Why Muslim Uighurs are angry in China ? - Page 7

On July 08 2009 14:46 koreasilver wrote:

Aborigines? There are aborigines that originated from Hawaii and Alaska.

What are you on about.

On July 08 2009 14:50 Draconizard wrote:
He was being sarcastic. They were analogous, but perhaps it's too difficult to tell now that the people there have become so integrated? I'm sure it's ok, though; the natives there all wanted it.

On July 08 2009 14:40 Polus wrote:


Okay, I agree with your last point. I never suggested reconciliation was impossible. You conveniently ignored the part of my post where I suggested integration begin in both the TAR and Xinjiang regions once those minorities have an actual voice in the CCP.

Can they have their own countries?

On July 08 2009 14:54 asleepingpig wrote:


Can they have their own countries?

On July 08 2009 14:50 Draconizard wrote:
He was being sarcastic. They were analogous, but perhaps it's too difficult to tell now that the people there have become so integrated? I'm sure it's ok, though; the natives there all wanted it.

On July 08 2009 14:47 v1rtu0so wrote:
US certainly is not free from guilty of something like this themselves. Besides slavery, the dealings with native americans is certainly the biggest blemish in otherwise decent track record. Now that I think of it, there are uncanny parallels in the two situations. Indian casinos and affirmative action sounds A LOT like the type of preferential treatment that the minorities are getting in China in exchange for loss of autonomy.

China really should not make the mistake US made years ago, but knowing their gov't, I know they will bulldoze through their agenda.

What is noticeably different, however, is that, unlike the Americans who are not proud of this part of history, the Chinese population (the supposed "Hans") are so convinced and even proud that what they are doing is "magnanimous" and "for their good."

On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote:


Thanks for your explanation. I know Indians are well treated in USA now. But if there were millions of
Indians in Alaska who wanted to be independent and attack the white madly, how will USA government do?

On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:


If these millions of indians constitute the vast majority of people living in Alaska (no longer true) AND wanted to "attack the white madly" (unlikely, but OK), then US should let them be independent.
Another important caveat is that these people need to have lived their for long time (effectively the land has been theirs), which is also no longer true.

Tibetans and Uighurs, however, (with some reservations) seem to mostly meet these criteria.

If Uighurs and Tibetans leave China, I have to say they will live worse than now unless other countries can always provide international help.

Mongolia left China in 1940's because of the pressuare from Soviet Russia, and they lived very bad. China always provide some help to Mongolia. In 1995, Mongolia government shew that they wanted to join China. But China government refused it as Mongolia required China to be a federal government.

On July 08 2009 15:16 T.O.P. wrote:

Nope. The US will not let millions of Indians be independent just because they don't want to be part of the US. Alaska is valuable US land. The US will send troops to Alaska to crush the rebellion and then arrest the rebellion's leaders. They'll say that the people who fought against the US troops are terrorists who threaten the Union.

Remember the Civil War? The North didn't let the South secede.

On July 08 2009 15:14 asleepingpig wrote:
China always provide some help to Mongolia. In 1995, Mongolia government shew that they wanted to join China. But China government refused it as Mongolia required China to be a federal government.