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

[ray245]

HOHHOT, China — As the capital of a sprawling frontier region that was once in Mongol leader Genghis Khan's vast domain, Hohhot has many ethnic Mongol flourishes. Streets signs are in Mongolian, yurt-themed architecture graces the city and some park benches have a Mongol saddle motif. At least one television channel airs in the Mongolian language.

There's only one thing in short supply: ethnic Mongolians.

Fewer than 10 percent of the greater metropolitan area's 2.6 million inhabitants are ethnic Mongolian, and the ratio isn't much higher in the surrounding grasslands.

Over the last six decades, China has kept an open-door policy on migration to the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region , and now only one out of five people in the region abutting Russia and Mongolia are ethnic Mongolian. Activists say the influx has overwhelmed them and imperiled their culture.

"We used to be the hosts here. Now we feel like the guests in our own land," said Xinna, an owner of a handicraft store who, like many Mongolians, uses only one name.

What happens in Inner Mongolia might seem like a footnote in the story of social changes that are accompanying China's economic rise and massive population boom. The issue of preserving ethnic identity is weighted with politics, however. It resonates in restive Tibet in the southwest and in Xinjiang to the far west, where minority Tibetans and Muslim Uighurs use the example of Inner Mongolia to explain why they resist migration by China's majority Han ethnicity.

"In the autonomous region of ( Inner) Mongolia , Mongolians became a minority," the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, said earlier this month in Japan . "That is our real anxiety. If in Tibet and in Xinjiang the local people become a minority, it's very difficult to preserve culture."

Authorities in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region , which has a population of about 23 million, offer a vastly different perspective on the issue, saying that they seek to preserve Mongol culture, enshrining protections in law and promoting the culture. They note that some ethnic Mongolians have chosen to assimilate with the Han.

"Among the five autonomous regions of China , Inner Mongolia does best in dealing with relations among minorities," said Wang Huiming, the vice director of Hohhot's ethnic affairs commission. "For example, marriage between Mongols and Han people is very common. I myself am Mongol but my wife is Han."

Wang said Inner Mongolia was "recognized by the central government as a model autonomous region" with "very stable" social and political conditions.

Late last year, though, authorities acknowledged a dramatic falloff in the number of students who were being taught in the Mongolian language, one of the indicators that Mongols are steadily losing elements of their culture as they adopt Chinese names, wear Chinese clothing and abandon speaking and reading Mongolian. According to the official Inner Mongolia News , the number of students who were receiving Mongolian-language education had fallen from 380,000 in 1986 to 240,000 last year.

Officials said they were aggressively trying to turn the trend around.

"I was worried about this," said Dalaiduren, the principal of the Xing An Road Ethnic Elementary School in Hohhot . "If we lose our language, we will lose our culture."

He said that some Mongolian parents chose to send their children to schools that taught in Mandarin Chinese, thinking that it would give them a leg up in the job market.

"If both parents are Mongols and their kids go to a Mandarin school, they begin to lose Mongolian ability. Sometimes they can't speak Mongolian at all," Dalaiduren said.

In another sign of the decline of Mongolian literacy, the number of copies of the Mongolian-language newspaper Inner Mongolia Daily has dropped in the past 15 years from 13,800 a day to 6,000.

Some Mongols complain that reading and writing Mongolian brings no benefit, a situation that's painfully clear to those who obtain degrees in Mongolian literature and culture.

"A graduate or a Ph.D. in this field finds it difficult to get a job. Only if they are good at foreign languages, like English or Japanese, or they specialize in doing research can they get one," said Nabuqi, who graduated from Inner Mongolia University but operates a small dairy-goods shop that she said barely made ends meet.

An exiled human-rights activist, Enghebatu Togochog, of the Southern Mongolia Human Rights Information Center , said that laws protecting Mongol language and culture often were ignored.

"It is said that it is an official language. But in meetings, they don't use Mongolian," he said in a telephone call from New York , where the group is based. "If you want to send a letter and you address it in Mongolian, they won't deliver it. It's really useless."

Like the Kurdish people in the Middle East , ethnic Mongolians spill across borders. Some 3 million live in the Republic of Mongolia , an independent landlocked country of steppes to the north. Another million live in Russia . More than 5 million live in China , in Inner Mongolia or in abutting Liaoning province in the northeast.

The dispersion has strengthened the hand of Han Chinese rulers who don't want ethnic unrest in a resource-rich frontier region.

"They are very confident they have already assimilated these people. They feel victory is almost theirs," Togochog said.

A setback to Mongol ethnic identity has unfolded since 2001 with the forced relocation of some 650,000 nomads and herders from their ancestral pastures to urban areas. Mandated by the government, the "ecological migration" is aimed at reducing overgrazing, which has increased sandstorms. Much of the overgrazing was caused in the 1990s by an inflow of Han farmers who were rushing to raise goats in Inner Mongolia to feed a global boom for cheap cashmere sweaters.

The Mongolian herders have become environmental refugees in new towns, deprived of land and a way of life, Togochog told the U.N. Forum on Indigenous Issues in April.

In his office in City Hall , Wang Heixiao, the director of the Culture Bureau in Hohhot , said that the government did its utmost to protect Mongol culture.

"We can see the Mongolian yurts and gold domes and totems in Xinhua Square in the center of the city," Wang said, "and on Genghis Khan Street there's a big statue of Genghis Khan riding a horse."

His tone changed as he recounted his personal history during the Cultural Revolution, the 1964-1974 period of political tumult in China when paramount leader Mao Zedong turned the youth against party cadres as a way to steer the nation more firmly under his control. In places such as Inner Mongolia , ethnic minorities were viewed with deep suspicion.

"You weren't allowed to talk in Mongolian. You weren't allowed to study in Mongolian," Wang said. "My school was shut down. I was sent to the countryside."

Wang, a famed Mongol actor and dancer, said the errors of the Cultural Revolution were long over. He said ethnic culture would be protected in a China that would remain powerfully unified.

"Of course, we think of ourselves as Chinese," Wang said when he was asked about his own identity, "then we consider ourselves as Mongols in China ."

( McClatchy special correspondent Hua Li contributed to this report.)

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081 ... hy/3099848

Wait, if people choice NOT to study Mongolian in schools why is it a bad thing? After all, it is an issue of freedom of choice.

And why do people think that protecting culture is so important? Culture is something that will keep changing throughout history. If you cannot intergrate culture with modernity, too bad for you.

[KlavoHunter]

Isn't this a deliberate policy of ethnic takeover of previously non-Han areas by immigrating in a shit-ton of Han Chinese?

[mr friendly guy]

I don't see the big deal here. See some of the criticisms leveled against immigrants particularly Muslims in Europe and over here in Australia. That is, they don't assimilate. By assimilation I assume they mean that the two cultures merge with one culture's aspect likely to feature more prominently in this new culture. If assimilation in that manner is considered a good thing, then by the same logic what is happening in Inner Mongolia isn't a problem.

I would also like to add that over here, as late as the 1970s we were forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families as part of the "assimilation" process. While the apologists deny it, it was essentially an attempt to breed them out. There is still a lot of people in Australia who saw nothing wrong with that. If you like, one can think of the Australian leaders at the time in the same vein as the Han Chinese, in the sense that both were / descended from migrants to the region. Comparatively to what the CCP is doing, ie laws to preserve Mongolian language etc (which may not always be followed) its damn well benign.

The fact that the people choose not to learn Mongolian is no different from children of migrants here who just want to learn English and quickly forget the language their parents spoke because more people speak English, so its more convenient to learn English alone, rather than English plus another language. Granted it will be more advantageous for both the individual and the country if they could speak both languages, but not all people find learning language easy.

If people are assimilating and getting on well with each other on their own volition, then whats the problem? Especially when the government makes efforts to preserve the minority culture.

[Lusankya]

Probably, but as far as ethnic takeovers go, the Chinese method is pretty benign. The main extent of it is the whole Han migration thing. Otherwise, all the government does is make it easier to operate in Chinese than in Mongolian. I think minority ethnic groups even get a special exemption from the one child policy, so in some ways they actually have it better than Han Chinese.

For what it's worth, I met a Mongolian while I was travelling. He learnt how to speak Mongolian at school, but has pretty much forgotten how to speak it, since he doesn't need it while working in the fashion industry in Shanghai. He didn't seem too cut up about it.

[mr friendly guy]

Probably, but as far as ethnic takeovers go, the Chinese method is pretty benign. The main extent of it is the whole Han migration thing. Otherwise, all the government does is make it easier to operate in Chinese than in Mongolian. I think minority ethnic groups even get a special exemption from the one child policy, so in some ways they actually have it better than Han Chinese.

I went to Guangxi earlier which has a high population of ethnic minorities, including the Zhuang which is the second largest ethnic group behind Han Chinese. Basically our guide told us that ethnic minorities are allowed 2 children without incurring the government fine, unless they marry a Han person, in which case they are only allowed one.

[Shroom Man 777]

Does it really matter what language or culture you havr if you're living a healthy and happy life, content about things and all that? I wouldn't mind it if I ended up speaking French and living a happy life somewhere in Europe, doing all sorts of Europey things, if I had a loving wife and family or something. Neither would I mind it if I ended up speaking Soviet and drinking myself to death with vodka in Moscow, during the Siberian winter. What's so important about identifying yourself with a group? The most important thing is what's happening to you on a personal level.

[Lusankya]

I went to Guangxi earlier which has a high population of ethnic minorities, including the Zhuang which is the second largest ethnic group behind Han Chinese. Basically our guide told us that ethnic minorities are allowed 2 children without incurring the government fine, unless they marry a Han person, in which case they are only allowed one.

I remember learning in Chinese class that it's different for different ethnic groups, so the really low-population groups can have three. I don't have a source, though, so I could be wrong.

One thing it says, though, is that at least the Han aren't trying to breed them out of existence.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Does it really matter what language or culture you havr if you're living a healthy and happy life, content about things and all that? I wouldn't mind it if I ended up speaking French and living a happy life somewhere in Europe, doing all sorts of Europey things, if I had a loving wife and family or something. Neither would I mind it if I ended up speaking Soviet and drinking myself to death with vodka in Moscow, during the Siberian winter. What's so important about identifying yourself with a group? The most important thing is what's happening to you on a personal level.

There are plenty of cultural/ethnic diehards in the world. Just look at Ukraine and a number other nations. The Tibetans are screaming ethnic suppression at the moment.

A lot of this has to do with pride and so forth, though in some cases, the Chinese Government is known to send Chinese to some place to overwhelm the local population like in Tibet.

[Shroom Man 777]

Differential mindsets like that are why wars are fought. And why people think Amazonian tribes should be left alone and not be introduced to great things like pants, and penicillin.

[Axis Kast]

Isn't this a deliberate policy of ethnic takeover of previously non-Han areas by immigrating in a shit-ton of Han Chinese?

Yes.

I think minority ethnic groups even get a special exemption from the one child policy, so in some ways they actually have it better than Han Chinese.

Minority status is increasingly sought-after in China because of the tangible material benefits – exemption from the One Child Law, access to additional ration coupons, etc.

If people are assimilating and getting on well with each other on their own volition, then whats the problem? Especially when the government makes efforts to preserve the minority culture.

There is nothing “benign” about Chinese management of ethnic minorities. Consciously and vigorously, Chinese immigration policy aims to flood potentially restive regions, peopled by minorities, with Han Chinese who, by and large, are considered “politically reliable.” It is a constant complaint of the Uighurs and others in Xinjiang that Han Chinese dominate the job market. Minorities in Xinjiang generally raise the issue that many Han send remittances to other provinces, reducing the amount of money that stays in Xinjiang. The two communities have extremely poor relations, and racism is a significant problem.

The Chinese government goes to great lengths to manage religious life, which is most significant in the lives of its minority peoples, whose identity has been subsequently eroded. Many opportunities for work and schooling in China require that one, in practice, become an apostate, entailing not only individual hardship, but presumable estrangement from one’s original social milieu. The academic literature and recent newspaper reporting disagree on the extent to which minorities are granted exemption from this expectation.

According to China scholar S. Frederick Starr, Chinese assimilation policy has had the unintended consequence of throwing many Uyghurs into opposition – with the result that they become “independence activists” advocating “splittism.” By emphasizing that some people are Uyghurs, the Chinese have “gifted” identities to persons who find themselves at odds with the state.

China does not, for example, admit of indigenous rights to land, based not on the principle of collectivity, but on the ethnocentric proposition “that all lands of China have been in the hands of Chinese since the Han dynasty,” according to anthropologist Dru C. Gladney. Secular intellectuals now dominate the provincial government. Although China claims that this is appropriate due to the pressure-cooker that is modernity, they are out-of-touch with the Uyghur mainstream, which is generally sympathetic to religious leadership. Educational policies discount the Turkic language and require instruction in Mandarin Chinese; the majority of Uyghurs regard the Chinese system as purposefully dismissive of their history. Han students are much more likely to pursue higher education, driving Uyghur prospects downward in the job market. Education is already extremely expensive, and the burden falls heaviest on minority peoples, who are generally in worse financial straits.

According to a recent article by the New York Times, China has also apparently used Uyghur separatism as a scapegoat to “explain away” incidents of violence that may not be linked to the minority population in the first place. They also insist that all violence originates from one source -- a specific separatist movement. This is highly unlikely. It is a general rule that terrorist organizations fragment.

[Sidewinder]

"They are very confident they have already assimilated these people. They feel victory is almost theirs," Togochog said.

Could be worse, I mean, interracial marriage is allowed. What, the human rights activists want Mongols to marry Mongols only, no interracial marriage allowed, and biracial children should be aborted? When did such an obsession on ethnic and/or cultural identity become a good idea?

[Axis Kast]

quote] I don't see the big deal here. See some of the criticisms leveled against immigrants particularly Muslims in Europe and over here in Australia. That is, they don't assimilate. By assimilation I assume they mean that the two cultures merge with one culture's aspect likely to feature more prominently in this new culture. If assimilation in that manner is considered a good thing, then by the same logic what is happening in Inner Mongolia isn't a problem.[/quote]

The article does not suggest that the Mongolians are happily assimilating; it implies that they are being subsumed.

I would also like to add that over here, as late as the 1970s we were forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families as part of the "assimilation" process. While the apologists deny it, it was essentially an attempt to breed them out. There is still a lot of people in Australia who saw nothing wrong with that. If you like, one can think of the Australian leaders at the time in the same vein as the Han Chinese, in the sense that both were / descended from migrants to the region. Comparatively to what the CCP is doing, ie laws to preserve Mongolian language etc (which may not always be followed) its damn well benign.

Those laws, the CCP does not enforce. It was pointed out, for example, that despite having the status of an “official” language, Mongolian is functionally useless. This isn’t Canada.

Access to university in China depends on knowledge of Mandarin Chinese. Families that choose “alternative education” in minority languages must finance additional instruction in Mandarin.

It amazes me that anybody can read this article and perceive Chinese minority policies as “benign.” There is no doubt that some of the political arrangements replaced by Chinese Communism were equally as, if not more, odious (observe Tibet’s theological kingship). That doesn’t mean that China is doing anybody any favors. In Xinjiang, and, apparently, at least among certain Mongolians, there isn’t widespread desire to become more like the Han; people prefer to live in their own modalities.

If China’s policies are “benign,” why were 650,00 Mongolians forced off their land in light of over-grazing while Han Chinese migrants were not? Particularly telling is the Chinese retort that monuments are effective replacements for livelihoods that have been radically altered.

Probably, but as far as ethnic takeovers go, the Chinese method is pretty benign. The main extent of it is the whole Han migration thing. Otherwise, all the government does is make it easier to operate in Chinese than in Mongolian.

Says who? None of those 650,000 people, I’d expect.

The Chinese government purposely avoids enforcing restrictions on movement, so long as the individuals in question are Han entering minority areas. This puts extreme pressure on competitive job markets and, as in Mongolia, can result in unfavorable legal decisions that essentially uphold squatters’ rights.

Does it really matter what language or culture you havr if you're living a healthy and happy life, content about things and all that? I wouldn't mind it if I ended up speaking French and living a happy life somewhere in Europe, doing all sorts of Europey things, if I had a loving wife and family or something. Neither would I mind it if I ended up speaking Soviet and drinking myself to death with vodka in Moscow, during the Siberian winter. What's so important about identifying yourself with a group? The most important thing is what's happening to you on a personal level.

These individuals are not living healthy, happy lives. Literally. Xinjiang is rife with disease. Tuburculosis, AIDS, and other communicable diseases are rampant. Minorities are usually significantly less well-off than Han, who are born into the dominant political culture.

You say you wouldn’t mind living in societies that are essentially free, and where speaking French or Russian wouldn’t limit you in any way. How about if you were a North African? Or Chechen?

A lot of this has to do with pride and so forth, though in some cases, the Chinese Government is known to send Chinese to some place to overwhelm the local population like in Tibet.

A lot of it also has to do with feeling comfortable in a given community, pursuing traditional vocations, in a manner that flatters one’s perceptions about what is important in life. In Xinjiang, many people want to live as good Muslims. There’s nothing objectionable in that. In Mongolia, people were satisfied to live semi-nomadic lifestyles. Their malcontent with being forced into urban life is hardly a manifestation of stubborn pride.

In short, ethnicity can be an ordering principal according to which violence is visited on neighbors; failure to assimilate can arise from irrational repudiation of the society into which one is thrust; nationalisms can give the false and fatal impression that some human beings are "simply superior" to others. The active verb, though, is "can," not "must," or "will." There's nothing wrong with subscribing to a subculture. We do it all the time in the West -- because we are free to do it.

[Duckie]

I'm not sure about human rights or about minorities or any of that, but as a linguist we feel sad whenever a language is extinguished- and with it goes a part of a culture, so the anthropologists are often sad.

Mongolian is kinda cool- especially in writing, but I guess that's how history has always gone- superlanguages push out 90% of competition in their area, then split into pieces over the next millenia (see Latin, or any Proto-language)

[mr friendly guy]

The article does not suggest that the Mongolians are happily assimilating; it implies that they are being subsumed.

I read the spin. Mongol parents want to send their kids to Mandarin schools because they think it gives them an advantage in the job market. Some people interviewed in article think its bad because.....oh wait the "losing my culture" line. If we applied that logic fairly every time someone sends their kids to learn English based on a belief it would give them a similar advantage in an English speaking country it would also be bad. Somehow.

Those laws, the CCP does not enforce. It was pointed out, for example, that despite having the status of an “official” language, Mongolian is functionally useless. This isn’t Canada.

1. Having the law which are only enforced sometimes is still better than not having such laws, in terms of trying to preserve the minority culture. Which is my whole damn point when comparing what the CCP was doing, vs what was only done in my own country within the last generation. Your response is, well its not as good as Canada, so it somehow doesn't count or something.

Access to university in China depends on knowledge of Mandarin Chinese. Families that choose “alternative education” in minority languages must finance additional instruction in Mandarin.

If I said access to university in Australia, a European or North American country depended on knowledge of English. Families that choose education in minority languages must pay more as they have to learn that language plus english, thus its bad bad bad. Well if I said it, people would look at me funny and go WTF? But apparently its ok when it comes to China.

It amazes me that anybody can read this article and perceive Chinese minority policies as “benign.”

Compared to policies done here with minority groups it is. I can't speak for what was done to minority groups in North America, but I understand Canada also did a similar thing to their indigenous population of forcibly removing their kids as well. Elfdart could maybe add more about what happened in the US.

The reason it most probably amazes you is that we don't have this "its only bad when someone else does it" attitude nor do we subscribe to this black / white attitude so we can actually say its not perfect, but its better than what had been done elsewhere.

[Axis Kast]

I read the spin.

And did you catch the blinking-lights/honking-sirens disconnect between allowing Han Chinese shepherds to flood the region, but relocating the Mongols, with stronger usufruct rights, to the cities, on grounds of overgrazing?

What about the segment in which the government spokesman cited a variety of cosmetic solutions after being asked whether Mongols were able to retain their culture?

Mongol parents want to send their kids to Mandarin schools because they think it gives them an advantage in the job market. Some people interviewed in article think its bad because.....oh wait the "losing my culture" line. If we applied that logic fairly every time someone sends their kids to learn English based on a belief it would give them a similar advantage in an English speaking country it would also be bad. Somehow.

You’d have a point only if language weren’t one of several cultural identifiers being stripped away. Instead, the Mongols, a nomadic people since time immemorial, have been forced into cities while Han Chinese are permitted to flood the province.

1. Having the law which are only enforced sometimes is still better than not having such laws, in terms of trying to preserve the minority culture.

Explain to me the difference between a law that is not enforced and the absence of any law. Your sole retort can be, “It implies that things can change for the better in the future.” But that obviously isn’t a reasonable expectation: the Chinese government has proven itself generally ill-disposed to preserving minority cultures, which it sees as a potential source of “splittism.”

Which is my whole damn point when comparing what the CCP was doing, vs what was only done in my own country within the last generation. Your response is, well its not as good as Canada, so it somehow doesn't count or something.

My point is that the Chinese are effectively eradicating the distinctiveness of minority cultures as part and parcel of a national project to streamline identity and secure their borders. Your response tries to leverage the brutality of certain Canadian or Australian policies and claim that the Chinese model is superior because it doesn’t include state-endorsed kidnapping. You have ignored exclusion from the land, restrictions on freedom-of-conscience, and unequal standing before the law (whereas Han Chinese are permitted to move in, but the activities of minorities in “restive” areas are strictly regulated). The truth is, China bears some of the blame for creating these groups and endowing them with special rights. Realizing that they now had a distinctive identity, it was then surprised that maltreatment had even worse results – people began to voice collective grievances. Indeed, writes S. Frederick Starr, “The expectation that the huge and diverse territory of Xinjiang, or even a large part of it, should constitute a single political entity is a modern invention” stemming from the fact that Xinjiang is today governed as one region. Hence, Uighur narratives in favor of national autonomy feature a geography consonant with the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, not traditional “Uighuristan.”

If I said access to university in Australia, a European or North American country depended on knowledge of English. Families that choose education in minority languages must pay more as they have to learn that language plus english, thus its bad bad bad. Well if I said it, people would look at me funny and go WTF? But apparently its ok when it comes to China.

Children in those countries learn English as a matter of course. In Canada, they may learn French, and, within the confines of Quebec, exist essentially as Francophones. These services are provided, free, by the state. In China, minority students whose parents choose to educate them in their traditional language are required to receive additional instruction in Chinese – at cost. A series of laws that supposedly elevate Mongolian to an official language? Those aren’t enforced at all.

The reason it most probably amazes you is that we don't have this "its only bad when someone else does it" attitude nor do we subscribe to this black / white attitude so we can actually say its not perfect, but its better than what had been done elsewhere.

Not so. The Chinese generally attempt to discourage religion by making it extremely difficult to lead an observant life, for example. They teach a specific version of history – their own, while the state actively funds studies that attempt to “disprove” independent origins and development. The Han, they argue, were always the progressive, centripetal force in the history of minority peoples.

Earlier, I mentioned land issues. Dru Gladney, an anthropologist and regional expert, reminds us that the Chinese government does not acknowledge indigenous claims on land (as we saw in Mongolia). They justify this on the basis of false history; the Han were always there, hence the Han Chinese are really the ones with rights.

In Xinjiang, Uighur separatists have been blamed for attacks in which they apparently had no part. Reference to these events is later used as justification for crackdowns. In Beijing, much of the “urban renewal” in preparation for the Summer Olympics involved demolishing minority quarters. No social services were provided to help resettle these people, who thereafter lived in the ruins.

Amnesty International has a lot of negative things to say about Chinese politics in Xinjiang.

There is general sentiment among Uighurs that the influx of Han Chinese distorts personal agency (by reducing the political power and authority of Uighurs in their own land). The huge number of illegal migrant workers also bleeds the province of cash, as I said before, because they tend to send remittances home. Minorities also suffer disproportionately from the generally rising costs of education.

[Samuel]

But that obviously isn’t a reasonable expectation: the Chinese government has proven itself generally ill-disposed to preserving minority cultures, which it sees as a potential source of “splittism.”

In Europe, where conditions are incomaparbly better, many ethnic minorities want their own country. I don't see why their fears are wrong.

My point is that the Chinese are effectively eradicating the distinctiveness of minority cultures as part and parcel of a national project to streamline identity and secure their borders.

How is that a bad thing?

You have ignored exclusion from the land, restrictions on freedom-of-conscience, and unequal standing before the law (whereas Han Chinese are permitted to move in, but the activities of minorities in “restive” areas are strictly regulated).

That is restriction on movement, not inequality before the law. And why should the government grant exceptions on the grounds of conscience?

The truth is, China bears some of the blame for creating these groups and endowing them with special rights. Realizing that they now had a distinctive identity, it was then surprised that maltreatment had even worse results – people began to voice collective grievances. Indeed, writes S. Frederick Starr, “The expectation that the huge and diverse territory of Xinjiang, or even a large part of it, should constitute a single political entity is a modern invention” stemming from the fact that Xinjiang is today governed as one region. Hence, Uighur narratives in favor of national autonomy feature a geography consonant with the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, not traditional “Uighuristan.”

I'm pretty sure that has been the pattern of nationalism for everywhere on Earth- in Europe didn't you have intellectuals first codifying groups before you got nationalism? In alot of places the languages blend into each other and you needed a "proper" language before you could fix that.

Children in those countries learn English as a matter of course. In Canada, they may learn French, and, within the confines of Quebec, exist essentially as Francophones. These services are provided, free, by the state. In China, minority students whose parents choose to educate them in their traditional language are required to receive additional instruction in Chinese – at cost. A series of laws that supposedly elevate Mongolian to an official language? Those aren’t enforced at all.

Isn't it the policy of the United States to get everyone to speak English so they all are part of a melting pot? I don't think it is official policy, but foreign language classes are a joke, at least in California. Which is the state that would need bilingualism the most. It could be China is trying to "encourage" people to be absorbed or at least cut down on paperwork. If people start speaking their own language, they might insist transactions be done in it. I think that happened in Ireland.

Not so. The Chinese generally attempt to discourage religion by making it extremely difficult to lead an observant life, for example. They teach a specific version of history – their own, while the state actively funds studies that attempt to “disprove” independent origins and development. The Han, they argue, were always the progressive, centripetal force in the history of minority peoples.

Wow, it isn't like that isn't true for every country on Earth!

Earlier, I mentioned land issues. Dru Gladney, an anthropologist and regional expert, reminds us that the Chinese government does not acknowledge indigenous claims on land (as we saw in Mongolia). They justify this on the basis of false history; the Han were always there, hence the Han Chinese are really the ones with rights.

Isn't this the same exact thing the Russian, American, Australian, South African, etc do? Except for the insistance they were always there of course.

There is general sentiment among Uighurs that the influx of Han Chinese distorts personal agency (by reducing the political power and authority of Uighurs in their own land). The huge number of illegal migrant workers also bleeds the province of cash, as I said before, because they tend to send remittances home. Minorities also suffer disproportionately from the generally rising costs of education.

So what? All I am seeing are problems that result from poverty, not necesarily Chinese policy.

[Axis Kast]

In Europe, where conditions are incomaparbly better, many ethnic minorities want their own country. I don't see why their fears are wrong.

Their fears aren't without merit. Their methods of social control are, however. It's also particularly ironic that Chinese crackdowns on minority activities have only fueled separatist movements.

How is that a bad thing?

These people are being denied an entire way of life. The drive to maintain one's own community -- what is readily accessible -- is fairly well-honored throughout history. It's why, you know, a few folks got on the Mayflower.

A great many countries have proven that it is very possible to entertain minority distinctiveness while still promoting overall socio-economic progress. Uniform identity isn't a necessary precondition.

That is restriction on movement, not inequality before the law.

If one group of people can break the law, but another is subject to it, that is inequality before the law. Han Chinese can come in without papers. Minorities cannot move freely in China. Han Chinese receive preferential treatment when land is closed off to development. Minorities are in the position of forfeiture.

And why should the government grant exceptions on the grounds of conscience?

Why should we grant certain privileges to homosexuals? Who's the hypocrite now?

China regards religion as a source of alternative identity that might mobilize against the state. As it turns out, the rise in support for an independent East Turkestan has a lot to do with perceptions that it's become impossible to be a good Muslim in China.

I'm pretty sure that has been the pattern of nationalism for everywhere on Earth- in Europe didn't you have intellectuals first codifying groups before you got nationalism? In alot of places the languages blend into each other and you needed a "proper" language before you could fix that.

There needn't be as terrifically destructive an interplay between the national and the minority identities as we see in China. That particular outcome is a result of hard-nosed (and sometimes very erroneous) calculations about who can be relied upon to revolt, and who can be relied upon to "stand for China."

Isn't it the policy of the United States to get everyone to speak English so they all are part of a melting pot? I don't think it is official policy, but foreign language classes are a joke, at least in California. Which is the state that would need bilingualism the most. It could be China is trying to "encourage" people to be absorbed or at least cut down on paperwork. If people start speaking their own language, they might insist transactions be done in it. I think that happened in Ireland.

It's what the law claims they should be able to do.

Personally, I'm not convinced the benefits of a reduction in bureaucracy outweigh the socio-cultural degradation and malcontent arising from the arrangement.

Wow, it isn't like that isn't true for every country on Earth!

Last I checked, we've essentially agreed that distorted historical narrative was a tool used only for bad ends here in the United States.

Isn't this the same exact thing the Russian, American, Australian, South African, etc do? Except for the insistance they were always there of course.

Made everyone in South Africa real happy, didn't it?

So what? All I am seeing are problems that result from poverty, not necesarily Chinese policy.

The Chinese exacerbate that poverty by permitting illegal immigration that results in higher competition for jobs and a large outflow of wealth.

[Samuel]

These people are being denied an entire way of life. The drive to maintain one's own community -- what is readily accessible -- is fairly well-honored throughout history. It's why, you know, a few folks got on the Mayflower.

Speaking of distorted cultural narritives, this would be one of them. They got on the boat so that their children wouldn't grow up Dutch. Everyone else got on board for the money. Fortunately for the Pilgrims the ship "accidently" went off course.

A great many countries have proven that it is very possible to entertain minority distinctiveness while still promoting overall socio-economic progress. Uniform identity isn't a necessary precondition.

Only by maintaining a greater overall identity.

If one group of people can break the law, but another is subject to it, that is inequality before the law. Han Chinese can come in without papers. Minorities cannot move freely in China. Han Chinese receive preferential treatment when land is closed off to development. Minorities are in the position of forfeiture.

Does this mean they can't leave the province?

Why should we grant certain privileges to homosexuals? Who's the hypocrite now?

Legal equality is a priviledge?

China regards religion as a source of alternative identity that might mobilize against the state. As it turns out, the rise in support for an independent East Turkestan has a lot to do with perceptions that it's become impossible to be a good Muslim in China.

Or it could be the fact that it is impossible to be a good Muslim in China and it is an alternative identity that could mobilize against the state. Isn't that a problem shared by all the stans?

Personally, I'm not convinced the benefits of a reduction in bureaucracy outweigh the socio-cultural degradation and malcontent arising from the arrangement.

Not the governments problem.

Last I checked, we've essentially agreed that distorted historical narrative was a tool used only for bad ends here in the United States.

I was refering to the preventing of people from leading an "observant life". Remember, we don't do that to religions in the US- they are cults. The differance is... well, there is no differance!

As for a specific version of history, all countries do that. They always focus on themselves.

Made everyone in South Africa real happy, didn't it?

No, the treating them like garbage did that. The claiming the land belongs to whity just makes the African population poor. Of course, even there they are not going to return the land they took.

The Chinese exacerbate that poverty by permitting illegal immigration that results in higher competition for jobs and a large outflow of wealth.

So the Chinese should limit internal movement to favor a specific ethnicity?

[mr friendly guy]

And did you catch the blinking-lights/honking-sirens disconnect between allowing Han Chinese shepherds to flood the region, but relocating the Mongols, with stronger usufruct rights, to the cities, on grounds of overgrazing?

That would depend on if Han farmers were also relocated and if not, what were the reasons, eg economic etc, and what attempts the government made to compensate for it, either financial or to help them find work etc.

If any Indigenous group claimed user rights on mining land over here ( and I am willing to bet this applies over in North America as well), the government certainly would move to legislate against it. And over here they did on economic grounds.

What about the segment in which the government spokesman cited a variety of cosmetic solutions after being asked whether Mongols were able to retain their culture?

What about the segment in which officials were "aggressively" trying to turn the trend (of decreasing number of students taught mongolian) around. Is this selective quoting, or do you also consider this measure "cosmetic"? Keeping in mind that you have previously mentioned language as a talking point, I think the former option more accurately sums you up.

You’d have a point only if language weren’t one of several cultural identifiers being stripped away. Instead, the Mongols, a nomadic people since time immemorial, have been forced into cities while Han Chinese are permitted to flood the province.

Ah. So if language by itself isn't a factor, can I trust you would stop bringing it up? Or are you just going to keep on sneaking it back into the discussion by combining it with some other gripe?

Putting your supporters in a particular area is hardly new. Saying at the same time the CCP is actively trying to "strip" away "cultural identifiers" such as language and nomadism especially when the article itself makes it clear that a) officials are trying to preserve Mongol language by reversing the trend of less people learning it, ie they are trying to do the opposite b) relocating herders seems based on mismanagement leading to environmental damage rather than some types of conspiracy to strip away Mongol culture.

Explain to me the difference between a law that is not enforced and the absence of any law.

Nothing. Oh wait, I never made that claim in the first place. In fact in the very quote of mine you used, I said "Having the law which are only enforced sometimes is still better than not having such laws". I guess the subtle difference between concepts like "sometimes" and "never" elude you. It should be apparent to any one without rose tinted glasses "Streets signs are in Mongolian", and "laws protecting Mongol language and culture often were ignored" means that sometimes, its enforced.

Your response tries to leverage the brutality of certain Canadian or Australian policies and claim that the Chinese model is superior because it doesn’t include state-endorsed kidnapping.

No I claim it was more benign because they didn't try genocidal policies like actively breeding out their ethnic minorities like we did. Jesus fucking Christ on pogo stick. Is it that hard to grasp?

You have ignored exclusion from the land,

Sorry, we did that too.

restrictions on freedom-of-conscience,

If by this you mean freedom of religion, well I give you that one. Instead we just tried to convert them into Christianity, because Jesus was a swell guy and it was such a biiiig improvement.

and unequal standing before the law (whereas Han Chinese are permitted to move in, but the activities of minorities in “restive” areas are strictly regulated).

We did that as well, with Aborigines not being allowed to vote until the 1960s while the rest was. As mentioned earlier by others including you, China actually allows some extra rights and privileges for its ethnic minorities. I am not going to try and argue whether this 100% balances out some of the disadvantages, but at least they make an attempt to, which is better than what we did only a generation ago.

The truth is, China bears some of the blame for creating these groups and endowing them with special rights. Realizing that they now had a distinctive identity, it was then surprised that maltreatment had even worse results – people began to voice collective grievances.

This seems like a tangent, however I just find it beggars belief that the CCP apparently doesn't grasp the concept that people will unite to get a bigger voice. What is this? Star Trek where only the humans are smart enough to get together for mutual benefit while the aliens were too dumb to do this?

Children in those countries learn English as a matter of course. In Canada, they may learn French, and, within the confines of Quebec, exist essentially as Francophones. These services are provided, free, by the state. In China, minority students whose parents choose to educate them in their traditional language are required to receive additional instruction in Chinese – at cost. A series of laws that supposedly elevate Mongolian to an official language? Those aren’t enforced at all.

Aside from the Canada example (where Francophones can exist without needing to speak English), I fail to see how this is different to what I was saying except very superficially. Minority children in both countries require the parents to fork out extra money to learn a second language, the only difference being that in China the extra money is to learn the more widely spoken language whilst in English speaking countries the extra cash is to learn the minority language.

The reason it most probably amazes you is that we don't have this "its only bad when someone else does it" attitude nor do we subscribe to this black / white attitude so we can actually say its not perfect, but its better than what had been done elsewhere.

Not so. The Chinese generally attempt to discourage religion by making it extremely difficult to lead an observant life, for example. They teach a specific version of history – their own, while the state actively funds studies that attempt to “disprove” independent origins and development. The Han, they argue, were always the progressive, centripetal force in the history of minority peoples.

<snip for convenience>

Translation - China is bad bwa wa wa.

That last spill made no attempt to actual compare what China is doing in regards to treatment of its ethnic minorities vs what was done elsewhere eg in the Western world. It does not even attempt to refute my point that what China is doing is less harmful compared to what we have done, except by your authorial fiat declaration of "not so".

Edit - corrected for grammar

[RedImperator]

It amazes me that anybody can read this article and perceive Chinese minority policies as “benign.”

Compared to policies done here with minority groups it is.

Why does that matter? The discussion is about the ethics of Chinese minority policy, not "Who committed more atrocities?" That the Chinese government has treated its minorities better than the Anglosphere treated its indigenous inhabitants (and, in America, its blacks) is admirable, but it doesn't mean what China is doing is benign.

If any Indigenous group claimed user rights on mining land over here ( and I am willing to bet this applies over in North America as well), the government certainly would move to legislate against it.

Indians control the rights to all natural resources on their reservations. If you want to mine Indian land, you need to secure a lease from the tribe, not the government.

[KlavoHunter]

I don't see, mr friendly guy, why the fact that other nations have done terrible things to their minorities, means the Chinese should get a free pass to do the same, so long as they are not as terrible.

We are living in a more enlightened time - Why shouldn't we castigate the Chinese for their anti-minority policies?

[Lusankya]

Because the anti-minority policies aren't particularly anti-minority. Yes, they are trying to supercede the minority cultures, but the main method that they use to do so is migration and education. Boo frickin' hoo. They're making it possible for the minorities to maintian their original culture, and most of the failures in this are probably due to the half-arsedness that pervades all Chinese social programmes, and not any malice. The minorities are benefitting from Chinese influence. What the complaints basically come down to is "waah, it was different in my grandpappy's day" and then when they get sick from standing outside complaining too much, they promptly go into the hospital that the CCP built.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't see, mr friendly guy, why the fact that other nations have done terrible things to their minorities, means the Chinese should get a free pass to do the same, so long as they are not as terrible.

We are living in a more enlightened time - Why shouldn't we castigate the Chinese for their anti-minority policies?

I don't recall giving them a free pass as you put it. However I do point out a) some of the complaints seem weak and b) for even some of the criticisms to work, we have to apply a different standard to what the CCP is doing.

Examples of point a) lets say decrease in the numbers learning the Mongolian language from anti-minority polices is bullshit considering the local officials are trying to increase it from the very article quoted.

This is even more stranger when you consider that the culture of the minority tends to merge with that of the majority through things like sharing of ideas, intermarriage etc. I need only point to migrants to say Western countries and again how less members of the next generation speak the language their parents did. If the government just let this dying down of the language take its course, we would not call that an anti-minority policy. We would call it assimilation. Which brings me to point b). I don't see how asking the same standard to be applied to China is giving them a free pass.

[Axis Kast]

Speaking of distorted cultural narritives, this would be one of them. They got on the boat so that their children wouldn't grow up Dutch. Everyone else got on board for the money. Fortunately for the Pilgrims the ship "accidently" went off course.

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.

Only by maintaining a greater overall identity.

That isn’t an effective rebuttal. You were told that most Uighurs don’t identify with the separatist goals, but that opposition to the Chinese state is actually growing in step with restrictions on worship.

Does this mean they can't leave the province?

Yes, it does.

Legal equality is a priviledge?

In the United States, legal equality is a right. I used the wrong word. People like you and me shed tears when that is not always true, in practice. Over time, we have tended to move past lip service, or to redefine the community eligible for those rights in new ways. The Chinese don’t do that. If you’re Han, you are entitled to certain privileges under the law – namely, exemptions, so long as the behavior in question services a macro-objective.

Or it could be the fact that it is impossible to be a good Muslim in China and it is an alternative identity that could mobilize against the state. Isn't that a problem shared by all the stans?

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.

Not the governments problem.

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.

I was refering to the preventing of people from leading an "observant life". Remember, we don't do that to religions in the US- they are cults. The differance is... well, there is no differance!

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.

As for a specific version of history, all countries do that. They always focus on themselves.

Once again, I’ve asked you to defend why that shouldn’t matter.

No, the treating them like garbage did that. The claiming the land belongs to whity just makes the African population poor. Of course, even there they are not going to return the land they took.

Right. Because nobody ever resented being shut up in Bantustans.

So the Chinese should limit internal movement to favor a specific ethnicity?

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

That would depend on if Han farmers were also relocated and if not, what were the reasons, eg economic etc, and what attempts the government made to compensate for it, either financial or to help them find work etc.

The article makes no mention of whether or not Han farmers were relocated. I presume not. It also makes no mention of restitution – while discussing some of the sop policies rolled out instead. Obviously, nobody was compensated. The same was apparently true with the minorities whose neighborhoods were bulldozed before the Olympics. The very next day, they were still trying to eek out a living in the same place, except without roofs.

If any Indigenous group claimed user rights on mining land over here ( and I am willing to bet this applies over in North America as well), the government certainly would move to legislate against it. And over here they did on economic grounds.

I’m less concerned about that. It’s a given in the consolidation of most every state. Some of the other policies we see drawn up against minorities, less so.

What is more problematic is that those mining industries are rarely serviced by legal citizens of the province, in, say, Xinjiang.

What about the segment in which officials were "aggressively" trying to turn the trend (of decreasing number of students taught mongolian) around. Is this selective quoting, or do you also consider this measure "cosmetic"?

The government has established a dual-track system that perpetuates inequality. Mongolian is functionally useless. Of course I consider the measure cosmetic. I also consider it detrimental. Maybe I’d be inclined to mind it less if it weren’t one star in a whole constellation of ethical crimes.

Ah. So if language by itself isn't a factor, can I trust you would stop bringing it up? Or are you just going to keep on sneaking it back into the discussion by combining it with some other gripe?

Language is one of several factors. I’ve pointed out that the Chinese are effectively introducing linguistic apartheid when they encourage minority education in a language other than Mandarin.

Putting your supporters in a particular area is hardly new.

It’s hardly new. And, when it’s explicitly illegal but happens anyway, it’s completely unethical. It’s also turned out to be detrimental to the Chinese project. You continue to make the argument that China is not diverging from reasonable expectations or common-sense policy. How could that be, if their “solutions” are only stirring up additional malcontent? They’ve got themselves a policy that only creates more problems.

Saying at the same time the CCP is actively trying to "strip" away "cultural identifiers" such as language and nomadism especially when the article itself makes it clear that a) officials are trying to preserve Mongol language by reversing the trend of less people learning it, ie they are trying to do the opposite b) relocating herders seems based on mismanagement leading to environmental damage rather than some types of conspiracy to strip away Mongol culture.

Language isn’t the only pertinent cultural identifier, and encouraging use of a language that is economically “dead” offers the Mongolians no tangible benefit in the long term.

The article made no mention of whether Han were relocated. The fact that they were permitted to glut the area with temporary herds of sheep is enough to suggest that the government is nowhere near as responsible as you contend.

Nothing. Oh wait, I never made that claim in the first place. In fact in the very quote of mine you used, I said "Having the law which are only enforced sometimes is still better than not having such laws". I guess the subtle difference between concepts like "sometimes" and "never" elude you. It should be apparent to any one without rose tinted glasses "Streets signs are in Mongolian", and "laws protecting Mongol language and culture often were ignored" means that sometimes, its enforced.

And yet Mongolian is not a functional language that can be leveraged to good effect. Go figure.

Some black people were able to vote in the Deep South during the days of Jim Crow. I guess that meant that there was a significant difference from total lack of enforcement.

No I claim it was more benign because they didn't try genocidal policies like actively breeding out their ethnic minorities like we did. Jesus fucking Christ on pogo stick. Is it that hard to grasp?

What do you think flooding Xinjiang and Mongolia with Han is meant to do, pal?

Sorry, we did that too.

And we realized that it had certain consequences, didn’t we?

Shouldn’t I be the one asserting that, in geopolitics, there are no standards of acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t you be the one telling me that if we use the justification, “We did that, too,” the whole world would be a pretty awful place?

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.

If by this you mean freedom of religion, well I give you that one. Instead we just tried to convert them into Christianity, because Jesus was a swell guy and it was such a biiiig improvement.

Congratulations. You’re equivocating on behalf of the PRC. Your argument has now become, “If we did it yesterday, we can’t argue that it’s bad, tomorrow.”

We did that as well, with Aborigines not being allowed to vote until the 1960s while the rest was. As mentioned earlier by others including you, China actually allows some extra rights and privileges for its ethnic minorities. I am not going to try and argue whether this 100% balances out some of the disadvantages, but at least they make an attempt to, which is better than what we did only a generation ago.

To be a minority in Xinjiang or Tibet is to be black in the Deep South before 1965.

This seems like a tangent, however I just find it beggars belief that the CCP apparently doesn't grasp the concept that people will unite to get a bigger voice. What is this? Star Trek where only the humans are smart enough to get together for mutual benefit while the aliens were too dumb to do this?

The CCP was hoping that granting them an identity would make them more susceptible to collective management and collective bargaining. Initially, the benefit of classification was that they could woo these groups into cooperation with the Communist “promise.” Beginning in the 1950s, as the CCP took China down a series of ever-bleaker paths until 1980 or so, the minority status became a convenient rallying point.

[Broomstick]

Isn't it the policy of the United States to get everyone to speak English so they all are part of a melting pot? I don't think it is official policy, but foreign language classes are a joke, at least in California. Which is the state that would need bilingualism the most. It could be China is trying to "encourage" people to be absorbed or at least cut down on paperwork. If people start speaking their own language, they might insist transactions be done in it. I think that happened in Ireland.

Not that I really want to wade into this, but I wanted to add a few points here.

The US does not, in fact, have an official language. In theory, there's no reason we couldn't all decide to start speaking/reading/writing some obscure dialect from New Guinea. Of course, that is extremely unlikely to happen in the real world but there is no legal barrier to doing that.

In practice, various levels of government provide materials in various languages. I believe almost everything from the city of Chicago is available in English, Spanish, Polish, Mandarin (I'm pretty sure the Chinese stuff is in Mandarin), and a bunch of other languages I can't identify on sight. Yes, most educational instruction is in English, and there are a lot of bad language classes, particularly in the public schools prior to college. There are some good ones, too. That's in a country not known for being polylingual. What I'm talking about is, when you go to City Hall in Chicago, you can get social services in any one of a dozen languages. You can get copies of laws in those languages. You can take your driver's license test in those languages. You can request voting ballots in those languages.

Even in Indiana, which is pretty white-bread, when I went to vote in the national election just a few weeks ago, I had a choice of reading the ballot in English or Spanish.

Clearly, there is great advantage to possessing fluent English in the US. Equally clearly, it is possible to function in other languages. The government does not encourage the use of languages other than English, but neither does it bar their use.

So... for the situation in Mongolia - does all official/legal/government business HAVE TO be done in Mandarin, or can it also be done in Mongolian? If the latter, how easy is it for people to access Mongolian language materials?