China's ethnic Mongolians hang on to identity by a thread

[Darth Wong]

You know, I really don't think that the example of the natives in North America serves the debating purposes of the anti-assimilation crowd very effectively. Government-mandated preservation of their "cultural distinctiveness" may have preserved their culture, but it has been a disaster for their peoples' living standards. Native reservations are beset with enormous problems of illiteracy, alcoholism, and drug abuse, because they are not assimilating: they are clinging to a dead culture as their only source of self-identity and producing a massive entitlement complex among all their young, thus perpetuating miniature welfare states scattered throughout the country.

[Axis Kast]

You know, I really don't think that the example of the natives in North America serves the debating purposes of the anti-assimilation crowd very effectively. Government-mandated preservation of their "cultural distinctiveness" may have preserved their culture, but it has been a disaster for their peoples' living standards. Native reservations are beset with enormous problems of illiteracy, alcoholism, and drug abuse, because they are not assimilating: they are clinging to a dead culture as their only source of self-identity and producing a massive entitlement complex among all their young, thus perpetuating miniature welfare states scattered throughout the country.

You've misdiagnosed the issue. Enthusiasm for the official atheism and perceived paternalism of the Chinese state, coupled with a suspicion of words like "traditional" and "religious" has led to defense of a minority program that is frankly an aspect of Chinese security, not social, policy. Minority status was used to bind periphery peoples or historically restive communities to the majority-Han Chinese Communist Party during the Civil War period. Beijing has been regretting the existence of minority peoples in geo-strategically valuable areas ever since.

Nobody has encouraged establishment of reservations or "static" conditions. But it's a far cry from "assimilating" minorities and denying them the freedom to pursue lifestyle choices that do no harm to others -- particularly when Han Chinese are the intended beneficiaries of minority misfortunes.

[Darth Wong]

What precisely is wrong with assimilation, in principle?

I understand opposing unnecessary restrictions upon private lifestyle; that is what we would normally call a "freedom" issue, although neo-cons have so adulterated the word "freedom" that it has become politically loaded. But it seems to me that you are using "assimilation" as a perjorative term in general.

[Axis Kast]

What precisely is wrong with assimilation, in principle?

Nothing is wrong with assimilation, in principle.

I am arguing that the essential (and useful) element of freedom is missing, however.

In China, assimilation involves forcing people to abandon lifestyles and convictions specifically in the interest of preventing the spread of ideologies (pan-Turkism, pan-Islamism) that could serve as the basis for revolt.

My contention, also, is that assimilation is one element in a larger "minority policy" which is essentially discriminatory. Implementation of that policy, as best we can tell from testimony on the ground, is only promoting further unrest.

[Samuel]

The history of early American colonization, before and after independence, is chock full of examples in which people moved westward for reasons of conscience. Probably a much greater number was responding monetary incentives. Early colonists tended to be criminals and indentured servants. That doesn’t diminish the overall point: in the West, we honor distinctiveness.

Building a theocracy is a matter of conscience?

As for honoring distinctiveness... you are kidding, right?

Yes, it does.

Why the heck is the government doing that?

Why should it be impossible to be a good Muslim in China?

Plenty of alternative identities exist throughout the world that could be mobilized against the state. Effective states recognize that a unitary identity is almost impossible to achieve without total ethnic homogeneity. The solution is not eliminating alternative forms of identity; it is accommodating.

I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to be a fundamentalist believer and a good citizen of a country. I'm not sure how feverant belief is amoung the Muslim population. However, I think they fear what happened when the Soviet Union brok up.

Well, actually, it turns out it is, since minorities typically resent the limitations.

Furthermore, I’d love to see you provide evidence that China’s language policy is about efficiency, rather than cultural imperialism.

It is both.

In the United States, people are essentially free to pursue their own religious convictions so long as they do not intrude upon the rights of others. In China, that isn’t the case.

Incidentally, it’s nice to see that you insult me pretty regularly for being insufficiently liberal, but have no time to do anything but bash organized religion.

I believe their official policy is it is okay as long as it isn't the government.

As for the second line... how is being liberal inconsistant with antitheism?

The Chinese should enforce restrictions equitably in favor of legal migration. You know; abiding by their own legal code.

I think we both can agree that rule is messed up. Why the heck do they have it?

And, in truth, this is less an ethical discussion than simply trying to prove that China’s official atheism isn’t the sign of enlightenment and progress that is popularly perceived on this board, and that its minority policies are nowhere near genuine. As far as Beijing is concerned, it has “minority problems” because those people exist, not because there are challenges to their social, legal, and economic equality with the majority.

Didn't these policies emerge after 1991? I'm pretty sure they are due to a recognition of what happened to the Soviet Union.

My contention, also, is that assimilation is one element in a larger "minority policy" which is essentially discriminatory. Implementation of that policy, as best we can tell from testimony on the ground, is only promoting further unrest.

Probably. I think the Chinese government wants to have the unrest now rather than deal with it latter.

[Axis Kast]

Building a theocracy is a matter of conscience?

Absolutely. For radical believers, there is no greater requirement.

But this has no real relation to the current situation in Xinjiang, where the overwhelming majority has no interest in an Islamic Uighuristan. They are more interested in fulfilling mundane obligations: hajj, fasting during Ramadan (which the Chinese government routinely attempts to prevent), maintaining traditional dress, etc.

As for honoring distinctiveness... you are kidding, right?

In the United States, there is considerable religious freedom, complete to the extent that it is restricted only when it prejudices the rights of others.

Why the heck is the government doing that?

Beijing is concerned not to “lose track” of people whom it suspects of being especially prone to formulating their identities in a non-sanctioned manner.

I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to be a fundamentalist believer and a good citizen of a country. I'm not sure how feverant belief is amoung the Muslim population. However, I think they fear what happened when the Soviet Union brok up.

Provide evidence that all Uighur Muslims are fundamentalist believers who wish to establish Islamic theocracy.

The Chinese do fear, correctly, that Central Asia’s recent independence fuels dreams of Uighur separatism. During the 1990s, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan turned a blind eye to pro-independence political organization among some one million Uighurs living within their borders.

Chinese security policy is effective, but brutal, frequently ham-handed, and ultimately self-defeating. But that isn’t a problem; missteps in the realm of restrictions and public diplomacy are counteracted by the demographic shift toward the Han.

I believe their official policy is it is okay as long as it isn't the government.

Uighurs are nowhere close to free.

As for the second line... how is being liberal inconsistant with antitheism?

Because you seem incapable of withholding judgment on religion even when it is undeserved. You pride yourself on acceptance – and don’t see the hypocrisy inherent in jumping to conclusions about a huge group of people.

I think we both can agree that rule is messed up. Why the heck do they have it?

In case of revolt, Han Chinese migrants will be on the side of the government.

Probably. I think the Chinese government wants to have the unrest now rather than deal with it latter.

Unrest is a given. Revolt is not. I think the Chinese government wants complete passivity. In trying to obtain it, they are stepping on everyone's throats.

[RedImperator]

I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to be a fundamentalist believer and a good citizen of a country. I'm not sure how feverant belief is amoung the Muslim population. However, I think they fear what happened when the Soviet Union brok up.

Since when did "good Muslim" mean fundamentalist?

[Sidewinder]

Since when did "good Muslim" mean fundamentalist?

It's the fundamentalist Muslims THEMSELVES who define being a "good Muslim" as being a fundamentalist. I believe they've been doing this since WWI put the Ottoman Empire on its deathbed.

[Samuel]

I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to be a fundamentalist believer and a good citizen of a country. I'm not sure how feverant belief is amoung the Muslim population. However, I think they fear what happened when the Soviet Union brok up.

Since when did "good Muslim" mean fundamentalist?

Fundamentalist means believing the holy book is the literal word of God, which is a requirement in Islam. I'm also pretty sure that Islam is less friendly to the concept of church and state.

Can any one confirm it? I don't speak arabic so I can't exactly slog through the Koran.

Absolutely. For radical believers, there is no greater requirement.

... I guess Robspierre was just following matters of conscience? If we extend it to whatever people believe, than everyone but complete sociopaths are covered under that.

But this has no real relation to the current situation in Xinjiang, where the overwhelming majority has no interest in an Islamic Uighuristan. They are more interested in fulfilling mundane obligations: hajj, fasting during Ramadan (which the Chinese government routinely attempts to prevent), maintaining traditional dress, etc.

Yeah, I agree the Chinese government is being oppressive.

In the United States, there is considerable religious freedom, complete to the extent that it is restricted only when it prejudices the rights of others.

I thought you refering to historically.

Beijing is concerned not to “lose track” of people whom it suspects of being especially prone to formulating their identities in a non-sanctioned manner.

Why don't they just issue IDs and make it so you can't travel without them? Or arrest people for vagrancy? They can do that in Shanghai- why is it so hard for them to follow these citizens?

Provide evidence that all Uighur Muslims are fundamentalist believers who wish to establish Islamic theocracy.

The Chinese do fear, correctly, that Central Asia’s recent independence fuels dreams of Uighur separatism. During the 1990s, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan turned a blind eye to pro-independence political organization among some one million Uighurs living within their borders.

Chinese security policy is effective, but brutal, frequently ham-handed, and ultimately self-defeating. But that isn’t a problem; missteps in the realm of restrictions and public diplomacy are counteracted by the demographic shift toward the Han.

The only evidence I can provide is that most of the other stan states are engaging in brutal police state measures to keep their populations in line. Of course, they are also insanely brutal despotisms, so it is hard to seperate it out from politically based dissent.

Uighurs are nowhere close to free.

I was refering to religious expression. The Chinese government adopted a policy of "promoting social harmony" and allowing free expression of religion.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008 ... 503808.htm

Because you seem incapable of withholding judgment on religion even when it is undeserved. You pride yourself on acceptance – and don’t see the hypocrisy inherent in jumping to conclusions about a huge group of people.

You have been misinformed Axis. I dont pride myself on acceptace- I pride myself on reason. I don't treat people the same because it is a value of mine- I do that because their is no rational reason not to.

In case of revolt, Han Chinese migrants will be on the side of the government.

So basically it comes down to the fact that the government is doing immoral policies on the grounds that it will prevent the country from disentigrating.

Unrest is a given. Revolt is not. I think the Chinese government wants complete passivity. In trying to obtain it, they are stepping on everyone's throats.

I'll concede the point for the Muslim populance. The Chinese government's policy is oppresive and immoral. Even if the populance was disloyal, the policy they are following is like pouring more oil into the blaze.

Why on Earth did they start though? The article is complaining that things are changing- what set this off?

[Axis Kast]

Fundamentalist means believing the holy book is the literal word of God, which is a requirement in Islam. I'm also pretty sure that Islam is less friendly to the concept of church and state.

Not all Uighurs are fundamentalists. Most don't want separation from the Chinese state.

I guess Robspierre was just following matters of conscience? If we extend it to whatever people believe, than everyone but complete sociopaths are covered under that.

Allowing folks to pursue the dictates of their conscience, until it infringes upon the rights and liberties of others, is a hallmark of the most effective modes of human organization and governance known to mankind.

Yeah, I agree the Chinese government is being oppressive.

And that was my whole objective.

Why don't they just issue IDs and make it so you can't travel without them? Or arrest people for vagrancy? They can do that in Shanghai- why is it so hard for them to follow these citizens?

The Chinese want to prevent creation of minority communities elsewhere in order to more efficiently apply restrictions and to prevent potential subversives from gaining what might be called "strategic dispersion."

The only evidence I can provide is that most of the other stan states are engaging in brutal police state measures to keep their populations in line. Of course, they are also insanely brutal despotisms, so it is hard to seperate it out from politically based dissent.

It depends on what one wants. The Chinese can have total security, and a collapse of the Uighur way of life. It's very possible; the government is just too powerful, and the Han Chinese too many.

I was refering to religious expression. The Chinese government adopted a policy of "promoting social harmony" and allowing free expression of religion.

The Chinese have a unique understanding of the word "free."

You have been misinformed Axis. I dont pride myself on acceptace- I pride myself on reason. I don't treat people the same because it is a value of mine- I do that because their is no rational reason not to.

It isn't rational to assume that all religious folk are fundamentalists who want to force their beliefs on others.

Why on Earth did they start though? The article is complaining that things are changing- what set this off?

The Chinese got spooked after 1991.

[Samuel]

I'll concentrate about things that are arguable- you are almost certainly right about the Uighurs.

Allowing folks to pursue the dictates of their conscience, until it infringes upon the rights and liberties of others, is a hallmark of the most effective modes of human organization and governance known to mankind.

Which, by definition, is what theocracies do.

It isn't rational to assume that all religious folk are fundamentalists who want to force their beliefs on others.

Successful religious beliefs are ones that spread themselves the most effectively. Is see no reason to assume that the second largest religion on Earth doesn't operate that way.

The Chinese got spooked after 1991.

So basically it comes down to freedom versus security... with the Chinese declaring the possible suspected potential for problems is reason enough to clamp down? Defining characteristic of a police state I suppose.

Well, it is immoral. Out of curiosity, what is the best method for doing this without being immoral?

[Darth Wong]

What precisely is wrong with assimilation, in principle?

Nothing is wrong with assimilation, in principle.

I am arguing that the essential (and useful) element of freedom is missing, however.

Well, China is obviously not a great advocate of freedom in general. And the word "freedom" doesn't necessarily have the positive connotations everywhere in the world that it does here; for a lot of people, they have seen too much chaos and would prefer "order" over "freedom". It seems to me that individual freedom is a luxury afforded primarily to those who live in affluent nations. In poverty-stricken nations, order is actually more important than freedom (see Africa), because the primary threat is death and suffering, not lifestyle oppression. China is transitioning from a primitive poverty-stricken nation to a modern industrialized and potentially affluent one; a greater emphasis on personal freedoms will probably come at some point in the future, but not now.

In China, assimilation involves forcing people to abandon lifestyles and convictions specifically in the interest of preventing the spread of ideologies (pan-Turkism, pan-Islamism) that could serve as the basis for revolt.

Well obviously, an autocratic government will try to suppress anything that tends to advocate overthrow of the government.

My contention, also, is that assimilation is one element in a larger "minority policy" which is essentially discriminatory. Implementation of that policy, as best we can tell from testimony on the ground, is only promoting further unrest.

As far as I can tell, it's not about being a minority; it's about being a threat to the government. And like it or not, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements are a threat to such a government. For that matter, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements (such as Islamic fundamentalism) are a threat to any society.

[ray245]

As far as I can tell, it's not about being a minority; it's about being a threat to the government. And like it or not, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements are a threat to such a government. For that matter, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements (such as Islamic fundamentalism) are a threat to any society.

Doesn't the Chinese government oppose the Falung Gong and the Catholic Church using the same principle? It is funny to see many 'liberal' nations defending religion movement in China when the definition of religion itself is tied to conservatism.

In some sense, China is more liberal than many western nations.

[Darth Wong]

As far as I can tell, it's not about being a minority; it's about being a threat to the government. And like it or not, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements are a threat to such a government. For that matter, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements (such as Islamic fundamentalism) are a threat to any society.

Doesn't the Chinese government oppose the Falung Gong and the Catholic Church using the same principle? It is funny to see many 'liberal' nations defending religion movement in China when the definition of religion itself is tied to conservatism.

In some sense, China is more liberal than many western nations.

Wrong.

Liberalism is about individual liberties. China is not opposing Falun Gong or the Catholic Church or Muslim fundamentalists out of any concern for individual liberty; it is doing so because they are competitors to the primacy of its authority over the people.

The fact that both liberals and the Chinese government oppose certain religious movements does not mean that the Chinese government is liberal. That is a huge logic fallacy.

[Axis Kast]

Well, China is obviously not a great advocate of freedom in general. And the word "freedom" doesn't necessarily have the positive connotations everywhere in the world that it does here; for a lot of people, they have seen too much chaos and would prefer "order" over "freedom". It seems to me that individual freedom is a luxury afforded primarily to those who live in affluent nations.

In China, there is no necessary loggerheads between permitting additional forms of religious observance, alienated certain land for minority use only, slowing Han in-migration, and maintenance of territorial loyalty.

Most Uighurs do not favor leaving the Chinese state.

Well obviously, an autocratic government will try to suppress anything that tends to advocate overthrow of the government.

The measures taken to accomplish these goals (which are only related to government "overthrow" on a tenuous second- or even third-order, as ideologies that stress belonging to trans-national communities above the state) sometimes do prejudice to China's primary objectives. As I mentioned earlier, China's saving grace is that it wields enough physical capability to moot setbacks in public opinion. It can introduce more Han settlers, or more security forces at will, but the specific content of its policies on the ground are hurting unity, not improving it.

As far as I can tell, it's not about being a minority; it's about being a threat to the government. And like it or not, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements are a threat to such a government. For that matter, certain kinds of socio-political-religious movements (such as Islamic fundamentalism) are a threat to any society.

Most Uighurs are not fundamentalists. In Central Asia, fundamentalism has no large following (although it is often a useful bugbear for autocrats to blame), and tends to be popular only when the mosque becomes the final cockpit of social organization.

The problem is not Islam. China, though, likes to strike with a large brush, and it looks as though, when it choses to report acts of terrorism, they may not always be the work of Uighur separatists -- just explained that way.

[Lusankya]

Liberalism is about individual liberties. China is not opposing Falun Gong or the Catholic Church or Muslim fundamentalists out of any concern for individual liberty; it is doing so because they are competitors to the primacy of its authority over the people.

This is true. China was quite ok with Falun Gong until they decided to develop "the CCP is an anti-universe force" as one of their core tenets.


As far as the idea of the freedom of minorities goes, I'm really not sure that the Chinese treatment of minorities is much different from the treatment of the Han. It's not as though they don't occasionally relocate Han families because they're in the way of some government project. And if the treatment is not significantly different, then it's really not an issue of minority rights, and is just an issue of human rights in general.

[K. A. Pital]

In Central Asia, fundamentalism has no large following

That's why Tajikistan is starving after a 7-year civil war with Muslim fundamentalists and their jihadi Afghan buddies! Right, of course Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have a "large following" in Central Asia, and of course it wasn't nurtured there by the United States and Pakistan as a useful counter to "Soviet" and "Indian" bogeymans, then to become a real nuisance to powers in the region! No, that's not the Politically Correct History of Central Asia, and so Axis Kast will say it's not so.

Allowing folks to pursue the dictates of their conscience, until it infringes upon the rights and liberties of others, is a hallmark of the most effective modes of human organization and governance known to mankind.

More propaganda speech. Almost Orwellian. Of course, if they pursue the "wrong" dictates of conscience (like electing Hamas and killing infidels) the "most effective mode" suddenly fails to impress, but that's a minor issue for Axis who is here to once again throw propaganda.

Not to mention that it's only effective when your nation has a very solid law enforcement system - something people may call "police state"; otherwise liberties are pointless, since order is not maintained, and thus casual violence, threat of death and mob rule render the "most effective mode of human organization" to a load of steaming crap.

It isn't rational to assume that all religious folk are fundamentalists who want to force their beliefs on others.

Most religious people unfortunately either do so directly or passively support fundamentalist actions. Why? Mostly due to the very nature of Abrahamic religions - exclusiveness (One True God, everyone else burn in Hell) and the strong order for expansion (Spread the Word). Other religions may not be so keen on such doctrines, but Abrahamic ones, of which Islam is a prime example, are.

During the 1990s, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan turned a blind eye to pro-independence political organization among some one million Uighurs living within their borders.

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyztan, some of the poorest and dreadfully economically ravaged nations after the fall of the USSR, should have tried to cause the ire of China by chopping off a block of Uighur lands through an Uighur independence NGO! For Freedom! Witness the wisdom of Axis Kast

In China, assimilation involves forcing people to abandon lifestyles and convictions specifically in the interest of preventing the spread of ideologies (pan-Turkism, pan-Islamism) that could serve as the basis for revolt.

And that is bad... how?

For all I've seen through history, assimilation of static-culture small communes by a greater and more technologically advanced and secularized power benefits the people. Unlike colonization, when you are assimilated into the greater advanced society with the same rights, privileges and granted education opportunities same as the other people, the people's welfare is improved.

Yes, their cultures, especially the more ancient and religion-binded, static ones are crushed in the process, sometimes ruthlessly. But it serves in many cases as a necessary pre-requisite to enter modernity and reduce the human suffering which is caused by the apparently voluntary take on of religious customs. Why do I say "apparently voluntary"? Because religion itself is indocrination of followers. A culture that shapes the man may have such a huge sway over his beliefs that he would be hardly inclined to modernize the culture itself; even if that would be necessary for the improvment of his living conditions.

"Culture" does not have any value in and of itself as long as it stands in the way of progress which reduces human suffering and improves human living conditions in my view.

[Axis Kast]

That's why Tajikistan is starving after a 7-year civil war with Muslim fundamentalists and their jihadi Afghan buddies!

Battle lines during the civil war were contingent upon clan association and geography (north vs. south) far more than Islam. Islamicization of the opposition occurred only after other appeals had failed, and did not mobilize significant support.

Islamic fundamentalism has no natural constituency in Central Asia, and has never been popular. It is a typical bugbear for authoritarian regimes, and typically registers growth only when other outlets for dissent are squeezed off, as in Iran during the period of the Shah’s dictatorship.

More propaganda speech. Almost Orwellian. Of course, if they pursue the "wrong" dictates of conscience (like electing Hamas and killing infidels) the "most effective mode" suddenly fails to impress, but that's a minor issue for Axis who is here to once again throw propaganda.

The Palestinians aren’t living high on the hog these days, after electing a group that would not work with Israel, are they?

Not to mention that it's only effective when your nation has a very solid law enforcement system - something people may call "police state"; otherwise liberties are pointless, since order is not maintained, and thus casual violence, threat of death and mob rule render the "most effective mode of human organization" to a load of steaming crap.

Is it your contention that, were China to liberalize its minority policies and scale back some of its security deployments in Xinjiang, there would be mob rule?

Most religious people unfortunately either do so directly or passively support fundamentalist actions. Why? Mostly due to the very nature of Abrahamic religions - exclusiveness (One True God, everyone else burn in Hell) and the strong order for expansion (Spread the Word). Other religions may not be so keen on such doctrines, but Abrahamic ones, of which Islam is a prime example, are.

Prove that most Uighurs want to restore the Caliphate. The exiled leaders of the separatist movements are almost entirely secular. Uighurs distrust the Taliban, which is dominated by Pashtuns, and there is no proof of any organized links to al-Qaeda.

You have essentially repeated the utter canard that, “Religious is bad, because we can expect the pious to tolerate the bad actions of other people.” Go ahead and provide evidence that Uighurs are generally receptive to jihad against the West. Go ahead and prove that a majority favor violent revolt.

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyztan, some of the poorest and dreadfully economically ravaged nations after the fall of the USSR, should have tried to cause the ire of China by chopping off a block of Uighur lands through an Uighur independence NGO!

Oh, look. You’ve lied.

For all I've seen through history, assimilation of static-culture small communes by a greater and more technologically advanced and secularized power benefits the people. Unlike colonization, when you are assimilated into the greater advanced society with the same rights, privileges and granted education opportunities same as the other people, the people's welfare is improved.

Oh, yes. Because Uighurs just love the discrimination, state repression, and social retardation that goes hand-in-hand with such lovely, positive developmentalism. What a crock of shit. Other Chinese Muslim populations get along just fine – so long as they don’t inhabit strategic border zones. Your attempt to equate minority cultures with anti-modernity is pure shit. It isn’t their upbringing that prevents these people from engaging with modernity. Uighur culture is fairly liberal compared to most Islamic cultures: women do not wear the veil, and are free to establish businesses. Many Uighurs also recognize the practical value of education in the majority language. Preferring a certain type of cultural expression isn’t evidence of doltish maladaptation to modern civilization.

You have no evidence for anything you've said -- at all. None that radical Islam is popular or respected. None that I argued that the Central Asian states should tolerate violent (or non-violent) separatist movements at the expense of their national security (and some participate in China's little game while quietly fudging the books, out of jealousy for their own sovereignty). None that Uighur culture in particular, but minority cultures in general, are inherently ill-configured for the "challenge" of modernity and scientific progress.

[K. A. Pital]

Islamicization of the opposition occurred only after other appeals had failed, and did not mobilize significant support.

Oh, that's what you say. But the IMU existed, and wielded quite a lot of power during the Central Asian conflicts. It's goals were a Sharia state much like Chechnya. Unless you seriously think Islam and "Sharia state" have nothing to do with each other, I can't see what's so hard to grasp about the spread of Islamism in Central Asia.

Is it your contention that, were China to liberalize its minority policies and scale back some of its security deployments in Xinjiang, there would be mob rule?

When the USSR "liberalized" it's minority policies and "scaled back" the deployment of it's security forces and Soviet Army soldiers in Central Asia, Azerbajan, Georgia and Armenia, it resulted in essentially warlordism, truly massive massacres, and mob rule. I'm merely going by the analogue. Though if you think there's no potential for ethnic violence in Chinese "minority regions", I'm all ears as to why this is so.

Prove that most Uighurs want to restore the Caliphate.

Why should I prove that bullshit? It's enough for me to observe that there are violent, radical organizations (ETIM, ETLO) which have apparently enough ability to kill Chinese and insigate inter-ethnic violence. If the USSR is any indicator, Xijang could become the new Nagorny Karabach with ETIM and ETLO hitting Chinese settlers as soon as Chinese police and security forces move away.

Moreover, if you stipulate that most of the Uighurs support separatism from China, it means China is risking an ethnic uprising if it moves it's forces away, isn't it? And there's great potential for ethnic violence. Hell, almost every independence that is wrought by an ethnic movement leads to cleansing if the recent history is any indication. If the opposite is true and Uighurs are fine with being a part of China, then why would they object to the inflow of ethnic Chinese?

Seriously, the fuck are you trying to argue? Uighurs detonate fucking bombs during their "independence struggle", how dense should one be not to see the potential for ethnic violence?

Oh, look. You’ve lied.

Look, you said those governments "turned a blind eye" to Uighurs. What should they have done? Cause China's ire by supporting ethnic separatists?

Other Chinese Muslim populations get along just fine – so long as they don’t inhabit strategic border zones.

Maybe it has something to do that they don't detonate bombs and don't proclaim a goal of separating their region from China as an independent ethnic state?

Your attempt to equate minority cultures with anti-modernity is pure shit.

Yeah, I forgot how that is the most likely case.

Uighur culture is fairly liberal compared to most Islamic cultures

You are saying "it's not as batshit fucking insane as most Islamic cultures", right? Because the "veil" and misogynism common in all "worse" Islamic cultures is downright atrocious and if someone stomps out this "culture", the best for all.

None that radical Islam is popular or respected.

Yes, bombings in buses and police stations are not an indication of ETIM's ability to operate freely in the region, and of it's ability to support it's activities Because you know, running such terrorist acts in a place where the populace is radically against them is rather hard, as is setting up terrorist networks.

None that I argued that the Central Asian states should tolerate violent (or non-violent) separatist movements at the expense of their national security (and some participate in China's little game while quietly fudging the books, out of jealousy for their own sovereignty).

You said that Central Asian states neglected separatist movements as if that were a bad thing.

None that Uighur culture in particular, but minority cultures in general, are inherently ill-configured for the "challenge" of modernity and scientific progress.

Religious cultures are inherently anti-progressive due to the nature of religion itself. Secularization and/or liberalization of said religion are the only ways through which progress really kicks up. And "minority cultures in general"? I was speaking about heavily religious minority cultures most of all, but the fact that not a few minority cultures are really very ill configured for progress and industrialism is a reality. Denying it doesn't make me think highly of your intellect, neither of your life experience.

[Axis Kast]

Oh, that's what you say. But the IMU existed, and wielded quite a lot of power during the Central Asian conflicts. It's goals were a Sharia state much like Chechnya. Unless you seriously think Islam and "Sharia state" have nothing to do with each other, I can't see what's so hard to grasp about the spread of Islamism in Central Asia.

And the fantastic evidence you have for us of these contentions is . . . what, exactly?

The IMU did not "wield quite a lot of power during the Central Asian conflicts." It was a minor faction within a constellation of opposition forces until somebody perceived that its message might prove useful. Except it turned out that expectations weren't fulfilled, and rather than pursue those crazy, maximal ambitions you've described, they ended up as legal political party, out of power.

When the USSR "liberalized" it's minority policies and "scaled back" the deployment of it's security forces and Soviet Army soldiers in Central Asia, Azerbajan, Georgia and Armenia, it resulted in essentially warlordism, truly massive massacres, and mob rule. I'm merely going by the analogue. Though if you think there's no potential for ethnic violence in Chinese "minority regions", I'm all ears as to why this is so.

Sadly, your retelling of history leaves much to be desired. So, too, your interpretation of what I must have meant by "scaled back," but that was almost a given.

When Soviet forces left Armenia and Azerbaijan, they frequently sold or abandoned equipment and turned to mercenarism.

I recommended that China reduce its stranglehold on expression of cultural identity (currently outlawed as "separatism"), which is technically permitted by law, and restrict migrant inflow. The fact of the matter is that official statistics don't provide an accurate depiction of the demographic balance; the tremendous military presence, not to mention the more than one million Han in the paramilitary XPCC, are left off the tally sheet. The government has more than sufficient resort to kinetic options if the withdrawal gives any encouragement to violent activity. And certainly, addressing widespread feelings of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and persecution will go a long way toward tamping down interest in violent change.

One of the reasons Islam has made such gains in Xinjiang in recent years is that it is one of the last havens for organization, and provides an identity in direct opposition to the state, which is perceived to bring so much ill.

Why should I prove that bullshit? It's enough for me to observe that there are violent, radical organizations (ETIM, ETLO) which have apparently enough ability to kill Chinese and insigate inter-ethnic violence.

The Chinese do a more than sufficient job of rooting out separatists, given half a chance. You need to prove imminent danger to even begin to justify current policy, not cite reports of attacks which are often of questionable veracity. The Chinese tend to blame Uighur separatists for a variety of violent incidents that may or may not bear actual relation.

My argument is in favor of liberalization, not some kind of laissez-faire circus. You're distorting, again.

Moreover, if you stipulate that most of the Uighurs support separatism from China, it means China is risking an ethnic uprising if it moves it's forces away, isn't it? And there's great potential for ethnic violence. Hell, almost every independence that is wrought by an ethnic movement leads to cleansing if the recent history is any indication.

Most Uighurs do not, apparently, support separatism from China. Most Uighurs do have policy grievances and take exception to the nature of CCP rule.

It's been your apparent fucking contention that Uighurs are Islamic extremists. Let's hear you bear that out. Let's also see you give some discussion about the supposed viability of Islamic extremism in Central Asia except as the final, mispercieved avenue for achieving social justice.

I haven't argued in favor of Uighur independence; I've encouraged amelioratives short of demographic annihilation of China's minority peoples, which will naturally cause a great deal of suffering and hardship.

Why do they object to the inflow of ethnic Chinese? Overpopulation. Discrimination. Outflow of remittances. Economic competition. Being a Uighur in Xinjiang is akin to being black in the Jim Crow South. Much of Chinese migration is technically illegal under Chinese law; the government doesn't worry, because it can fold male Han into paramilitary "pioneer" organizations. The government is pretty frank -- they intend to absorb the Uighurs into the Han milieu. Some policy reform, and maybe the Chinese could disabuse people of these attitudes, which, as it now stands, are quite correct.

Seriously, the fuck are you trying to argue? Uighurs detonate fucking bombs during their "independence struggle", how dense should one be not to see the potential for ethnic violence?

I'm disputing the fact that one requires a "police state," as you call it, in order to have liberalization.

You're created a tautology. "We can't liberalize, because we need to have stability. But, we can't have stability because we haven't been able to liberalize."

Look, you said those governments "turned a blind eye" to Uighurs. What should they have done? Cause China's ire by supporting ethnic separatists?

I didn't make a policy recommendation. I was giving a reading of history.

Maybe it has something to do that they don't detonate bombs and don't proclaim a goal of separating their region from China as an independent ethnic state?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that they aren't oppressed on the basis of fears that they will "betray" China?

The Chinese government is absolutely obsessed with the canard of Uighur separatism, despite the obvious physical impossibility of provincial separation, the absolutely pathetic material capabilities of the separatist organizations, and the cooperation of virtually every foreign government in the region against exile organization. Heck, they have the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Pakistanis inflicting needless harassment on Uighurs just to keep them (the Chinese) happy.

Yeah, I forgot how that is the most likely case.

Why don't you make a list for us of all the "leading" cultures of the world? Then tell us which deserve to be eliminated, and why.

In 1949, the Uighurs had arranged constitutional government under Soviet influence. Clearly, they're just as backward as the Russians, another people who ought not be permitted to transmit their culture.

You are saying "it's not as batshit fucking insane as most Islamic cultures", right? Because the "veil" and misogynism common in all "worse" Islamic cultures is downright atrocious and if someone stomps out this "culture", the best for all.

I'm saying that Islam, as practiced by the Uighurs, is not incompatible with the requirements of modernity. Uighurs are held back by discriminatory policies and "outgroup" disadvantages that arise merely from being non-Han, not intrinstic characteristics having to do with their culture.

Yes, bombings in buses and police stations are not an indication of ETIM's ability to operate freely in the region, and of it's ability to support it's activities

A particular act of violence is not evidence that a terrorist organization operates "freely" in a given area, or with a basis of popular support. Chinese security measures have been quite effective at getting a handle on violence (although they typically provoke an early backlash before the situation calms).

It isn't even proven that the latest rash of events has been actual violence by Uighur organizations.

Because you know, running such terrorist acts in a place where the populace is radically against them is rather hard, as is setting up terrorist networks.

Somebody should inform the Chinese that public relations might be worth their while.

Religious cultures are inherently anti-progressive due to the nature of religion itself. Secularization and/or liberalization of said religion are the only ways through which progress really kicks up.

And I pointed out that Islam, as practiced by Uighurs, is quite liberal. You've not provided any credible evidence that they are culturally disadvantaged in being able to enjoy the opportunities afforded by modernity. You've simply told us that they are religious, and expect us to say, "Ah! Well, that's it! Who gives a shit what happens to them?"

[K. A. Pital]

Except it turned out that expectations weren't fulfilled, and rather than pursue those crazy, maximal ambitions you've described, they ended up as legal political party, out of power.

Of course, because the islamists lost both the war and the PR battle. You can't install a Sharia state until you, um, get power.

I recommended that China reduce its stranglehold on expression of cultural identity (currently outlawed as "separatism"), which is technically permitted by law

I agree that policies like forbidding people to wear headscarfs or go to mosques go far beyond reasonable, and constitute opression of a belief unnecessarily.

...and restrict migrant inflow.

Why should they stop people from going there? To placate ethnic independence activists?

The fact of the matter is that official statistics don't provide an accurate depiction of the demographic balance; the tremendous military presence, not to mention the more than one million Han in the paramilitary XPCC, are left off the tally sheet. The government has more than sufficient resort to kinetic options if the withdrawal gives any encouragement to violent activity.

As far as I know, the demographic balance is already in favour of the Han, Uighurs compose less than half of the population present. But this does not mean there's no potential for violence. Chechnya is a prime example.

It's been your apparent fucking contention that Uighurs are Islamic extremists.

No, I merely noted that there are not just "islamic" but separatist, pan-Turkist elements which certainly fall into the extremist category regardless of even the prevalence of Islam in their ranks. And that those organizations have a good network of operations in Xijang, are capable of staging and succesfully executing bomb attacks against civilians and government facilities alike, and also pursue a goal of ethnic separatism.

I did not say that "all Uighurs are islamic extremists", and if you think I'm strawmanning your position, that doesn't even being to describe how you are strawmanning mine. I never said all CCP policies in the region are justified.

I've encouraged amelioratives short of demographic annihilation of China's minority peoples, which will naturally cause a great deal of suffering and hardship

What is "demographic annihilation"? A prolonged intermixing of Uighurs with Han Chinese until no Uighurs are left? Why will this cause a "great deal of suffering"?

I'm disputing the fact that one requires a "police state," as you call it, in order to have liberalization.

One should have enough police forces to maintain order in the face of a threat of ethnic violence, that's all. I said that some view this requirement as a police state, not that it's an actual police state.

The Chinese government is absolutely obsessed with the canard of Uighur separatism, despite the obvious physical impossibility of provincial separation

Even if it's completely impossible, a lot of inter-ethnic violence is possible in the region. Which other regions of China have people resort to violence as means against closing mosques? I'm sure China destroyed or closed a good deal of Mosques both in the past and present.

Why don't you make a list for us of all the "leading" cultures of the world?

Any reasonably large industrial nation has a culture suited for progress. Ethnic enclaves and ethnic reservations have little to boast. But it's fairly simple. On side "A" you have the culture of industrial nations, large entities - USA, UK, Europe, Russia, China, etc. On side "B" you have the culture of the Taliban as an extreme example. Other cultures are somewhere inbetween those poles of "batshit luddite" and "progressive".

In 1949, the Uighurs had arranged constitutional government under Soviet influence.

So then? There's a functional government in Palestine as well. Would you argue that Palestinian culture is not incredibly backwards?

Chinese security measures have been quite effective at getting a handle on violence (although they typically provoke an early backlash before the situation calms).

Perhaps the large amounts of Han Chinese and Chinese police has to do with this effectiveness? No?

It isn't even proven that the latest rash of events has been actual violence by Uighur organizations.

Apparently there has been enough proof for even the US to consider those organizations terrorist. And the US does have a penchant for "our terrorists" and "their freedom fighters", you know.

You've not provided any credible evidence that they are culturally disadvantaged in being able to enjoy the opportunities afforded by modernity.

I'll look into the situation in Xijang in the past and present and get back to you. Making a remark about the nature of religion does not mean people are "excluded" from modern advantages, but religion, especially an Abrahamic one, certainly is a factor which is anti-progressive in almost any circumstances - so when one receives the benefits of modernity, that goes despite whatever influence religion has had.

[Axis Kast]

Of course, because the islamists lost both the war and the PR battle. You can't install a Sharia state until you, um, get power.

Looks like they're pretty satisfied with what they got.

You also haven't dealt with the fact that the Islamism in question is isolated to only one country, and involves opportunists, not "true believers," for the most part.

I agree that policies like forbidding people to wear headscarfs or go to mosques go far beyond reasonable, and constitute opression of a belief unnecessarily.

And I've been explaining that the Chinese are rather big on all these sorts of unnecessary, antagonistic restrictions.

Why should they stop people from going there? To placate ethnic independence activists?

Xinjiang can barely sustain the current population, and yet the government has an "open-door" policy on migrants, both legal and illegal, even as it shuffles Uighurs back to Xinjiang from elsewhere in the country.

Reducing in-migration would go a long way toward proving that the government is genuine in its original promise of autonomy, minority [economic] development, and cultural preservation. These days, though, it is unabashed about its actual intentions: absorbing the Uighurs into the Han nation. Precisely because of the preponderance of power and population in Xinjiang itself.

As far as I know, the demographic balance is already in favour of the Han, Uighurs compose less than half of the population present. But this does not mean there's no potential for violence. Chechnya is a prime example.

You're confusing the possibility of violence, which is real, with the possibility of serious catastrophe and total breakdown of order throughout Xinjiang, which is not.

Chinese liberalization was regarded to have failed during the 1980s and 1990s, when the lesser number of restrictions still didn't prevent a paroxysm of violence that lasted a decade. And yet even that violence was in reaction to (correct) perception that the Uighurs were still getting a "raw deal," and that the government was trying to "breed them out." The source of current violence is lack of the same freedoms later taken away. The Chinese must accept: more freedom may go hand-in-hand with more violence. The key is that long-term relations will be better.

Of course, the Chinese do prefer to breed them out. And why not? It may be cheaper and easier.

And that those organizations have a good network of operations in Xijang, are capable of staging and succesfully executing bomb attacks against civilians and government facilities alike, and also pursue a goal of ethnic separatism.

Actually, it's not clear that they do. We can't say for sure if this latest violence (2008) is actually separatism, or lies. It's also evidently that the violence is small-scale, often unsuccessful, and no actual threat to Chinese governance in Xinjiang, let alone elsewhere.

What is "demographic annihilation"? A prolonged intermixing of Uighurs with Han Chinese until no Uighurs are left? Why will this cause a "great deal of suffering"?

The Uighurs resent it. Some violently.

Heck, it's a good bet that China will surely provoke more radical Islamists than if it pursued a more conciliatory policy.

One should have enough police forces to maintain order in the face of a threat of ethnic violence, that's all. I said that some view this requirement as a police state, not that it's an actual police state.

China does have, and will have, more than enough. Even if it removes some and ceases harassment.

Even if it's completely impossible, a lot of inter-ethnic violence is possible in the region. Which other regions of China have people resort to violence as means against closing mosques? I'm sure China destroyed or closed a good deal of Mosques both in the past and present.

Often at gunpoint.

And the protests are frequently over detention of clerics. In any case, Uighurs perceive that the Chinese are precluding them from practicing their identity. That doesn't make violence morally appropriate, but it does explain it.

Any reasonably large industrial nation has a culture suited for progress. Ethnic enclaves and ethnic reservations have little to boast. But it's fairly simple. On side "A" you have the culture of industrial nations, large entities - USA, UK, Europe, Russia, China, etc. On side "B" you have the culture of the Taliban as an extreme example. Other cultures are somewhere inbetween those poles of "batshit luddite" and "progressive".

The development of industrial nations depends on a tremendous variety of factors beyond the cultural capacities of the people in question.

Once again, your argument is tautaological. "We know a culture is suited for growth because it has succeeded. A culture has succeeded because it is suitable for growth."

So then? There's a functional government in Palestine as well. Would you argue that Palestinian culture is not incredibly backwards?

Clearly, Uighurs can grasp the concepts of contemporary government. I yet await a credible case against their culture.

Perhaps the large amounts of Han Chinese and Chinese police has to do with this effectiveness? No?

Hence, they don't need anymore. And could certainly do with less.

Apparently there has been enough proof for even the US to consider those organizations terrorist. And the US does have a penchant for "our terrorists" and "their freedom fighters", you know.

At Chinese behest, the U.S. named one organization, and refused to explicitly discriminate against another. It promptly regretted its decision to accept the Chinese version of events.

[K. A. Pital]

You also haven't dealt with the fact that the Islamism in question is isolated to only one country, and involves opportunists, not "true believers," for the most part.

I thought that ETIM and ETLO do have contacts inside Central Asian Republics and maybe Pakistan.

And I've been explaining that the Chinese are rather big on all these sorts of unnecessary, antagonistic restrictions.

Sure, some of them are. One that you mentioned - disallowing religious clerics into government - seems to be a reasonable restriction looking at the record of cleric-governed places. And that's discounting the bad blood history between Uighurs and Chinese entirely, like the massacre of Chinese during ETA rule.

Xinjiang can barely sustain the current population

Is it's economic situation so bad? Any statistics corroborating this claim?

Of course, the Chinese do prefer to breed them out. And why not? It may be cheaper and easier.

Assimilation into Han Chinese might be beneficial in the long run, for both China and the lesser ethnic groups.

The Uighurs resent it.

You are saying most of them are reasonably content with the situation, and the violence is minority and insignificant next to China's authority in the region. So I repeat, what kind of suffering would assimilation cause? Non-assimilation and keeping the Uighurs as a "second class citizens", as you said, as some sort of apartheid, would actually cause far more suffering than directly assimilating them into Han Chinese.

Once again, your argument is tautaological. "We know a culture is suited for growth because it has succeeded. A culture has succeeded because it is suitable for growth."

Wrong. There's comparative analysis of cultures' performance and not much else. More religious-heavy culture, and more fundamentalist, tend to be more luddite. More secular culture tends to be more progressive and more inclined towards industrialism and modernization.

Clearly, Uighurs can grasp the concepts of contemporary government.

The warlordist ETA - which is the "Uighur state" that existed under Soviet influence (and also massacred Chinese, just to recall some of the stuff causing bad blood again) is considered an example of "contemporary government"? And so? Palestine can grasp the concepts of contemporary government. Does it make a credible case in favour of their culture? If not, why? They surely do, and their government is arguably more modern that that of the Soviet-backed ETA enclave.

It promptly regretted its decision to accept the Chinese version of events.

Which US official expressed "prompt regret"? Which events? 1992, 1997 or 2006-2008 events?

[Big Orange]

The Australian government were condemned for trying to forcibly assimilate the Australian Aborigines back in the first half of the 20th century, even though Aborigines today in their own enclaves suffer grinding poverty, inter-family rape, and ingrained drinking problems. Why is this?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Australian government were condemned for trying to forcibly assimilate the Australian Aborigines back in the first half of the 20th century, even though Aborigines today in their own enclaves suffer grinding poverty, inter-family rape, and ingrained drinking problems. Why is this?

Well, for starters, they took away Aborigine children and educated them their way. It was state sanctioned kidnapping.