However, I'm afraid that if I have to start ignoring the idiots, I'll have no one left to talk to. So get smarter! Do it for the bunnies!

So to help you in the learning process, I'll try to explain it to you as simply as possible.

1. The "offensive" statement:

Nothing the American government hasn't done, of course. The only problem here is that the Chinese are two centuries too late, when partitioning ethnic minorities and sticking them in reservations has gone out of vogue. Maybe they can give them some blankets infected with SARS, like in that South Park episode.

Nothing out of the ordinary. A few words of facts, an opinion, and a joke.

2. The response:

I was wondering when someone would mention the US in an attempt to mitigate China's behavior here. Gratz on being the first, AC. Double gratz on coming up with a way to apply it where it doesn't make sense.

Who got off the train at Coocooville? Maybe there Ali was mitigating the behavior, if you really believe that because the US did it, it's ok for China too. But here, in the real world, only a reactionary loon would see it that way. So what has DD done here that has so captivated your tiny brains? He's just said that mitigating China's action is wrong. Duh, of course, it is. And while that's not what Ali did, it is the noose he will hang her with while you idiots cheer behind him like an angry mob in a bad B movie.

3. The counterresponse:

Who's mitigating? I'm in full agreement that the Chinese gov't fvcked up.

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".

The mistake here was that Ali acknowledged the *****'s nonsense. Everyone who ignores or berates DD deserves a medal for sanity, but I digress. Here Ali restates her initial point (duh, gee, maybe because DD was talking about some made up umbrage). It's a bit diluted from the first post, but DD didn't pay attention then, so why will he now.

4. The countercounterresponse:

That'd be you, UR. Or what do you think the phrase Nothing the American government hasn't done, of course. implies? Maybe you'd prefer that I use the term excusing instead?

Here he is ignoring everything that Ali is saying and then throwing insults. And how is this received: with thunderous applause (from the peanut gallery thankfully, but they're my targets here).

Kuci talks too much for a detailed response. But it's the same thing. His is obvious distraction is that criticizing the US for things done decades ago won't change them. Hard to argue with that reasoning. Of course it is!!! That's why no one ever said otherwise. Yet you've all been hoodwinked into thinking Ali and I have. And that's why you stupid.

But I should apologize for being so harsh to you. Afterall, this is what tons of average and even a few smart people fall for all the time. It's how Bush won support for the war "9/11 is bad." It's even how Obama won his election, "We need change." It's a great trick, and anyone here who disagrees with me is with the terrorists!

[Alinestra Covelia]

Insofar as it matters, my original statement (about how American foreign policy has also depended on concocted foreign plots) did not come straight out of the blue. It was posted in response to Oerdin's post which read, in relevant part:

'Foreign plot'.

That's always the first claim repressive governments make no matter what the truth is. Iran: "Our people aren't pissed off that we rigged elections and instead it is all a foreign plot!" China: "The Uighers aren't upset at our repressive policies towards them and that we promote han colonization of their lands so this must all be a foreign plot!"

My point was that yes, Oerdin is correct - insofar as China and Iran are making rather spurious cases for their actions based on some abstract foreign justification. My post about America's own examples was meant to show that most nations do this too, including my own nation - not just "repressive" nations (and no, I do not consider America to be a repressive nation). I've stated this point more than once in this thread, but it doesn't appear to be doing much good. Not that that surprises me anymore.

Everything from there on has been a rather predictable snowball of increasingly shrill accusations aimed at posters rather than the substantive meat of the topic. Volume and vitriol does not equal merit, people. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here.

Back on topic, here are the points I've made, abbreviated down to their substance.

The Chinese gov't is rapidly running out of options here. The true equitable solution would be to institute longterm policies that would ensure better economic treatment of Uighurs. But the fact that they've been shipping large numbers of Han Chinese to the area suggests a strong element of bad faith and an intent to rule by majority demographics-packing.

Now the fat's in the fire and Uighur patience for a peaceful solution seems exhausted. Much will depend on whether it's a vocal minority of Uighurs who led the violence, or the majority sentiment. If it's just a minority, Beijing may be able to reassert some modicum of peaceful coexistence through an immediate review of the controversial socioeconomic policies. If it's a majority of the Uighur who are intractably opposed, then diplomacy's time has passed.

And

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.

So, there you go. Have at it!

[Alinestra Covelia]

.

[Kitschum]

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

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

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

Well perhaps, but as you acknowledge "jure" is one thing and "facto" another. I'm not very familiar with the everyday living situation for the Uyghurs (and the other minorities), but I hardly think it unlikely that for instance the government, police and courts be disproportionately staffed by Han Chinese. Add language proficiency and familiarity with the system, wealth disparities (whatever the reason for them) and corruption to the mix and the deck appears stacked whatever's on the books.

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

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

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

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

[MrFun]

I wouldn't do that for the bunnies, Dashi - I'd do it for the kittens.

But I'm already smart, so there's nothing I need to do for the kittens.

[Kuciwalker]

My point was that yes, Oerdin is correct - insofar as China and Iran are making rather spurious cases for their actions based on some abstract foreign justification. My post about America's own examples was meant to show that most nations do this too, including my own nation - not just "repressive" nations (and no, I do not consider America to be a repressive nation). I've stated this point more than once in this thread, but it doesn't appear to be doing much good. Not that that surprises me anymore.

Did you have some kind of recent example of America defending domestic policy with claims that dissent against it was a "foreign plot"?

[DaShi]

I wouldn't do that for the bunnies, Dashi - I'd do it for the kittens.

But I'm already smart, so there's nothing I need to do for the kittens.

Well, thank you for reading my rant. I'm off to slaughter a bunny.

[Alinestra Covelia]

To Kitschum: Agreed on the difference between de jure and de facto. I believe the Chinese constitution is typical of many socialist countries', in that they promise considerably more protections than democratic countries' constitutions, but in reality they fall far short of their lofty aspirations. Chinese laws, as you say, are one thing - but the economic and political situation on the ground in Xinjiang are another entirely, and I agree with your point that unequal application of the laws are a reality. I'm very much of the opinion that the central government needs to re-examine its policies and it may be in the best interests of all parties involved to consider steps even as extreme as a devolution of governance in the area (depending on how strong the separatist sentiment is, and across what spectrum of Uighur citizens).

Concerning your other point - about China's lack of historical contacts and the assertion that the Communist government essentially occupied a foreign nation - I do contend this. I will go back to the relevant sources and read up on the subject before making any assertions of fact, though. I am fairly certain that Han majority rule had been imposed on parts of modern Xinjiang long before the Manchus took power in the Qing dynasty. I believe such rule was imposed intermittently.

I'm particularly interested in the issue of sovereignty and nationhood, and how they would be interpreted under current international laws. (East Timor's separation from Indonesia would be a really good case study to give guiding principles on what makes an area part of a country.) This will have to wait until I dig out my law books though, for which delay I apologize.


To Kuci:

Did you have some kind of recent example of America defending domestic policy with claims that dissent against it was a "foreign plot"?

The domestic/foreign policy distinction is something you've introduced post-facto to the argument - neither my post nor Oerdin's makes any mention of it. My point with the post is that large numbers of voting Americans (myself included) feel strongly about the Bush administration's poor rationales for taking us into the war - and accusations of foreign plots were foremost among them. In both cases, a government has generated domestic support through manipulations and misrepresentations.

I'm not interested in following you down arbitrary self-defined discussion paths, so if it's that important to you then go ahead and assume nolo contendere on this point.