China intensifies oppression of minority

[cosmicalstorm]

1. Copying European policies of banning symbols of religious piety and applying it conveniently to one group isn't the best idea the CCP came up with.

This seems to be extension of previous policies whereas they tried to convince Uyghurs not to wear the Burkha by appealing to their vanity. That is promoting how good you look with your hair revealed etc.

I do find it ironic that in this case the Chinese are for their own interests promoting traditional Uyghur culture with women's clothing against some of the new Islamic trends coming from elsewhere, but if some other ethnic minority adopted different than traditional cultures China would be accused of cultural genocide. Oh wait that already happened.

Of course China tried to go even further than what the Europeans did by banning beards and this most probably will not work.

2.

Earlier this month, the northern Xinjiang city of Karamay announced that young men with beards and women in burkas or hijabs would not be allowed on public buses.

I would like to point out this was a heavy handed security measure which used bullshit racial profiling during a period of sporting event....which ended when the sporting event finished on August 20 which is several days before the article in the OP was published. Just pointing out that this is temporary, but not exactly how I would have done things.

3. Its interesting that when Richard Dawkins proposed that kids not be taught religion until they are old enough, a lot of atheists cheered. China actually openly does this policy and its criticised in the very article.

The problem though is not so much they have rules to prevent indoctrination, but its applied haphazardly. You either apply it to all, or not at all because they would tend to create resentment in the group which its applied to. Which leads to the next point.

4. The Hui muslims who are the largest Muslim ethnic group in China get a reasonable deal. Why do I say that? Well the flippant answer is that the Western Media can't find things to bitch about. A more detailed answer would be we can see evidence that these rules are not enforced for them. For example they are allowed to bring kids to Mosques and openly do it in front of Chinese film crews (it was a tourism doco). The crew pretty much comment its against the rules but no one gives a shit.

There are other concessions China makes to Muslims which would be considered political correctness gone mad in Australia. For example the term pork isn't called pork in parts of China with a decent Muslim population. A new euphemism is created which literally translates as big meat (just for interest there is no euphemism called little meat as our guide was quick to point out). Everyone locally knows the term refers to pork, but its not called pork because apparently it offends Muslims. Whether Muslims really are offended by that is another matter.

This begs the question, why are the largest Muslim group (and some smaller ones) getting a better deal than Uyghurs? Its not like the province where the Hui predominantly live (Ningxia) is exactly China's richest province. Its GDP per capita (2011 figures) is less than Xinjiang's. Part of the reason is that Hui Muslims have historically supported Han Chinese in various conflicts. Pogroms have been launched against them by Tibetans and Uyghurs in the past and in the present. Another is that they aren't separatists and have integrated well into Chinese society. When Chinese think of Hui they most probably think what is shown on tourism videos and not of terrorist attacks.

This of course will feed a vicious circle which is hard to break. Many Chinese consider it unfair that ethnic minorities get concessions such as affirmative action policies for uni entry. If the ethnic minority takes advantage, but otherwise are perceived to cause no trouble, people would most probably not get too worked up over it. However when terrorist attacks occur,the average citizen perceives this as ungratefulness, calls for tougher measures, and Beijing responds. Society becomes more polarised. Which in turns prompts more radicalisation etc. Eventually something will give if this keeps up, and it won't be Beijing. Ethnic minorities are outnumbered several times over by Han Chinese, and the largest minority groups don't have separatist tendencies and will side with Beijing.

The question becomes, can someone break this circle before it turns to shit. The last thing anyone wants is for these regions to become like god damn Gaza. As some has pointed out, what is the long term plan. Do they have a plan? From what I gather they actually do.

China gobbled up quite a bit of territory, I wonder what the long term plan for that region is? How is the population replacement thing going in that place, are the Han still a minority?

Before I answer whether there is some sort of end plan, I will just want to point out a few things.

a. They gobbled up territory in the 18th century, yeah. By the time the Communist party won the civil war only small parts of Xinjiang was actually de facto independent. Most of it was still under the control of the previous government, and they promptly surrendered when they saw which was the wind was blowing.

b. Uyghurs are still the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang (very slight) but no longer the majority. Its also worth nothing, the distribution is not equal. That is Han tend to congregate in Urumuqi (the capital) while Uyghurs are more numerous in Kashgar (the other big city).

c. The long term plan is to develop the region and increase standard of living. Its based on the belief that extremism would die down (if not disappear) with the event of increasing living standards. So expect them to put their money where their mouths are. By pouring it into the region.

Before you go, has the CCP actually have success in integrating previously hostile minorities into mainstream society? Yeah they have actually. Which is why they most probably believe they can do it again.

That was very informative, thanks.

[mr friendly guy]

Yeaaaah.

Irrelevant to my point that China promotes ethnic minority culture overseas, thus demolishing your point about not being sensitive to non Han culture. But try again.

Most languages have written scripts. Thus is not a great achievement. Fairly sure Tibetan, Mongolian, et al already had written scripts quite independent of the benevolence of the Chinese government. Mongolian has had, like...what, at least three?

Which I guess is why the article never claimed to develop a written script for those ethnic minorities. It claimed to develop written script for other ethnic minorities. You do realise China's ethnic minorities are more than Tibetans, Mongolians and Uyghurs right? Right?

Thus demolising your point about them not being sensitive to non Han culture. Can you explain why they would go to all this extent to develop written scripts for minorities if they don't care. Has America or Australia tried to do the same for their indigenous population?

Dunno what specific shows you're talking about, but my experience is that Chinese presentations of minority culture tends to take the form of a very patronizing "Look at the minorities in their colorful clothes! They love to sing and dance!"

Promotion is promotion.

After TEN GODDAMN YEARS of actively promoting Manchu culture this school has one teacher capable of teaching Manchu language! That's less effort than fucking America puts into promoting Cajun French!

Reviving endangered languages are so easy which is why languages die out every year. But I can point out China does these things for minority culture and your counter response is that its never going to be good enough.Good to know.

[Ralin]

Irrelevant to my point that China promotes ethnic minority culture overseas, thus demolishing your point about not being sensitive to non Han culture. But try again.

It "promotes" a showcase version of minority culture according to Chinese experts which had precious little to do with reality

Thus demolising your point about them not being sensitive to non Han culture. Can you explain why they would go to all this extent to develop written scripts for minorities if they don't care. Has America or Australia tried to do the same for their indigenous population?

America mostly let our indigenous population come up with their own writing system. GEE, WONDER WHY CHINESE MINORITIES AREN'T IN A POSITION TO DO THE SAME?

Promotion is promotion.

Much like how minstrel shows promoted black culture in America.

Reviving endangered languages are so easy which is why languages die out every year. But I can point out China does these things for minority culture and your counter response is that its never going to be good enough.Good to know.

Gee, I wonder how they ended up with that situation where there are less than a hundred native Manchu speakers? It's almost like there's been a concerted long term push to stamp it out and now they're starting to give the minorities a fig leaf.

Seriously, I know your whole shtick is to point out hypocritical the 'West' is, but you could at least pretend you're not trolling. It makes you come off as less edgy and more like a stupid teenager

[mr friendly guy]

Ralin's argument boils down to China doesn't give a shit about minority culture. When you show evidence of what they done for it, he just handwaves it away as either

a. They shouldn't do anything, let the ethnic minorities sort it out (as if helping is suddenly a bad thing) or why aren't the minorities aren't in a position to do the same
b. What China are doing is not good enough.

Naturally being a moronic inbred retard it doesn't occur to him that you can't have it both ways. Along the way we are treated to his awesome comparison skills where he someone reads the ethnic groups of "Zhuang, Bouyei and Miao" as "Tibetan and Mongolian", hey Miao and Mongolian both start with an M, so we can see the confusion there. But don't worry, we are treated to more of his reading comprehension brilliance like this reply.

America mostly let our indigenous population come up with their own writing system. GEE, WONDER WHY CHINESE MINORITIES AREN'T IN A POSITION TO DO THE SAME?

Lets assume that its somehow a bad thing if the Chinese government does everything for these groups in formulating a writing system. Too bad from the link its clear the government did not do so, and they assisted. Tough shit boy, you lose.

Gee, I wonder how they ended up with that situation where there are less than a hundred native Manchu speakers?

Well you see genius, there is this called google. G-O-O-G-L-E. See you use if you will find out that Manchu language had been declining even among the Imperial family Looong before the PRC was formed. How long you ask? Since the early 19th century.

Manchu language - dying with lost in the imperial family in the 19th century.
PRC formed - 1949.

Yeah I know concepts like cause and effect strain your microcephalic brain, but you can't hang this on the PRC when the Manchu language was dying more than a hundred years before it was even formed.

It's almost like there's been a concerted long term push to stamp it out and now they're starting to give the minorities a fig leaf.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Well you are the guy who doesn't seem to realise that 1949 came after the 19th century, but let me educate on this history because you are about as ignorant on this as a Creationist is on evolution.

By the time of Chairman Mao, it was commonly thought that the Manchus were all but extinct in the sense that they had become heavily sinified and assimilated (even Western news reported that). However one of his advisers who had Manchu ancestry managed to convince Mao that people with Manchu ancestry should be encouraged to identify as Manchu, even though under the old Qing dynasty such people would most probably not have been considered Manchu. But since this is the PRC and their standards are different from the Qing...

So its quite laughable some idiot like yourself talks about how China is making a "concerted long term push to stamp it out," when they made the effort to revive Manchu culture bank from the brink of extinction. If I wasn't ROTFL I might be outraged.

Seriously, I know your whole shtick is to point out hypocritical the 'West' is, but you could at least pretend you're not trolling.

Great mind reading powers Sherlock. I thought my whole shtick was to point out you are wrong. But apparently is also to point out how the West is hypocritical, which while true wasn't the crux of what I said to you.

It makes you come off as less edgy and more like a stupid teenager

Seriously I know your whole shtick is to make unsupported claims which sound good, but you should at least do a minimum of research and pretend you aren't an idiot. It makes you come off as more reasonable and less like an inbred shithead who doesn't even know cause precedes effect.

[mr friendly guy]

Every Pole between 1800-1918 was a Russian, Austrian or Prussian citizen.

Ok since you want to play it that way, let me explain in simple terms I find what I find you doing to be distasteful.

Imagine if say Australia's Tony Abbott described Australians of Vietnamese and Greek ancestry as not Australians (he actually did). Or some racists told an Asian American that you aren't an American (because you know, only Whites can). Oh I know, how about some Polish poster tells YOU that some German soccer star isn't not really German because he was born in Poland or some such claim. What would we say here? You would say that its not only racist but perhaps these are trying to exclude people from a nation based on ethnicity.

Yet this what you are doing when you describe Han as Chinese and various ethnic minority as NOT Chinese. It implies that only Han deserve the title. This is bullshit. If you an Australian, no matter what ethnic group you are, you're an Australian. If you're a Chinese, no matter what ethnic group you are, you're Chinese. That's just tough shit for the racists as this case illustrates. What I find ironic, is that from the POV of the Chinese government, they want to include these ethnic minorities, whereas apparently you don't.

Before you go, ah but the word "Chinese" in English could mean either a) a person with Chinese nationality or
b) a person of Han ethnic group, (whereas in Mandarin there would be 2 different words for the two different concepts), and in an overseas context like with the Chinese diaspora the distinction most probably doesn't matter, it clearly does when talking about domestic Chinese populations. I just like to point out people have used this tactic of equivocation in this manner to drive their agenda cough Gordon Chang cough. So I find it distasteful.

See, this is pretty much the same shit you heard from Prussians to explain why their farmers just seemed to do much better than Polish farmers while both were working the Polish soil.

Unfortunately for you, some (not all) of this "same shit" comes straight from the Tibetans and their supporters. Let me give you an example.
The Sichuanese are willing to charge tourists unfair prices, whereas we Tibetans don't. So we find it hard to compete with them. Or how about this from a source which says that of course an independent Tibet won't be as economically developed as one under Chinese rule, because the Tibetans will pursue different goals.

Fine by me, but don't object when people call it a crime then.

Since you want to play it this way, then don't complain when I point out that China is a sovereign nation and are allowed to control migration into and within its borders.

Ethnic cleansing of an area can also be done by colonisation which eventually marginalises the people living there. It can also be done to get a persistent foothold there.

I was going to ask whether the Hispanic demographic change (partially via illegal immigration) in the US or the BS Islamisation of Europe (assuming for a moment the right wing worse case scenarios come true) would count as ethnic cleansing under your criteria. But then I realise what's the point. China's enemies can advocate mass deportations of millions of Han people from areas they have been living in hundreds of years, get cheered by the European parliament for saying it and win a Nobel prize, while China encouraging mass migration into its own territory without killing or forcing the people there out counts as ethnic cleansing. The double standards are so ludicrous it speaks for itself.

[Thanas]

Every Pole between 1800-1918 was a Russian, Austrian or Prussian citizen.

Ok since you want to play it that way, let me explain in simple terms I find what I find you doing to be distasteful.

Imagine if say Australia's Tony Abbott described Australians of Vietnamese and Greek ancestry as not Australians (he actually did). Or some racists told an Asian American that you aren't an American (because you know, only Whites can). Oh I know, how about some Polish poster tells YOU that some German soccer star isn't not really German because he was born in Poland or some such claim. What would we say here? You would say that its not only racist but perhaps these are trying to exclude people from a nation based on ethnicity.

I am assuming you don't know the difference between forceful conquest and immigration by choice, because that is the only way your whole post makes any sense.

Unfortunately for you, some (not all) of this "same shit" comes straight from the Tibetans and their supporters. Let me give you an example.
The Sichuanese are willing to charge tourists unfair prices, whereas we Tibetans don't. So we find it hard to compete with them. Or how about this from a source which says that of course an independent Tibet won't be as economically developed as one under Chinese rule, because the Tibetans will pursue different goals.

Irrelevant to the overall point and pretty much the same spiel "they don't know how to compete because they are [insert reason X, preferably one that paints the oppressed people in a bad light, thus justifying the oppression].

Since you want to play it this way, then don't complain when I point out that China is a sovereign nation and are allowed to control migration into and within its borders.

The sovereignty of china is not in question. The morality of their action is.

I was going to ask whether the Hispanic demographic change (partially via illegal immigration) in the US or the BS Islamisation of Europe (assuming for a moment the right wing worse case scenarios come true) would count as ethnic cleansing under your criteria. But then I realise what's the point. China's enemies can advocate mass deportations of millions of Han people from areas they have been living in hundreds of years, get cheered by the European parliament for saying it and win a Nobel prize, while China encouraging mass migration into its own territory without killing or forcing the people there out counts as ethnic cleansing. The double standards are so ludicrous it speaks for itself.

Choice matters.

[K. A. Pital]

The sovereignty of china is not in question. The morality of their action is

1. Everyone agrees internal migration controls should be abolished, because they impact fundamental human rights. At best completely.
2. The abolition of such controls will only accelerate internal migration.
3. ???

[Thanas]

The sovereignty of china is not in question. The morality of their action is

1. Everyone agrees internal migration controls should be abolished, because they impact fundamental human rights. At best completely.
2. The abolition of such controls will only accelerate internal migration.
3. ???

Your argument does not follow, states do control internal migration because they want to protect minorities and that is very well allowed under human rights.

[K. A. Pital]

Which states would that be?

The sovereignty of china is not in question. The morality of their action is

1. Everyone agrees internal migration controls should be abolished, because they impact fundamental human rights. At best completely.
2. The abolition of such controls will only accelerate internal migration.
3. ???

Your argument does not follow, states do control internal migration because they want to protect minorities and that is very well allowed under human rights.

My argument does follow. A large region such as Xinjiang could not be declared off-limits to your own citizens of any nationality. That would be discrimination. And a huge one.

By the way, which areas of Germany are off-limits to its own citizens?

[Thanas]

Which states would that be?

Well, for example you cannot live on many reservations unless you are a native american.

My argument does follow. A large region such as Xinjiang could not be declared off-limits to your own citizens of any nationality. That would be discrimination. And a huge one.

China is so large that I very much doubt that it is the only place to live.

By the way, which areas of Germany are off-limits to its own citizens?

None but then again we don't have a minority culture that is threatened by immigration and which is oppressed by our government.

[K. A. Pital]

Which states would that be?

Well, for example you cannot live on many reservations unless you are a native american.

The US is a poor example. Not only did they exterminate the natives (something the Chinese did not do), but instead of providing them with citizenship and full rights, they kept them as non-citizens until the early XX century, if I recall correctly. I would believe that when you first conduct genocide and later run an apartheid state for centuries, any post-facto solution would be bad.

China is so large that I very much doubt that it is the only place to live.

China has 1,5 billion people on a territory smaller than Russia. The population densities in the East of China are already breaking the boundaries on what we think is acceptable urbanization, with 100+ million conurbations arising.

None but then again we don't have a minority culture that is threatened by immigration and which is oppressed by our government.

Actually there are many minorities, but the creation of ghettoes - even very large ghettoes such as the U.S. 'reservations', is not a good way to behave. Instead, equality of all citizens regardless of race should be enforced more strictly, and full freedom of migration should be enjoyed by all citizens of the nation.

[mr friendly guy]

I am assuming you don't know the difference between forceful conquest and immigration by choice, because that is the only way your whole post makes any sense.

Ok. So using that logic its ok for a racist to point out Indigenous Australians are not Australians because they were conquered by white Australians and didn't choose to migrate to an area settled by White Australians? Because that's exactly the logic you are using.

Irrelevant to the overall point and pretty much the same spiel "they don't know how to compete because they are [insert reason X, preferably one that paints the oppressed people in a bad light, thus justifying the oppression].

Except the line came from the non dominant group and paints the dominant group in a bad light, so I don't know how that works.

In any event, no one denies Han Chinese have advantages. The Chinese government believes this can be compensated for by education, development etc. I am of the opinion we should try to equalise by increasing the standard of living of the Disadvantaged. You on the other hand seem to think we should achieve the same thing by kicking out the Advantaged and then equality. Great plan there.

The sovereignty of china is not in question. The morality of their action is.

What type of sovereign state can't even regulate the movement of people within its borders as it sees fit?

[mr friendly guy]

My argument does follow. A large region such as Xinjiang could not be declared off-limits to your own citizens of any nationality. That would be discrimination. And a huge one.

China is so large that I very much doubt that it is the only place to live.

Hey, apartheid era South Africa was also large enough so that the White only areas isn't the only place for Blacks to live either.

But I have to ask this. Does that mean that places like Shanghai and Beijing should prevent Uyghurs migrating there just to be totally fair?