|
Just read that on the BBC.COM
+ Show Spoiler +New protests have flared in Urumqi, two days after 156 people died and 800 were injured in the western Chinese city.
At least 200 Uighurs faced off against police in Urumqi on Tuesday following news that 1,434 people were arrested in connection with Sunday's riots.
Trouble also spread outside of Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, with protests on Monday near a mosque in Kashgar.
Beijing blames ethnic Muslim Uighurs for the violence, but exiled Uighurs say police fired on students.
'Extraordinary defiance'
The BBC's Quentin Sommerville, on the streets of Urumqi, says at least 200 people - mostly elderly women or women with children - have taken to the streets, complaining that their relatives had been arbitrarily arrested.
Foreign journalists witnessed the protest during a tour led by government officials showing them parts of the city where shops and homes had been destroyed in Sunday's violence.
Our correspondent says it was an extraordinary act of defiance.
He says riot police - armed with rifles and tear gas - charged the women and surrounded them. But they sat on the ground in defiance of orders from policemen to disperse.
He says the protesters finally began leaving as the journalists were ushered away from the area.
But policemen were waiting in the side streets, he said, and it was unclear what had happened to the women.
Mass arrests
The mass arrests have been going on since Sunday's clashes.
Reports are surfacing that police have been going from house to house, rounding up young men for questioning.
The Chinese authorities say they have arrested the "ringleaders" of the protests, but that they are still seeking others.
In Urumqi's hospitals, the victims are still being treated, our correspondent says.
Many are reported to be ethnic Han Chinese, but there are Uighurs too and others from another Muslim ethnic group, the Hui.
Demonstrators said they had been demanding justice for two Uighurs killed last month in a fight with ethnic Han Chinese at a factory in southern China.
There has been widespread international concern at the clashes, which some analysts say are the most serious in China since Tiananmen Square in 1989.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon led the calls for restraint, a sentiment echoed by Britain and the US.
Are they fighting against the HAN or against the Chinese government ?
|
Nothing new from either China or the Muslim community.
China kills dissidents. Muslims Riot. The world revolves. You can count on all three.
|
hmmm i was not even aware china had any large groups of muslims. FMI but who are theHAN chinese? I know there was a han dynasty at one point? Are they related?
|
Well, Han Chinese are pretty much the "regular" Chinese. Chinese take pride in the Han dynasty, so they calm themselves "Han". The Muslim populations are mainly in the west.
|
But it's not related to religion, right ?
I mean, people can be Han AND Muslim too, right ?
|
It is kinda. I guess the Muslims are angry because the Han Chinese get better treatment?
|
Oo'
How ? I mean, Muslim or not, if they hold a Chinese Passport, it's the same, they are still Chinese. Btw, like I've said, people can be Han AND Muslim, no ?
Muslim = Religion
Han = Ethnic
|
Not everybody that holds a Chinese passport is "Han". It's kinda discrimintory. But generally, I don't think Muslims are considered Han.
|
It reminds me what happened in Tibet :/ So basically, in China, there are Han and others and Government only cares about Han ?
LOL it seems to be a very "racist" conception.
|
not that the government only cares about the Han, but han are favored sometimes. It is racist and it exists because there is nothing to stop it :/
|
|
|
On July 07 2009 15:36 MK wrote:
It reminds me what happened in Tibet :/ So basically, in China, there are Han and others and Government only cares about Han ?
LOL it seems to be a very "racist" conception.
I'm pretty sure every country in the world has some form of governmental racism. Whether it be, affirmative action, or something like this.
China has one of the worst human rights records, but hardly no one cares a peep.
|
Pretty much every dynasty except for Yuan (Mongolian) and Qing (Manchurian) is ruled by the han ethnic group, I believe. I may be wrong, though, since I haven't touched Chinese history since 4th grade.
Anyway, typical stuff. Why even bother protesting? The result is pretty much given, and this won't be a catalyst for change.
|
The actual problem is these Huighurs are fighting against Han which is stupid :/ they should fight against the Government instead 
I wanted to visit China btw
|
Been living in China for more than 5 years now. Allow me to answers some of yours questions.
First, Han is the official ethnic name of majority Chinese people(most Chinese oversea are also Han ethnic)
I've never seen a Han people that practice muslim.
Holding a Chinese passport doesnt make you Han.
In the west of China (tibet or somewhere like that) Muslim people are being discriminated by Han, maybe not so seriously, but its there. And many Han people dont even consider these Muslim their countrymate(especially Han in the coastal region)
From what I know Muslims in the west of China are now becoming minority in their own mother land. Chinese goverment are placing alot of Han to the west and now they become majority in the region which I think lead to the Muslim unrest BOTH in the Chinese gorvement and Han people as well.
Just imagine you become guest in your own house, what would you think? I cant accept that.
But if anything Chinese are good at, they are good at letting their culture spread and slowly consume others.
In the past, Korea, Vietnam, Japan are all somehow heavily affect by Chinese culture. For example Korean and Vietnamese nowadays celebrate most of all the Chinese festival such as mid-autumn, Chinese new year and so on. I believe the same will happen with those muslim in the west of China.
|
Uighur and other minorities are first class citizens in China, here are some facts:
1, Han Chinese family can only bear one child, but the minorities can bear two or more children.
2, Minorities can get favorable policy for University entrance exam.
3, Minorities thieives will not be arrested normally. In every cities, you can see a lot of thievies from Uighur, and the police can do nothing because of government special policy for minorities.
Another fact:
nearly 90% of Chinese are Han Chinese. But from 2000~2005, among 41 millions new borns, there are only 23 millions Han babies, 18 millions are minority babies.
why? Because minority are favored, so if Han people are married to minority, they will declare their babies are minority. Moreover, many pure Han families change their children race form han to minorities by illegal ways, so that their children are more competitive in University entrance exam.
Did BBC or CNN tell you all above facts?
|
Wow, Caphe, thank you, that was useful.
I really like the way the Chinese are dealing with this riot. Stomp it and be done with it - that's the way to go with ethnic unrest IMO too. If you're a country that's not sanctioned by NATO that is. Serbia tried to do the same and NATO didn't allow it.
As for becoming a guest in your own house - if the population in Bulgaria changes in a few decades and most of it become gypsies and/or ethnic turkish - so be it. I can stay (most probably I would stay cause I don't mind gypsies and I like turkish people) or if I don't like them I can always pack my bags and say "Goodbye and thank you for the fish!". I can always accept an (inevitable) change.
|
Btw, I am Han Chinese, and my wife is minority. We lives very well. And, according to the policy, we can have two babies, and if I declares my baby's race as minority, when they attend University entrance exam they can get additional 10 points into their total achievements. When they are adults, they can have more benefits.
We benefits from the policy, but I have to say that it's totally unfair.
|
|
|
On July 07 2009 16:54 asleepingpig wrote:
Uighur and other minorities are first class citizens in China, here are some facts:
1, Han Chinese family can only bear one child, but the minorities can bear two or more children.
2, Minorities can get favorable policy for University entrance exam.
3, Minorities thieives will not be arrested normally. In every cities, you can see a lot of thievies from Uighur, and the police can do nothing because of government special policy for minorities.
Another fact:
nearly 90% of Chinese are Han Chinese. But from 2000~2005, among 41 millions new borns, there are only 23 millions Han babies, 18 millions are minority babies.
why? Because minority are favored, so if Han people are married to minority, they will declare their babies are minority. Moreover, many pure Han families change their children race form han to minorities by illegal ways, so that their children are more competitive in University entrance exam.
Did BBC or CNN tell you all above facts?
China, welcome to Europe! 
|
On July 07 2009 16:58 hymn wrote:
Wow, Caphe, thank you, that was useful.
I really like the way the Chinese are dealing with this riot. Stomp it and be done with it - that's the way to go with ethnic unrest IMO too. If you're a country that's not sanctioned by NATO that is. Serbia tried to do the same and NATO didn't allow it.
As for becoming a guest in your own house - if the population in Bulgaria changes in a few decades and most of it become gypsies and/or ethnic turkish - so be it. I can stay (most probably I would stay cause I don't mind gypsies and I like turkish people) or if I don't like them I can always pack my bags and say "Goodbye and thank you for the fish!". I can always accept an (inevitable) change.
The ol' taking over of a country without firing a single round.
|
As for this massacre for Han Chinese, the reason is also due to these special policies!
Uighur revenge Han Chinese. Why? One week before, in one big factory in Guangdong province, there was a serious conflict between Uighur workers and Han Chinese workers. Two Uighur workers are killed. What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!
|
On July 07 2009 17:10 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 16:54 asleepingpig wrote:
Uighur and other minorities are first class citizens in China, here are some facts:
1, Han Chinese family can only bear one child, but the minorities can bear two or more children.
2, Minorities can get favorable policy for University entrance exam.
3, Minorities thieives will not be arrested normally. In every cities, you can see a lot of thievies from Uighur, and the police can do nothing because of government special policy for minorities.
Another fact:
nearly 90% of Chinese are Han Chinese. But from 2000~2005, among 41 millions new borns, there are only 23 millions Han babies, 18 millions are minority babies.
why? Because minority are favored, so if Han people are married to minority, they will declare their babies are minority. Moreover, many pure Han families change their children race form han to minorities by illegal ways, so that their children are more competitive in University entrance exam.
Did BBC or CNN tell you all above facts? China, welcome to Europe!
I visited Europe every year for business. It's a good place, but life in Europe is too expensive.
|
On July 07 2009 17:05 asleepingpig wrote:
Btw, I am Han Chinese, and my wife is minority. We lives very well. And, according to the policy, we can have two babies, and if I declares my baby's race as minority, when they attend University entrance exam they can get additional 10 points into their total achievements. When they are adults, they can have more benefits.
We benefits from the policy, but I have to say that it's totally unfair.
Uh... wait, so, is it better to be minority than being Han ?
this is not EXACTLY what the protesters are saying....
|
Those sneaky minorities somehow oppressing the majority who holds all the power as usual, grrn!!
|
I visited Europe every year for business. It's a good place, but life in Europe is too expensive.
Agreed.
Depends on the country but in general, Europe is the best place to live.
|
On July 07 2009 17:26 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 17:10 Aegraen wrote:On July 07 2009 16:54 asleepingpig wrote:
Uighur and other minorities are first class citizens in China, here are some facts:
1, Han Chinese family can only bear one child, but the minorities can bear two or more children.
2, Minorities can get favorable policy for University entrance exam.
3, Minorities thieives will not be arrested normally. In every cities, you can see a lot of thievies from Uighur, and the police can do nothing because of government special policy for minorities.
Another fact:
nearly 90% of Chinese are Han Chinese. But from 2000~2005, among 41 millions new borns, there are only 23 millions Han babies, 18 millions are minority babies.
why? Because minority are favored, so if Han people are married to minority, they will declare their babies are minority. Moreover, many pure Han families change their children race form han to minorities by illegal ways, so that their children are more competitive in University entrance exam.
Did BBC or CNN tell you all above facts? China, welcome to Europe! I visited Europe every year for business. It's a good place, but life in Europe is too expensive.
My point was, that the minority, or immigrant birth rates are much higher than the native people's birth rates. In fact, Europes native birth rates is actually NEGATIVE. The population is rapidly aging and the vast majority of births are coming from Middle Eastern and Muslim populations.
It is for all intents and purposes an invasion, thats usually why America had immigration quota's, but those pesky congress-critters want Amnesty so we can be like Europe. I'll pass, and I'm sure you'll government will awake one day. Wouldn't want that Chinese Culture to become a minority in the future. The government however, would be one happy day for me if it dissolved and formed itself a constitutional republic...I digress..
PS. Are the majority of people in China happy under the oppressive government?
|
My point was, that the minority, or immigrant birth rates are much higher than the native people's birth rates. In fact, Europes native birth rates is actually NEGATIVE. The population is rapidly aging and the vast majority of births are coming from Middle Eastern and Muslim populations.
that's why in Japan, immigration is a very big issue and usually, people can't "become" Japanese. Also, imo, it's very hard for Alien to actually live in Japan...
PS : strange to think that maybe one day Europe could be muslim.
|
On July 07 2009 17:27 MK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 17:05 asleepingpig wrote:
Btw, I am Han Chinese, and my wife is minority. We lives very well. And, according to the policy, we can have two babies, and if I declares my baby's race as minority, when they attend University entrance exam they can get additional 10 points into their total achievements. When they are adults, they can have more benefits.
We benefits from the policy, but I have to say that it's totally unfair. Uh... wait, so, is it better to be minority than being Han ? this is not EXACTLY what the protesters are saying....
According to China race policy, it is. But it doesn't means that there is no discrimination. China history is very complicated. There are 55 miniroties in China, among them there are 2 Muslim races. One of them is Uighurs and another is Hui. In history, there were wars between Uighurs and Hui, so they are hostile.
Nowadays most minorities are not discriminated. But Uighurs might have some problems. There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them.
But for normal Uighurs, they are treated like foreigners as they say different language and their apprearance is totally different.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
On July 07 2009 15:41 eMbrace wrote:
who are Uighurs?
|
There is one Uighur restaurant near my office. I have dinner there sometimes. Their language is like Turkish, and many Uighurs cannot say correct Chinese (Han language). So it's quite difficult to communicate with them.
|
On July 07 2009 17:51 MK wrote:Show nested quote +My point was, that the minority, or immigrant birth rates are much higher than the native people's birth rates. In fact, Europes native birth rates is actually NEGATIVE. The population is rapidly aging and the vast majority of births are coming from Middle Eastern and Muslim populations. that's why in Japan, immigration is a very big issue and usually, people can't "become" Japanese. Also, imo, it's very hard for Alien to actually live in Japan... PS : strange to think that maybe one day Europe could be muslim.
One day? Try very soon.
Maybe Europe will realize there mistake...
"Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Why are you so focused on the theme of Turkey and Islamization?
"Quite simply because we will see the first transformations of churches into mosques in the coming three years. At any rate, that is what Nicolas Sarkozy told me."
So Nicholas Sarkozy, the president of France, a Christian country, which sent Knights to the Holy Land under order of the Pope to take back Jerusalem and stop persecution of Christians by Muslims is not going to do anything while Islam converts churches to Mosques? I wonder how France's Christian population thinks on this?
Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : When?
"I had an in depth discussion with him at Elysée at the end of last year. He said to me: "You have intuition, I have the figures. And your intuition is confirmed by my figures. The Islamization of Europe is inevitable." Careful: it's a process that will not occur overnight, but will take decades."
"Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Why does this issue appear to be of central importance to you?
"Most politicians have a comforting ignorance of what Islam is and propose transforming Europe into a supermarket of competing religions. Unaware that Islam is not only a religion since, by melding the temporal and the spiritual, it imposes a law. But behind this comforting ignorance of politicians, there are those who know. (...) The reality is that we are headed for a criss-cross (chassé-croisé) with, on one side, Europe and its en masse abortions, its promotion of gay marriage, and on the other, immigration en masse" (...)"
"Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Aren't you exaggerating the dimensions of the phenomenon?
"No. The crux of the issue is simple: Europe is refusing its own demographic future. And it is working with a fearsome weapon towards this end, written into the Charter of fundamental rights appended to the treaty of Lisbon: the promotion of gay marriage. This in turn is accomplished through the principle of non-discrimination and the disassociation of marriage from the sex of the spouses (which appears in article 7 of the Charter of fundamental rights). In reality, there are two weapons being used by European leaders to kill Europe demographically: the promotion of gay marriage and en masse abortions. And a third: the recourse to immigration that is 80% Islamic in order to replace the people who are no longer there" (...)"
Nicolas Sarkozy's own words...Europe might want to heed these and all other countries might want to watch and take notes :cough: America.
|
On July 07 2009 17:54 Clasic wrote:
One of the Muslim races in China.
|
On July 07 2009 17:46 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 17:26 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 17:10 Aegraen wrote:On July 07 2009 16:54 asleepingpig wrote:
Uighur and other minorities are first class citizens in China, here are some facts:
1, Han Chinese family can only bear one child, but the minorities can bear two or more children.
2, Minorities can get favorable policy for University entrance exam.
3, Minorities thieives will not be arrested normally. In every cities, you can see a lot of thievies from Uighur, and the police can do nothing because of government special policy for minorities.
Another fact:
nearly 90% of Chinese are Han Chinese. But from 2000~2005, among 41 millions new borns, there are only 23 millions Han babies, 18 millions are minority babies.
why? Because minority are favored, so if Han people are married to minority, they will declare their babies are minority. Moreover, many pure Han families change their children race form han to minorities by illegal ways, so that their children are more competitive in University entrance exam.
Did BBC or CNN tell you all above facts? China, welcome to Europe! I visited Europe every year for business. It's a good place, but life in Europe is too expensive. My point was, that the minority, or immigrant birth rates are much higher than the native people's birth rates. In fact, Europes native birth rates is actually NEGATIVE. The population is rapidly aging and the vast majority of births are coming from Middle Eastern and Muslim populations. It is for all intents and purposes an invasion, thats usually why America had immigration quota's, but those pesky congress-critters want Amnesty so we can be like Europe. I'll pass, and I'm sure you'll government will awake one day. Wouldn't want that Chinese Culture to become a minority in the future. The government however, would be one happy day for me if it dissolved and formed itself a constitutional republic...I digress.. PS. Are the majority of people in China happy under the oppressive government?
Yes, we heard many news for Muslims in France. I will not be suprise if one day France bacome a Muslim country.
|
|
|
On July 07 2009 17:17 asleepingpig wrote:
As for this massacre for Han Chinese, the reason is also due to these special policies!
Uighur revenge Han Chinese. Why? One week before, in one big factory in Guangdong province, there was a serious conflict between Uighur workers and Han Chinese workers. Two Uighur workers are killed. What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!
Uighurs should go to Afghanistan : rape is legal there
|
The Chinese do not fear multiculturalism as such, what they fear is is political nationalism under any pretension other than the mainstream "Chinese" one. Both their protection of minority cultures and demographic dilution of minority populations are examples of that. The Chinese nationality policy operates on a complementary principle: loyalty to a central Chinese nation on one hand, and a secondary minority nation on the other, are not mutually exclusive.
|
On July 07 2009 17:33 MK wrote:Show nested quote +I visited Europe every year for business. It's a good place, but life in Europe is too expensive. Agreed. Depends on the country but in general, Europe is the best place to live.
Europe is sweet. But there are issues too with immigration in alot of countries and the racism is more hidden than in asian countries
|
Religion in Europe is becomeing less and less meaningfull. Alot of people seem to think that we are being invaded or whatever since ethnic people are having less offspring. Alot of people talk about muslim immigrants as a problem since they wont be assimilated as easily as for eksampel eastern europeans. But once you hit the 4th or 5th generation of immigrants they will be about as ethnic as you are, the only thing that makes you different is that you view them differently than pure ethnics.
I belive the problem is that we arent used to having so different cultures this close to home, and this is biggest test modern tolerance will face for a long time. All cultures chance constantly and its not gonna be for better or for worse. All the conservative talking is really anoying me, people need to work with what they got to create a better future not sit around grumbling about how much better things used to be. For most cases, the past sucks way harder than the present or future.
edit: that was more of a rant than i had intended 
|
Let me answer some of the questions:
1. Who are the Han Chinese?
Han Chinese are what most people think of when they think of a "chinese person". Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li are all examples of Han Chinese.
2. I'm not Han Chinese. What race am I?
There are 2 other races - barbarians and devils.
If your ancestors invaded China mainly from the Eastern coast, you're probably a devil. You might be an "old devil" or a "red haired devil" if you're white. If you're Jap you're a "small Jap devil" and so on.
If your ancestors (a) raped and pillaged their way across China from the North or West and (b) lived in tents and rode horses, you're probably a barbarian. And just because your ancestors actually managed to conquer China, like the Mongols and the Manchus, that doesn't make you any less of a barbarian. Just a more successful one that eventually saw the superiority of Chinese culture and was absorbed into it.
If your ancestors didn't try to attack China, you don't really fit into a category, but you're probably classed as a barbarian anyway.
3. So, who are the Uighurs?
They're a minority in China of Turkish descent living in the Northwest of China, so not only did their ancestors live in tents and ride horses, they have white skin too! Talk about not fitting in! They're also mostly Muslim, but that is not really a problem as we will see...
4. Where is Xinjiang?
Xinjiang is the Uighur's home in Northwestern China. It is one of the poorest provinces and is huge but sparsely populated.
5. Is religion a problem?
The Uighurs are mainly Muslim, unlike the Han Chinese. I don't know if this was a concern during the communist era, but it's certainly not a concern now. The Chinese government doesn't care about its people's religion as long as there is no conflict with loyalty to China. So Catholicism is seen as a threat because Catholics are technically loyal to the Pope, who is not under China's control. It's like a more extreme version of outlawing Jehovah's Witnesses. Buddhism is NOT a problem, except in Tibet where buddhists are seen to owe their loyalty to the Dalai Lama, who again is not under China's control. As far as I know, the Muslims in Xinjiang face no such problems.
6. What's the problem in Xinjiang?
There are ethnic tensions in Xinjiang between the Uighurs and Han Chinese. This could be because Xinjiang is a very poor place, and both sides blame each other for stealing jobs and so forth. Poverty breeds extremism, after all.
To make matters worse, the Chinese government feels threatened by the Uighurs because some of them agitate for an independent state. So it's been encouraging Han Chinese to move to Xinjiang so that the Uighurs are no longer as dominant as they used to be. This is why the Tibetans hate the idea of the new railroad linking China to Tibet - they fear a huge influx of Han Chinese, thus eventually making them a minority.
Agitating for an independent state is a big no no in China. Almost every single dynasty has fallen because someone decides to rebel and make himself emperor. As a result, the Chinese government (and, indeed, the people of China themselves) are desperate for a strong, united China. Naturally, Uighurs wanting an independent state makes the Chinese very uncomfortable.
So of course, with the Uighurs perceiving themselves as being under threat, they start eying the Han Chinese with suspicion and agitate even more for an independent state.
Since Xinjiang is such a poor place, some Uighurs have immigrated to other parts of China, and some cause trouble and are immediately identified because they look so different. That has led to some Han Chinese labelling Uighurs as thieves and so on (the same way blacks used to be labelled as thieves in South Africa or America).
But the thing is, the Chinese government doesn't care about the Uighurs as a race. All it cares about is that they don't make trouble, especially in Xinjiang. Elsewhere, they're not numerous enough to be a threat. So Uighurs get the same priviledges as other minorities in China - they can have more than one child and so on (asleepingpig pointed them out). So the Han Chinese see a bunch of perceived thieves getting special priviledges and they don't like that either.
So it's complicated and messy.
7. What started these riots?
2 Uighur migrants in Guangdong were accused of attacking a Han Chinese woman. They were killed by a mob. Uighurs aren't happy with the police reaction so they decided to riot.
Some Han Chinese are convinced that the 2 Uighurs were guilty as sin and they deserved to be torn apart, others think otherwise... and it's worth bearing in mind that the Chinese criminal justice system is pretty inefficient. I don't want to go into a whole examination of the Chinese psyche and justice system and what have you... it's just complicated.
The Chinese government is blaming the World Uighur Congress, an overseas group, of having masterminded the riots. Smells of bullshit to me. The Chinese government needs better spin doctors, seriously.
8. Uighur... Uighur... where have I heard that before?
Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are Uighurs. The US wanted to ship them back to Xinjiang, but is unable to because China claims that they ARE terrorists and there's a chance they will face human rights abuses. It would be bad to hand them over, but nobody else really wants to take them because that would piss China off.
|
I live in a neighbourhood with a large Chinese (All races) community. There is a local Uighur restaurant next door to my house. I spoke to the owner, his mandarin needs a little work but all and all he is just as Chinese as I am.
It's very interesting how in a completely foreign land; all the differences that we had at home are no longer issue at all. I'm there cracking jokes to this guy whom is Chinese in every way but with blue eyes.
It's such a shame because China is such a diverse and multi-racial society. Even Hans are not pure Hans at all, most of the Manchurians assimilated and no longer identify themselves as Manchurians. It's hard to believe that our nation has 51 races.
|
Birthrates in Europe are afaik beginning to turn positive again (probably not in all countrys but in some).
I know enough muslims here that are as muslim as I am and I actually never had a religion.
Integration is a matter of time, it took ITALIAN imigrants in Switzerland about 20-40 YEARS to really blend in (so 2-3 generations for a neighbour country!), why should it go any faster with eastern europeans or muslims which are culturally more diffrent from us and are just here since about 0-2 generations?
Integration takes time, give it.
|
On July 07 2009 19:21 haduken wrote:
It's very interesting how in a completely foreign land; all the differences that we had at home are no longer issue at all. I'm there cracking jokes to this guy whom is Chinese in every way but with blue eyes.
Well, all you need is to live in a community of people even MORE different than you and him and... presto! You're all Chinese!
Overall China has done a decent job with the issue of race, except for Tibet. I met two people from a TV station I was dealing with. One was Manchu and the other Mongol. They knew what they were but they didn't really think about it (except when it was time to collect benefits). Both spoke Mandarin and English and both have good job prospects and both live in Beijing. I really think the more advanced China's economy gets the less of an issue race will be.
|
Race will be replaced with wallet size...
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3
|
On July 07 2009 19:21 haduken wrote:
I live in a neighbourhood with a large Chinese (All races) community. There is a local Uighur restaurant next door to my house. I spoke to the owner, his mandarin needs a little work but all and all he is just as Chinese as I am.
It's very interesting how in a completely foreign land; all the differences that we had at home are no longer issue at all. I'm there cracking jokes to this guy whom is Chinese in every way but with blue eyes.
It's such a shame because China is such a diverse and multi-racial society. Even Hans are not pure Hans at all, most of the Manchurians assimilated and no longer identify themselves as Manchurians. It's hard to believe that our nation has 51 races.
That is true for all foreigners in all countries, but especially true of Chinamen.
Here in Germany, there is a large degree of social contact between Poles, Spaniards, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, etc., but Chinamen are never seen talking to anyone other than their own race. The more interesting contrast is between the pompous, impatient, egotistical Chinaman within China, and the meek, shy and reserved Chinaman abroad.
Although the pattern is not completely one-sided; there are particular features of German society and the German mentality which makes assimilation much more difficult here than in Anglo-Saxon nations.
|
On July 07 2009 19:05 Kong John wrote:Religion in Europe is becomeing less and less meaningfull. Alot of people seem to think that we are being invaded or whatever since ethnic people are having less offspring. Alot of people talk about muslim immigrants as a problem since they wont be assimilated as easily as for eksampel eastern europeans. But once you hit the 4th or 5th generation of immigrants they will be about as ethnic as you are, the only thing that makes you different is that you view them differently than pure ethnics. I belive the problem is that we arent used to having so different cultures this close to home, and this is biggest test modern tolerance will face for a long time. All cultures chance constantly and its not gonna be for better or for worse. All the conservative talking is really anoying me, people need to work with what they got to create a better future not sit around grumbling about how much better things used to be. For most cases, the past sucks way harder than the present or future. edit: that was more of a rant than i had intended
Actually the recent generations of muslims are considered to have most problems with integrating theirselves. And well, if you look at the news (or just go outside/in a club) you don't need to think very far to come to this conclusion.
Also, researches throughout the muslim community in Germany (and other European countries) say big parts of the younger ones are valuing islam very high and they wouldn't consider themselves to be German and all that. But you already gave the cause of this, it's the native population trying to adapt to muslims and not vice versa (how it should be).
|
On July 07 2009 17:53 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 17:27 MK wrote:On July 07 2009 17:05 asleepingpig wrote:
Btw, I am Han Chinese, and my wife is minority. We lives very well. And, according to the policy, we can have two babies, and if I declares my baby's race as minority, when they attend University entrance exam they can get additional 10 points into their total achievements. When they are adults, they can have more benefits.
We benefits from the policy, but I have to say that it's totally unfair. Uh... wait, so, is it better to be minority than being Han ? this is not EXACTLY what the protesters are saying.... According to China race policy, it is. But it doesn't means that there is no discrimination. China history is very complicated. There are 55 miniroties in China, among them there are 2 Muslim races. One of them is Uighurs and another is Hui. In history, there were wars between Uighurs and Hui, so they are hostile. Nowadays most minorities are not discriminated. But Uighurs might have some problems. There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them. But for normal Uighurs, they are treated like foreigners as they say different language and their apprearance is totally different.
Hui is not a different race. They are HANS who converted to Islam. Communist ideology did not cater for religious groups who have significant population and influence so they labeled them into a different racial group.
|
Ok, so China doesn't care about religion and race and is ok with everything if no trouble and unite country, right ?
It seems pretty ok for me. Pretty fair.
|
On July 07 2009 20:09 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 17:53 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 17:27 MK wrote:On July 07 2009 17:05 asleepingpig wrote:
Btw, I am Han Chinese, and my wife is minority. We lives very well. And, according to the policy, we can have two babies, and if I declares my baby's race as minority, when they attend University entrance exam they can get additional 10 points into their total achievements. When they are adults, they can have more benefits.
We benefits from the policy, but I have to say that it's totally unfair. Uh... wait, so, is it better to be minority than being Han ? this is not EXACTLY what the protesters are saying.... According to China race policy, it is. But it doesn't means that there is no discrimination. China history is very complicated. There are 55 miniroties in China, among them there are 2 Muslim races. One of them is Uighurs and another is Hui. In history, there were wars between Uighurs and Hui, so they are hostile. Nowadays most minorities are not discriminated. But Uighurs might have some problems. There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them. But for normal Uighurs, they are treated like foreigners as they say different language and their apprearance is totally different. Hui is not a different race. They are HANS who converted to Islam. Communist ideology did not cater for religious groups who have significant population and influence so they labeled them into a different racial group.
Communism values atheism. At least, the USSR was an Atheistic society, so espoused by Stalin.
|
On July 07 2009 20:12 MK wrote:
Ok, so China doesn't care about religion and race and is ok with everything if no trouble and unite country, right ?
It seems pretty ok for me. Pretty fair.
They don't care what ethnicity you are as long as they control you. That seems fair to you?!
For most of Communist China's existence they were hostile towards religion, and was for all intents and purposes an atheist state, just like every other communist state save for perhaps one or two.
|
If we take as a given that modern China practises some kind of goulash communism, its handling of religious affairs is not particularly tyrannical in that context.
You may wish to emphasize that goulash communism is still communism, but in the broad spectrum between absolute freedom and absolute tyranny (the two may not be mutually exclusive), it's clear that Chinamen today are much more free in most aspects than in the previous generation.
I also want to emphasize that freedom alone will by no means westernize Chinese perceptions when it comes to human rights, standards of public behaviour, child abuse, domestic authoritarianism, or even political democracy. Chinese nationalism, whatever its sources, is authentic. China will never tolerate separatism, regardless of the type of government which happens to be in power.
|
On July 07 2009 19:39 MoltkeWarding wrote:
That is true for all foreigners in all countries, but especially true of Chinamen.
Here in Germany, there is a large degree of social contact between Poles, Spaniards, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, etc., but Chinamen are never seen talking to anyone other than their own race. The more interesting contrast is between the pompous, impatient, egotistical Chinaman within China, and the meek, shy and reserved Chinaman abroad.
Although the pattern is not completely one-sided; there are particular features of German society and the German mentality which makes assimilation much more difficult here than in Anglo-Saxon nations.
Oh come on.
I know there are quite big Chinese communities around the universities in Germany that don't have that much interaction with the other students, but it's not like there's a lot going on with the Turkish or Russian communities either, they're just not that big on campus.
Also, the French kinda feel out of place in this comparison for me.
|
They don't care what ethnicity you are as long as they control you. That seems fair to you?!
controlled by a government is better than to be controlled by some crazy religion :/ Yet all depends how and to what extent people are controlled.
|
On July 07 2009 21:10 indecision wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 19:39 MoltkeWarding wrote:
That is true for all foreigners in all countries, but especially true of Chinamen.
Here in Germany, there is a large degree of social contact between Poles, Spaniards, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, etc., but Chinamen are never seen talking to anyone other than their own race. The more interesting contrast is between the pompous, impatient, egotistical Chinaman within China, and the meek, shy and reserved Chinaman abroad.
Although the pattern is not completely one-sided; there are particular features of German society and the German mentality which makes assimilation much more difficult here than in Anglo-Saxon nations. Oh come on. I know there are quite big Chinese communities around the universities in Germany that don't have that much interaction with the other students, but it's not like there's a lot going on with the Turkish or Russian communities either, they're just not that big on campus. Also, the French kinda feel out of place in this comparison for me.
Brother was on Erasmus:
Chinese = totally seperate (they don't use Erasmus but they were basically in the same courses at the university)
French, Spanish (basq! :p), Swiss, Austrian, Portugese, Tschech, Slowenian, Swedish... = together.
Germans = a little inbetween (but that probably was because 2 of the 4 germans were girls described by my brother as "annoying controlfreaks that no one wants to have around and desperatly need to get fucked")
|
On July 07 2009 21:10 indecision wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 19:39 MoltkeWarding wrote:
That is true for all foreigners in all countries, but especially true of Chinamen.
Here in Germany, there is a large degree of social contact between Poles, Spaniards, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, etc., but Chinamen are never seen talking to anyone other than their own race. The more interesting contrast is between the pompous, impatient, egotistical Chinaman within China, and the meek, shy and reserved Chinaman abroad.
Although the pattern is not completely one-sided; there are particular features of German society and the German mentality which makes assimilation much more difficult here than in Anglo-Saxon nations. Oh come on. I know there are quite big Chinese communities around the universities in Germany that don't have that much interaction with the other students, but it's not like there's a lot going on with the Turkish or Russian communities either, they're just not that big on campus. Also, the French kinda feel out of place in this comparison for me.
First of all, Turks don't go to university
Secondly, in my experience there are different kinds of Russians: those on exchange programmes are more likely to be integrated within the "Erasmus" crowd than those who study here as normal students. The former are more likely to be party animals than the latter, who are more serious about their studies, although the two categories overlap. There's an obvious difference between well-to-do Russians from large cities and Russian migrants from provincial towns, etc.
Thirdly, International students tend to associate the most with people of their own nationality. This is true for almost every minority student, unless he is the only representative of his nation/culture at that university. This is true even for people who attempt to eschew contacts with their own nationality in favour of local integration. They all end up discovering some element of patriotism within themselves of which they were previously unaware.
Fourthly, international students associate with other international students. This is especially true for students with minute national representations such as Finland, Latvia or Denmark. This is also due to the preparatory courses and activities which occur pre-semester, in which exchange students are inevitably introduced to other exchange students, wherein networks are developed.
Finally, international students seem to interact with German students the least, regardless of nationality. There is the condition that Germans have established social circles. There is the linguistic inequality which highly favours the German. There is the phlegmatic teutonic humour. Whatever the causes, these are the effects.
|
On July 07 2009 21:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 21:10 indecision wrote:On July 07 2009 19:39 MoltkeWarding wrote:
That is true for all foreigners in all countries, but especially true of Chinamen.
Here in Germany, there is a large degree of social contact between Poles, Spaniards, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, etc., but Chinamen are never seen talking to anyone other than their own race. The more interesting contrast is between the pompous, impatient, egotistical Chinaman within China, and the meek, shy and reserved Chinaman abroad.
Although the pattern is not completely one-sided; there are particular features of German society and the German mentality which makes assimilation much more difficult here than in Anglo-Saxon nations. Oh come on. I know there are quite big Chinese communities around the universities in Germany that don't have that much interaction with the other students, but it's not like there's a lot going on with the Turkish or Russian communities either, they're just not that big on campus. Also, the French kinda feel out of place in this comparison for me. First of all, Turks don't go to university Secondly, in my experience there are different kinds of Russians: those on exchange programmes are more likely to be integrated within the "Erasmus" crowd than those who study here as normal students. The former are more likely to be party animals than the latter, who are more serious about their studies, although the two categories overlap. There's an obvious difference between well-to-do Russians from large cities and Russian migrants from provincial towns, etc. Thirdly, International students tend to associate the most with people of their own nationality. This is true for almost every minority student, unless he is the only representative of his nation/culture at that university. This is true even for people who attempt to eschew contacts with their own nationality in favour of local integration. They all end up discovering some element of patriotism within themselves of which they were previously unaware. Fourthly, international students associate with other international students. This is especially true for students with minute national representations such as Finland, Latvia or Denmark. This is also due to the preparatory courses and activities which occur pre-semester, in which exchange students are inevitably introduced to other exchange students, wherein networks are developed. Finally, international students seem to interact with German students the least, regardless of nationality. There is the condition that Germans have established social circles. There is the linguistic inequality which highly favours the German. There is the phlegmatic teutonic humour. Whatever the causes, these are the effects.
I'd love to visit Germany one day. I'm sure I'd fit in decently, I can speak some german and my heritage is 50% German (My last name is german and my mothers side is mostly all german ancestry).
I'd still be an outsider, though eh?
I'll make sure to walk around in my SuidAkrA shirt!
|
Actually there was an incident in Guandong in a factory.
Two male workers attempted to rape a woman worker. It ended up in a fight and one or two deaths.
Those dead people happened to be Uyghur...
it s bit the same problem that italy had when an italian was killed by a romanian
and in France when 2 french african died in a parisian suburb.
I dont think it s linked to religion. Uyghur seek independancy so of course China wont let that happen (Uyghurs are not even a majority in their province, same as Tibet btw, if u did a referendum there, more ppl would vote to stay as part of China)
Uyghurs have a history of rebelions against the communists,being the soviet union and now China.
I dont think it represents the whole of the Uyghur population but around 5000 thousands people...unfortunately China will use this as a reason to intensify anti separatism campaigns.
As for advantages or disadvantages, China actually takes a relative care of their minority, provided they dont seek independance
asleepingpig resumed it well
|
On July 07 2009 20:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 20:12 MK wrote:
Ok, so China doesn't care about religion and race and is ok with everything if no trouble and unite country, right ?
It seems pretty ok for me. Pretty fair. They don't care what ethnicity you are as long as they control you. That seems fair to you?! For most of Communist China's existence they were hostile towards religion, and was for all intents and purposes an atheist state, just like every other communist state save for perhaps one or two.
well France has been atheist for a hundred years, and we are not communists
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On July 07 2009 21:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Secondly, in my experience there are different kinds of Russians: those on exchange programmes are more likely to be integrated within the "Erasmus" crowd than those who study here as normal students. The former are more likely to be party animals than the latter, who are more serious about their studies, although the two categories overlap. There's an obvious difference between well-to-do Russians from large cities and Russian migrants from provincial towns, etc.
Erasmus isn't serious studying for most students, no matter where from, no matter in which country they spend their semester abroad. And it's not a problem. Yes, there's a lot of partying, but it's not all there is. Employers know that Erasmus is a lot of partying btw, they usually think it's fine.
|
Finally Chinese vs Muslims! *grabs popcorn*
|
On July 07 2009 17:58 Aegraen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2009 17:51 MK wrote:Show nested quote +My point was, that the minority, or immigrant birth rates are much higher than the native people's birth rates. In fact, Europes native birth rates is actually NEGATIVE. The population is rapidly aging and the vast majority of births are coming from Middle Eastern and Muslim populations. that's why in Japan, immigration is a very big issue and usually, people can't "become" Japanese. Also, imo, it's very hard for Alien to actually live in Japan... PS : strange to think that maybe one day Europe could be muslim. One day? Try very soon. Maybe Europe will realize there mistake... "Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Why are you so focused on the theme of Turkey and Islamization?
"Quite simply because we will see the first transformations of churches into mosques in the coming three years. At any rate, that is what Nicolas Sarkozy told me."
So Nicholas Sarkozy, the president of France, a Christian country, which sent Knights to the Holy Land under order of the Pope to take back Jerusalem and stop persecution of Christians by Muslims is not going to do anything while Islam converts churches to Mosques? I wonder how France's Christian population thinks on this?
Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : When?
"I had an in depth discussion with him at Elysée at the end of last year. He said to me: "You have intuition, I have the figures. And your intuition is confirmed by my figures. The Islamization of Europe is inevitable." Careful: it's a process that will not occur overnight, but will take decades.""Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Why does this issue appear to be of central importance to you?
"Most politicians have a comforting ignorance of what Islam is and propose transforming Europe into a supermarket of competing religions. Unaware that Islam is not only a religion since, by melding the temporal and the spiritual, it imposes a law. But behind this comforting ignorance of politicians, there are those who know. (...) The reality is that we are headed for a criss-cross (chassé-croisé) with, on one side, Europe and its en masse abortions, its promotion of gay marriage, and on the other, immigration en masse" (...)""Famille Chrétienne ask de Villiers : Aren't you exaggerating the dimensions of the phenomenon?
"No. The crux of the issue is simple: Europe is refusing its own demographic future. And it is working with a fearsome weapon towards this end, written into the Charter of fundamental rights appended to the treaty of Lisbon: the promotion of gay marriage. This in turn is accomplished through the principle of non-discrimination and the disassociation of marriage from the sex of the spouses (which appears in article 7 of the Charter of fundamental rights). In reality, there are two weapons being used by European leaders to kill Europe demographically: the promotion of gay marriage and en masse abortions. And a third: the recourse to immigration that is 80% Islamic in order to replace the people who are no longer there" (...)"Nicolas Sarkozy's own words...Europe might want to heed these and all other countries might want to watch and take notes :cough: America.
Haha.
De Villiers is a douche. And famille chrétienne is an hard right catholic magazine.
They aren't biased at all :D
Also i agree with the Chinese being asocial at uni ( personal experience ) but i think it is mostly because they suck at French.
Students coming from Africa or Spain are way more social but they are also more fluent eh.
|
They are not anti-social; they just have trouble interpreting signals from westerners.
It is particularly hard for home - grown Chinese to understand some of the finer points of Western socialisation.
Majority of them would go back to China once they finish their studies so it makes no sense to get frustrated all the time interacting with the locals.
|
|
|
On July 07 2009 22:26 haduken wrote:
They are not anti-social; they just have trouble interpreting signals from westerners.
It is particularly hard for home - grown Chinese to understand some of the finer points of Western socialisation.
Majority of them would go back to China once they finish their studies so it makes no sense to get frustrated all the time interacting with the locals.
Well on Western standarts they act asocially :O
And since they are studying in Western countries...
|
On July 07 2009 22:02 Whiplash wrote:
Finally Chinese vs Muslims! *grabs popcorn*
lol, you better get a really big bag of popcorns cuz if it's going to happen, we are going to see fireworks and hollywood-like warzone for a while
|
On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3
It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares.
|
A close read of the article:
* 1,434 people were arrested but only 200 family members showed up to complain
so that means possibly only 100~ people were wrongfully detained NOT the picture of mass arbitrary arrests that the article tries to paint.
* "Armed with rifles and tear gas" but did not say they were USED, the protesters "sat on the ground" so logical deduction tells us they were not under any physical stress.
* Now A large scaled riot just happened days ago so it is no surprised that the riot police were prepared for the worst: the article again tries to paint an image of a heavy handed crackdown "charged and surrounded" "armed with rifles and tear gas" and then after conjuring up this image it evokes the readers imagination "no one knows what happened".
* Near the end the article says Many of the victims in the hospital are han but there are Uhigurs and Hui too. Logically if the majority of the victims are not Uhigurs then obviously there is no heavy handed crackdown. Since most of the 800 injuried are han then it pretty much sums up the seriousness of the violence during the riot which the BBC talks nothing about.
|
On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares.
Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly)
If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead.
If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too.
And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of.
|
It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares.
? are you serious ? It seems to me that Chinese CARES A LOT about politics.
|
On July 07 2009 20:12 MK wrote:
Ok, so China doesn't care about religion and race and is ok with everything if no trouble and unite country, right ?
It seems pretty ok for me. Pretty fair.
It's generally okay, but it's a bit extreme sometimes. Like the Dalai Lama has said that Tibet should not be independent, but the existence of a leader the Chinese government cannot control is seen as a threat, so even his existence is unacceptable. Likewise with Catholicism. Most countries have no problems with it, but the Chinese government sees the pope as a problem.
But to be fair to them, the majority of the Chinese feel very strongly about keeping the country united, and I do think the government is kind of representing their opinions.
|
On July 07 2009 23:36 The Storyteller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly) If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead. If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too. And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of.
English is not my mother language. It's meaningless that I take a lot of time to correct your misunderstandings. However, just according to your second question and answer, isn't it a very ridiculous bias?
I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China.
|
Just came across an article in the guardian "Uighurs cling to life in People's hospital as China's wounds weep" despite what the title suggests it reports near the end.
Most of them (in the hospital) – 233 – were Han. But 39 were Uighur, 15 were Hui – another Muslim minority – and four came from other ethnic groups.
|
On July 07 2009 23:39 MK wrote:Show nested quote +It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. ? are you serious ? It seems to me that Chinese CARES A LOT about politics.
Most Chinese cares about Japanese AV and Kuso more than China or international politics.
|
On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:36 The Storyteller wrote:On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly) If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead. If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too. And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of. I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China.
I've read every single post in this thread.
I usually never stick my nose into these threads, but your posts is getting a bit biased and a bit ignorant. Try to take a step back.
Granted there are also others that doesn't fully understand the situation/China itself and are giving their two cents, but still.
|
On July 08 2009 00:02 Fishball wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 23:36 The Storyteller wrote:On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly) If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead. If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too. And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of. I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China. I've read every single post in this thread. I usually never stick my nose into these threads, but your posts is getting a bit biased and a bit ignorant. Try to take a step back. Granted there are also others that doesn't fully understand the situation/China itself and are giving their two cents, but still.
Thank you for your suggestion. I might be angry about something or someone. But for Storyteller's long post, do you think the second question and answer is very ridiculous and biased?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:36 The Storyteller wrote:On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly) If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead. If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too. And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of. English is not my mother language. It's meaningless that I take a lot of time to correct your misunderstandings. However, just according to your second question and answer, isn't it a very ridiculous bias? I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China.
So you're basing your opinion on a single issue of the Straits Times (or 联合早报）? That's being pretty biased.
When negative things occur, they are reported. When positive things occur, they are reported as well. If it didn't happen our papers will not have reported it.
Just a peek in the Straits Times today reports that China has swept all the table tennis golds in the Asian Youth Games and a feature on one of your young and rising star players. Pretty positive news I'd say.
|
On July 08 2009 00:12 neutralstate wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:36 The Storyteller wrote:On July 07 2009 23:09 asleepingpig wrote:On July 07 2009 19:38 Carnac wrote:
Nice explanation The Storyteller, thank you <3 It's really not a nice explanation, full of bias and misunderstanding. Singaporeman doesn't understand Chinese history and culture. And, I am very strange that they care about Chinese politics even more than Chinese. In China, politics? who cares. Instead of immediately thinking "oh, nobody understands us except us", why don't you take a note from your own... oops, OUR own language? “当局者迷，旁观者清”。(The chess player is blinded, the spectator sees more clearly) If you prefer to think that "What's the reason for this conflict? It's due to special policies! Before this conflict, one Uighur worker raped several Han girls, but he was released again and again and police could do nothing for them. Han Chinese can bear other favarable policies, but they can't bear the favarable policy for minority criminals!" and "There is only one reason, Uighur thieves in every China city who are free from law. Nobody cannot hate them." is free from bias, go right ahead. If you don't think you need to explain why you think my explanation is incorrect, you're welcome to do so too. And it is true that most Chinese don't care about politics. In fact, most people in the world don't care about politics. But that is a problem you should be worried about, and not a problem to be proud of. English is not my mother language. It's meaningless that I take a lot of time to correct your misunderstandings. However, just according to your second question and answer, isn't it a very ridiculous bias? I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China. So you're basing your opinion on a single issue of the Straits Times (or 联合早报）? That's being pretty biased. When negative things occur, they are reported. When positive things occur, they are reported as well. If it didn't happen our papers will not have reported it. Just a peek in the Straits Times today reports that China has swept all the table tennis golds in the Asian Youth Games and a feature on one of your young and rising star players. Pretty positive news I'd say.
I can't remember it exactly, it should be 联合早报。Just now I visited its website and indeed found a few positive news about China among hundreds of news. Sorry for my mistake.
http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/cnpol/cnpol.shtml
|
usually, it's easier to report bad things because it involves more emotion.
"Peace is boring, everyone wants to watch war movies" (dixit M. Bay)
|
I like how the BBC report worded in such a way that it draws negative connotations to what the chinese govenment did, and then insert tiananmen square into it somewhere down the line. It kind of saddens me that the western media seems to enjoy bagging on everything the chinese govenment do unless cute pandas are involved lol.
If my experience as a Hui chinese (the other muslim minority) is worth anything, the chinese government treats the minorities well, perhaps too well. The whole being lenient to minority criminal thing is not very cool. As far as religious freedom goes, we have a pretty big mosque in the middle of my hometown Guangzhou and we are free to worship there whenever. (not that I do lol, im not very religious, and I never learnt how to read all the Arabic stuff...)
|
Critics can always find bad things because it's their job. But when you criticize something just because you want to do it and do it everyday. You will lose the readers as it becomes boring too.
|
On July 08 2009 00:37 asleepingpig wrote:
Critics can always find bad things because it's their job. But when you criticize something just because you want to do it and do it everyday. You will lose the readers as it becomes boring too.
Iran election, Aribus got down, Airbus got down bis, Chinese crazy mad killing riot... well, they still got a large group of readers.
|
Just as we are discussing this matter,
a new round of "revenge" launch by local Han people is going on,
expect more deaths in the next few days,
internet access in the region and access to Twitter had been CUT DOWN by Chinese goverment.
I am totally fine with whatever methods Chinese goverment imply to control over their country, but come on, I've been living in agony without Youtube for months...and now Twitter....*sigh*
|
On July 08 2009 00:43 MK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 00:37 asleepingpig wrote:
Critics can always find bad things because it's their job. But when you criticize something just because you want to do it and do it everyday. You will lose the readers as it becomes boring too. Iran election, Aribus got down, Airbus got down bis, Chinese crazy mad killing riot... well, they still got a large group of readers.
Yep, everybody loves the doom and gloom section of the newspaper. :D
|
On July 08 2009 01:02 Caphe wrote:
Just as we are discussing this matter,
a new round of "revenge" launch by local Han people is going on,
expect more deaths in the next few days,
LOL Muslim V Han is definitely coming aahhah
|
To respond to the op's main question but it's mostly because countries like the US funds insurgent activities. I'll anticipate some people calling bs on that one but I'll point out a few things. One, the US has done so in the past when the Soviets was their rival (see Afgan) as well as various groups in the Middle East. If one even looks into US history, one'd realize there was NUMEROUS incidents where the US would fund terrorism activities in other nations for it's own gain. Second, as already mentioned, not only do minorities tend to get preferential treatment in China (especially compared to Western nations), the Muslims living in China has had peaceful relations with the Han majority for centuries including the times of turmoil, etc. Now that living conditions in China are rising constantly, all the sudden the West is pointing fingers at the deplorable living conditions of people living there? Does it not seem a bit odd to you? I mean US and England sure puts forth a lot of talk about human rights, etc but rarely seem to mention they're the two nations that's actually committed genocide in the past ... But meh, I'll no doubt get attacked again by many people calling me names about this point but whatever.
|
Well, it's easier and better to stand with the weakest... on the Internet It makes us looking heroic :D
|
On July 08 2009 01:12 KissBlade wrote:
To respond to the op's main question but it's mostly because countries like the US funds insurgent activities. I'll anticipate some people calling bs on that one but I'll point out a few things. One, the US has done so in the past when the Soviets was their rival (see Afgan) as well as various groups in the Middle East. If one even looks into US history, one'd realize there was NUMEROUS incidents where the US would fund terrorism activities in other nations for it's own gain. Second, as already mentioned, not only do minorities tend to get preferential treatment in China (especially compared to Western nations), the Muslims living in China has had peaceful relations with the Han majority for centuries including the times of turmoil, etc. Now that living conditions in China are rising constantly, all the sudden the West is pointing fingers at the deplorable living conditions of people living there? Does it not seem a bit odd to you? I mean US and England sure puts forth a lot of talk about human rights, etc but rarely seem to mention they're the two nations that's actually committed genocide in the past ... But meh, I'll no doubt get attacked again by many people calling me names about this point but whatever.
ugh you really have no idea what you're talking about
(a) it's well documented that mi6 and the cia are funding terrorist groups in the mainly muslim provinces of china, however the terrorist groups were there before foreign funding. foreign funding is not the cause of the unrest, the han government is. you can't just give money to people and cause civil unrest, there has to be something there first.
(b) the text in bold is laughable. its also well documented how badly muslims have been mistreated in china.
(c) "[the] US and England sure puts forth a lot of talk about human rights, etc but rarely seem to mention they're the two nations that's actually committed genocide in the past" i'm going to just assume you don't have a full grasp of the english language, and did not mean what that sentence implies.
(d) and then in your final sentence you proceed to insult everyones intelligence by implying that we will ignore the validity of your post because on the content. nice.
also i have no idea what this statement means: "Now that living conditions in China are rising constantly, all the sudden the West is pointing fingers at the deplorable living conditions of people living there? Does it not seem a bit odd to you?" perhaps you could explain it to me
|
On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:
English is not my mother language. It's meaningless that I take a lot of time to correct your misunderstandings. However, just according to your second question and answer, isn't it a very ridiculous bias?
I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China.
Oh, hahaha... the second question was a joke! Of course I don't think the Chinese still see everyone else as barbarians and devils! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm not sure why you think Singapore newspapers only report bad stuff about China. For us, China is a good place to work and invest and there's lots of good stuff reported too.
Anyway, with the internet, we can always access Chinese news online. Like Xinhua and CCTV in both English and Chinese.
I just read the Overseas Uighur Group is now accusing the government of stoking tensions by shooting the crowd! That is just so unbelievable... I really doubt the Chinese government would do that. No evidence either. This tragic event is turning into a political football.
|
On July 08 2009 11:56 The Storyteller wrote:
I just read the Overseas Uighur Group is now accusing the government of stoking tensions by shooting the crowd! That is just so unbelievable... I really doubt the Chinese government would do that. No evidence either. This tragic event is turning into a political football.
Yeah, its not like the chinese goverment has ever shot innocent civilians during times of political unrest... Wait, what?
|
On July 08 2009 11:56 The Storyteller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2009 23:50 asleepingpig wrote:
English is not my mother language. It's meaningless that I take a lot of time to correct your misunderstandings. However, just according to your second question and answer, isn't it a very ridiculous bias?
I once took Singapore flight and read some Singapore newspaper. I couldn't find even one good news for China. All news were about bad side. It's similar like China in 20 or 30 years before. The government newspaper/TV only reported bad side of USA and Europe countries. So I don't believe a Singapore who only read bad side news could really understand China. Oh, hahaha... the second question was a joke! Of course I don't think the Chinese still see everyone else as barbarians and devils! Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not sure why you think Singapore newspapers only report bad stuff about China. For us, China is a good place to work and invest and there's lots of good stuff reported too. Anyway, with the internet, we can always access Chinese news online. Like Xinhua and CCTV in both English and Chinese. I just read the Overseas Uighur Group is now accusing the government of stoking tensions by shooting the crowd! That is just so unbelievable... I really doubt the Chinese government would do that. No evidence either. This tragic event is turning into a political football.
I am sorry that I might be a little overreactive for your post. I envy your english skill level, or else I can write something about Uighur history.
|
In 80's or even 90's, BBC/CNN/VOA were well recognised by young people in China. They just didn't believe CCTV/Xinhua. However, in 21th century, young people realized that BBC/CNN/VOA told as much lies as CCTV/Xinhua. On the contrary, Chinese government improved a lot for public propagandize in recent years. So nowadays most young people prefer to believe CCTV than BBC/CNN.
|
On July 08 2009 12:00 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 11:56 The Storyteller wrote:
I just read the Overseas Uighur Group is now accusing the government of stoking tensions by shooting the crowd! That is just so unbelievable... I really doubt the Chinese government would do that. No evidence either. This tragic event is turning into a political football. Yeah, its not like the chinese goverment has ever shot innocent civilians during times of political unrest... Wait, what?
This is a clash between the han and muslim chinese due to racial tension. The chinese government only shoot innocent civilians if they are causing traffic jam in tiananmen square
as far as I can see from most of the video footage they are just shooting tear gas, nothing wrong with that.
|
as far as I can see from most of the video footage they are just shooting tear gas, nothing wrong with that.
the problem is now, it's pretty hard to know who is telling the truth. Maybe no one is.
In 80's or even 90's, BBC/CNN/VOA were well recognised by young people in China. They just didn't believe CCTV/Xinhua. However, in 21th century, young people realized that BBC/CNN/VOA told as much lies as CCTV/Xinhua. On the contrary, Chinese government improved a lot for public propagandize in recent years. So nowadays most young people prefer to believe CCTV than BBC/CNN.
but I guess we are so used to say CCTV is pro-cn government that it's hard to believe that they are actually reporting some facts.
|
There is even one website named as ANTI-CNN in China, established by young people.
http://www.anti-cnn.com/
In this website, there are many proofs that BBC/CNN sometimes make fake photos in their reports.
Such as some reports about Tibet, some of the relative photos are actually from Nepal or India and some of the photos are even edited by photoshop.
|
I've noticed several times in this thread posters bringing up CCP pro-minority policies, and how most of the 55 (56 by some counts) minorities in China receive preferential treatment when compared with the ethnic Han majority.
The typical follow up is to berate anyone for failing to see these clear advantages, and for not praising the CCP for its magnanimity. Their argument is highly disingenuous. While it's true that many minorities are allowed more than one child, and that minority children receive a point bonus on their University exams/ 高考, these policies all encourage further ethnic integration.
Since many minorities in China do not seek and have never sought integration (including most Tibetans/Uighurs), the argument is based on a false premise, and does nothing to address the litany of abuses and wrongs that the CCP has inflicted on minority peoples and cultures.
|
Complete ethnic integration should most certainly be the goal of any nation (perhaps even of the entire world). If everyone were homogeneous, none of these issues would exist. The particulars such as individual culture, religion, etc. are but a small price to pay.
|
The Uighurs have a relative violent history...if you look back, they have caused alot more violence than the tibetians, who use a more peaceful protest method. If we look at the time difference between the event that sparked the riot and the riot itself, we can see that it was clearly organized. The event in Guangdong happened on the 26th, a spontaneous revolt would have occured before 10 days had passed. In addition, the timing is right before the 8 nations meeting.
|
I completely agree with Polus. If the subject themselves do not wanted to be integrated, then integrating them in any way (whether "magnanimously" in modern China or brutally as Japan wiped out Korean culture) is forced and despicable.
|
On July 08 2009 13:43 Draconizard wrote:
Complete ethnic integration should most certainly be the goal of any nation (perhaps even of the entire world). If everyone were homogeneous, none of these issues would exist. The particulars such as individual culture, religion, etc. are but a small price to pay.
That's a pretty extreme statement, and one I disagree with both in general and in particular.
"Individual culture, religion, etc," are not a small price. The myriad cultures and religions that make up the human race all have intrinsic value and should not be wantonly marginalized or destroyed to make way for a homogeneous whole. Perfect homogeneity, especially worldwide homogeneity, is an unrealistic expectation in the near or even distant future, and I will not address it further.
In the particular, the two minorities I referenced (Tibetans and Uighurs) are disenfranchised and have no real voice in the government. Both regions in which those minorities live were, in the very recent past, completely independent and autonomous from China. To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion.
I believe in democratic principles of government, and I don't think any burden of integration exists on those two peoples until such time as they have some sort of actual political power.
|
On July 08 2009 13:43 Draconizard wrote:
Complete ethnic integration should most certainly be the goal of any nation (perhaps even of the entire world). If everyone were homogeneous, none of these issues would exist. The particulars such as individual culture, religion, etc. are but a small price to pay.
What the fuck?
|
On July 08 2009 14:00 koreasilver wrote:
What the fuck?
lol, I probably should have just said that.
|
Another product of so-called "multiculturalism"
|
Ask yourself who is there to benefit from the 'preservation of culture'? Some Western tourist who can visit and appreciate? What if the continuation of culture and traditions, is at the cost of economic development (a relative concept, indeed people can be satisified by constant wealth as well as they don't SEE another group with accelerated growth in wealth).
On the topic of ethinic integration, or separationist movement, it is only those in the position of power who will benefit most. In the case of the sparsely populated western China, IMO the general populance has everything to LOSE if disconnected from China. Who's going to pay for the infrastructure? Who's going to provide the goods? How do you survive with a pissed off government as a neighbour who's 100 times stronger? When's the last time you've seen a poorer section of a nation split and prospered?
A nation is an institution, and like all institutions are established to achieve what individuals cannot. The whole concept of a nation is utilitarian. That means US (or any other nation, naturally) will distablise an enemy if it preceives benefit in doing so for its citizens, morally wrong but justified by every government's mission. Ethinic integration is a general trend in a nation, problem is people has low tolerance for change.
I find it amusing anyone can be living outside of their homeland and claim to be some sort of a leader of their people. If you do not live their life, you are not representative of your people and may not act in their best interest. I see Tibetians in Australia protest about the oppression their people faced in China. Well, if you are so morally correct, why ain't you back in your country and supporting your people? Live the life in the West, plenty of time to moan.
|
On July 08 2009 13:55 Polus wrote:
To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion.
I loled at that. The Australian Aboriginese and the American Indians came to mind.
|
On July 08 2009 14:13 potchip wrote:
Ask yourself who is there to benefit from the 'preservation of culture'? Some Western tourist who can visit and appreciate?
WTF
Maybe it benefits the people whose culture we preserved? Durr.. And THIS is what is most important.
None of what you wrote matters much, if the people themselves do not want integration -- and it seems like they have pretty strong feelings about it too.
Maybe they don't care about infrastructure. Maybe they don't care about the goods. Maybe they don't care about wealth. Maybe they don't want integration?
|
Things are getting worse. Today thousands of Han Chinese in Xinjiang gathered and tried to revenge for the dead. They were cracked down by the police. The leader said, if the government could not protect us, we did it by ourselves.
This is the result what some oversea Uighurs want to see. They just want more people die in the conflict so that they have the chance to be independent.
|
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad?
|
On July 08 2009 14:19 themonkyguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 13:55 Polus wrote:
To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion. I loled at that. The Australian Aboriginese and the American Indians came to mind.
I loled at your throw away comment. Ever read about the Cultural Revolution, or did you skip school that day?
Also, I never compared them to either of those peoples. You did.
|
Perhaps you get the false impression that people want it because
1. they happens to LIVE IN THE WEST and says so on an INTERNET FORUM
2. 1000 of them happens to rioting and it is all over the internet. Oh Nooz, wait what about the hundreds of thousands who didn't partake and will from this point on face the back-lash? Don't characterise a people, it is like saying terrorists kill people, terrorists are muslins, therefore all muslins kill people. No.
3. "Maybe they don't care about infrastructure. Maybe they don't care about the goods. Maybe they don't care about wealth. Maybe they don't want integration?" The first thing you learn in economics is people start to don't care when they already have it.
Why do we Australians even bother with the Aborigines? Living in the bush is what the want, right?
Cheers.
|
On July 08 2009 14:29 potchip wrote:
Perhaps you get the false impression that people want it because
1. they happens to LIVE IN THE WEST and says so on an INTERNET FORUM
2. "Maybe they don't care about infrastructure. Maybe they don't care about the goods. Maybe they don't care about wealth. Maybe they don't want integration?" The first thing you learn in economics is people start to don't care when they already have it.
Why do we Australians even bother with the Aborigines? Living in the bush is what the want, right?
Cheers.
Yeah you Aussies did a great job with the Aborigines. Remember everyone, darkies are too ignorant to raise their own children, so we'll do it for them.
|
On July 08 2009 14:29 potchip wrote:
Perhaps you get the false impression that people want it because
1. they happens to LIVE IN THE WEST and says so on an INTERNET FORUM
2. "Maybe they don't care about infrastructure. Maybe they don't care about the goods. Maybe they don't care about wealth. Maybe they don't want integration?" The first thing you learn in economics is people start to don't care when they already have it.
Why do we Australians even bother with the Aborigines? Living in the bush is what the want, right?
Cheers.
Frankly, it's hard to decipher what you are trying to say here, so I can't quite respond to this.
Perhaps this was your intention?
|
On July 08 2009 14:27 Polus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:19 themonkyguy wrote:On July 08 2009 13:55 Polus wrote:
To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion. I loled at that. The Australian Aboriginese and the American Indians came to mind. I loled at your throw away comment. Ever read about the Cultural Revolution, or did you skip school that day? Also, I never compared them to either of those peoples. You did.
I was just saying it isnt a ridiculous notion, given the two examples. Yes the chinese government have made mistakes in the past, but that doesn't mean reconciliation is impossible.
|
On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad?
Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries.
|
On July 08 2009 14:36 themonkyguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:27 Polus wrote:On July 08 2009 14:19 themonkyguy wrote:On July 08 2009 13:55 Polus wrote:
To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion. I loled at that. The Australian Aboriginese and the American Indians came to mind. I loled at your throw away comment. Ever read about the Cultural Revolution, or did you skip school that day? Also, I never compared them to either of those peoples. You did. I was just saying it isnt a ridiculous notion, given the two examples. Yes the chinese government have made mistakes in the past, but that doesn't mean reconciliation is impossible.
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.
|
I am sorry, there is no local people in USA.
|
On July 08 2009 14:29 potchip wrote:
Perhaps you get the false impression that people want it because
1. they happens to LIVE IN THE WEST and says so on an INTERNET FORUM
2. 1000 of them happens to rioting and it is all over the internet. Oh Nooz, wait what about the hundreds of thousands who didn't partake and will from this point on face the back-lash? Don't characterise a people, it is like saying terrorists kill people, terrorists are muslins, therefore all muslins kill people. No.
3. "Maybe they don't care about infrastructure. Maybe they don't care about the goods. Maybe they don't care about wealth. Maybe they don't want integration?" The first thing you learn in economics is people start to don't care when they already have it.
Why do we Australians even bother with the Aborigines? Living in the bush is what the want, right?
Cheers.
Actually, I've read some anthropology studies that talked about how the economic belief of "infinite wants" does not exist in some cultures; these people actually have limited wants. Their notion of wealth is different from ours.
So yes, you're just an ethnocentric fellow, according to what little anthropology I have studied in my electives.
On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries.
People in Hawaii and Alaska did used to live independently until they were assimilated.
|
On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries.
And those regions are analogous to 新疆 how?
|
On July 08 2009 14:43 Polus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries. And those regions are analogous to 新疆 how?
I am sorry, there is no local people in USA.
|
On July 08 2009 14:45 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:43 Polus wrote:On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries. And those regions are analogous to 新疆 how? I am sorry, there is no local people in USA.
Aborigines? There are aborigines that originated from Hawaii and Alaska.
What are you on about.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by local people. Do you mean people of native ancestry? There are plenty of those in all the regions you've listed.
|
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."
|
I agree with you v1rtu0so, but one key difference between the U.S. and China today is that Native Americans are enfranchised in our political system if they so choose and they have genuine autonomy - not something you can say about both Uighurs and Tibetans
|
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 14:46 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:45 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:43 Polus wrote:On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries. And those regions are analogous to 新疆 how? I am sorry, there is no local people in USA. Aborigines? There are aborigines that originated from Hawaii and Alaska. What are you on about.
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.
I missed the sarcasm because the analogy is so flawed to begin with.
You're right, though, I'm sure many of those peoples didn't want integration. I guess that excuses a similar Chinese reaction to their 'native problem.' My mistake.
|
On July 08 2009 14:40 Polus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:36 themonkyguy wrote:On July 08 2009 14:27 Polus wrote:On July 08 2009 14:19 themonkyguy wrote:On July 08 2009 13:55 Polus wrote:
To suggest that they should completely integrate with a government that has terrorized them and marginalized them for much of the past 50 years is a ridiculous notion. I loled at that. The Australian Aboriginese and the American Indians came to mind. I loled at your throw away comment. Ever read about the Cultural Revolution, or did you skip school that day? Also, I never compared them to either of those peoples. You did. I was just saying it isnt a ridiculous notion, given the two examples. Yes the chinese government have made mistakes in the past, but that doesn't mean reconciliation is impossible. 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.
Well, that depends on what you qualify as an 'actual voice'. I did not really comment on it because the 'actual voice' as far as aboriginese in Australia is concerned didn't really do much for quite a long time. The recent Northern Territory intervention here gone through despite alot of the 'actual voice' opposed it.
|
Can they have their own countries?
Yes, if they constituted the majority of people who resided in that land for many, many years AND strongly want their own nation/leadership.
Neither, unfortunately, seems to be true for aborigines and Indians any more.
Can we say there has been a successful eradication of culture?
|
On July 08 2009 14:54 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:46 koreasilver wrote:On July 08 2009 14:45 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:43 Polus wrote:On July 08 2009 14:39 asleepingpig wrote:On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad for you. I also hope local people in Hawaii, Alaska, South CA could have their own countries. And those regions are analogous to 新疆 how? I am sorry, there is no local people in USA. Aborigines? There are aborigines that originated from Hawaii and Alaska. What are you on about. Can they have their own countries?
They used to have their own countries until the Westerners pretty much just took the land when they wanted to. I still don't know what point you're trying to make. It's not that some of these aborigines don't want to live with complete autonomy, they simply can't, which is the case with some of these ethnic minorities in China.
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.
I'm sure all the natives in North America are just delighted that thanks to the American and Canadian government some languages and culture have been completely erradicated.
|
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."
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?
|
When one race want to be independent, no matter how well the government treat them, they can produce a lot of matters so that they have the excuses to be independent.
|
On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +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." 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?
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.
edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread
|
Autonomy can not be replaced by some superficial "preferential" treatments by a forceful intruder. North American Aborigines are still marginalized by society even now.
|
Well, to China's credit, I think the treatment is not really all that superficial, and probably quite beneficial. That's not to say their overall action is justified though.
|
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.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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.
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.
|
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.
what what what ? how can you tell they will live a worse life being independent Oo
|
On July 08 2009 15:16 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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. 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.
That's because Indians do not have a good case for independence any more. Look at my requirements, and especially the caveat.
Also, I have never claimed to say US is morally superior to China (although I think it is). I am just saying what China is doing is wrong.
|
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.
Do you have a source for that? I'm very interested to read about it and couldn't find anything at all after a quick search (yes I'm lazy).
|
The native Americans certainly no longer show their dis-pleasure by mob-rioting....I guess an equivalibruim has been reached.
There's no denying that China wanting to keep Tibet/XinJiang is not out of the kindness of the heart. The fact is, CCP can offer to be magnanimous, but will not tolerate dissent. Government wants the land and the implied resources, treating the people on that land well so there's no trouble is a mean not an end. Talking about representative in CCP is idealogy as it will never happen, democratically or not when you have a 90% ethinic majority.
Problem is there's no agreed method to 'properly' assimilate an ethnic group. Governments do what they can. America can acknowledge there were mistakes all they want but we won't know what will work, or what state of affairs will constitude a successful assimilation.
IMO independence is not for the utility of the people, other than the selected few in power. But people do get easily caught in the emotions.
|
On July 08 2009 15:17 MK wrote:Show nested quote +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. what what what ? how can you tell they will live a worse life being independent Oo
what what what ? Is "indenpendent" some kind of food so that they could be far from famine?
|
On July 08 2009 15:26 potchip wrote:
The native Americans certainly no longer show their dis-pleasure by mob-rioting....I guess an equivalibruim has been reached.
There's no denying that China wanting to keep Tibet/XinJiang is not out of the kindness of the heart. The fact is, CCP can offer to be magnanimous, but will not tolerate dissent. Government wants the land and the implied resources, treating the people on that land well so there's no trouble is a mean not an end. Talking about representative in CCP is idealogy as it will never happen, democratically or not when you have a 90% ethinic majority.
Problem is there's no agreed method to 'properly' assimilate an ethnic group. Governments do what they can. America can acknowledge there were mistakes all they want but we won't know what will work, or what state of affairs will constitude a successful assimilation.
IMO independence is not for the utility of the people, other than the selected few in power. But people do get easily caught in the emotions.
So you seem to agree with me, but somehow you don't seem to acknowledge that any sort of integration against people's will is despicable. And that supporting such gov't action is also problematic.
|
On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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. edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread
And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria".
Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit.
|
On July 08 2009 15:25 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +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. Do you have a source for that? I'm very interested to read about it and couldn't find anything at all after a quick search (yes I'm lazy).
I try google, quite difficult. There are only news in Chinese. Hong Kong have similar reports, but it's also in traditional Chinese.
|
Here is one report:
PS: it is translated by google.
According to the Hong Kong media reports, the State Great Hural of Mongolia before the meeting to discuss a proposal, Mongolia and China on the establishment of a federal State plan.
Gobi Province, a member of the national conference on socio-economic development of the plan first put forward. Meeting of the State Great Hural of Mongolia December 3, 2000 on the establishment of specialized Union and Mongolia, and Mongolia and into China were discussed. During the discussion, the members of the Gobi Province, Mongolia, into China to build a similar, like Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Region of China, so that the end of Mongolia's return to the motherland to become a part of China.
As early as the State Great Hural of Mongolia in 1995 Mongolia has joined the Members have suggested, however, due to resistance, the proposal has not been discussed. In recent years, the Mongolian government as a result of economic difficulties has been under increasing pressure, China and other places of Erlian prosperous life of Mongolian nomads have had a powerful appeal.
|
On July 08 2009 15:26 asleepingpig wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:17 MK wrote: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. what what what ? how can you tell they will live a worse life being independent Oo what what what ? Is "indenpendent" some kind of food so that they could be far from famine?
what about being able to live their own way ?
so basically, you are saying that without Chinese, these guys are screwed and can't develop their own industry ?
com'on, you can't be serious.
|
On July 08 2009 15:26 potchip wrote:
The native Americans certainly no longer show their dis-pleasure by mob-rioting....I guess an equivalibruim has been reached.
There's no denying that China wanting to keep Tibet/XinJiang is not out of the kindness of the heart. The fact is, CCP can offer to be magnanimous, but will not tolerate dissent. Government wants the land and the implied resources, treating the people on that land well so there's no trouble is a mean not an end. Talking about representative in CCP is idealogy as it will never happen, democratically or not when you have a 90% ethinic majority.
Problem is there's no agreed method to 'properly' assimilate an ethnic group. Governments do what they can. America can acknowledge there were mistakes all they want but we won't know what will work, or what state of affairs will constitude a successful assimilation.
IMO independence is not for the utility of the people, other than the selected few in power. But people do get easily caught in the emotions.
Arguing on utilitarian grounds for a national majority strikes me as pointless since a nation is an arbitrary concept.
If I understand your reasoning correctly - If I led a violent revolution in Latin America and somehow forged a new, independent country I could then rightfully suppress any attempts by minorities to secede?
Utilitarianism as an ethical model works great in test tube type theorizing. Unfortunately reality has a tendency to get in the way.
|
A place full of Gobi and desert. Maybe Uighurs can live better than Tibetans because they can sell oil.
|
On July 08 2009 15:42 asleepingpig wrote:
A place full of Gobi and desert. Maybe Uighurs can live better than Tibetans because they can sell oil.
ok, so CHina should leave them alone.
OH WAIT ! No, because China has to test some nuke there.
that ?
|
I prefer not to engage in philosophical debates on the what ifs and riding moral high horses. The nature of my work as a BA is such I always faces with an imperfect world and have to work within the constraints
As my list of facts stated, independence will not happen, so what is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. What is currently the situation in America is forseeably going to be the state in China, in regards to natives and the colonisers.
China will, and can afford to provide more than it 'takes' from XinJiang for the time being, in developing the region economically.
I also dispute the people's will, as no evidence suggest in either direction. Nor do I believe let the 'people (with a grain of salt, I strongly believe it is only the selected few that drives the movement and will benefit, the rest just go with the flow, and suffer the consequences)' do whatever they want is going to result in the optimal result. They might be spiritually happy but bankrupt, and soon to be unhappy as a result. Nation is a concept, country is an institution, and a necessary one at that.
|
On July 08 2009 15:48 potchip wrote:I prefer not to engage in philosophical debates on the what ifs and riding moral high horses. The nature of my work as a BA is such I always faces with an imperfect world and have to work within the constraints As my list of facts stated, independence will not happen, so what is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. What is currently the situation in America is forseeably going to be the state in China, in regards to natives and the colonisers. China will, and can afford to provide more than it 'takes' from XinJiang for the time being, in developing the region economically. I also dispute the people's will, as no evidence suggest in either direction. Nor do I believe let the 'people (with a grain of salt, I strongly believe it is only the selected few that drives the movement and will benefit, the rest just go with the flow, and suffer the consequences)' do whatever they want is going to result in the optimal result. They might be spiritually happy but bankrupt, and soon to be unhappy as a result.
Yes, I suppose it's all well and good to be a pragmatist as long as it's not your human rights being infringed upon.
|
On July 08 2009 15:34 GoodWill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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. edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria". Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit.
I believe they were the vast majority, before Chinese gov't started its aggressive transplantation of Hans to the region -- this is why there are now so many conflicts in that region between Hans and the natives. The chinese gov't have been very successful; as you say, the Uighurs are indeed no longer the vast majority. Congratulations!
Do you condone the forceful conquest of these regions by whichever dynasty was strongest then?
Let's hope not. Regardless of to whom this land have belonged in the past, it has been theirs (Uighurs and Tibetans) for many years now and they have come to strongly associate with it (not something Hans can say). Surely, modern China is morally better than ancient Chinese dynasties (or whoever lay claim to that land forcefully)? Or am I expecting too much?
I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last quip. I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians.
|
It is really wierd how China has so many regions for it's size but refuses to have each region follow and create its own laws based on its people laws similiar to the Republic in the US. People on the coast shouldn't be able to have a say in what goes on in the desert.
Side note, to those who are making the argument, what if some state of the US... Alaska revolted against the US would we let it go? Well first off, they'd vote on a peaceful secession which they're allowed to do by constitutional law (Puerto Rico does it constantly by voting no to join the union) then they'd feel the after effects of not being allowed back into NAFTA, and promptly rejoin in the most basic scenario - so using a well established republic and free trade as some example of what the US government would do versus what the CCP would is ill-advised. Hell state leaders talk about secession to this day and the federal government lets them blow their steam rather then go in and stomp a city out.
That said, unfortunately for most of the dissenters (peaceful or otherwise) there is no being the majority nor is it open to discussion. Even if you are given special rights by the government, you are still a social taboo to the whole community around you which is worse then big brother.
|
On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote:
And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad?
Not bad, just unrealistic.
The situation for Uighurs now is not that bad.
The Uighurs are allowed to be Muslims and they're allowed to keep their own culture. In fact, as a result of the Chinese government's policies, the percentage of Uighurs in parts of China outside Xinjing has increased!
I'm sure there is some discrimination going on by Han Chinese, and the Chinese government is definitely suspicious of them. But that is not a great reason to want independence. All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries.
Yes, Xinjing has oil and gas, but there's no infrastructure to develop them. No pipelines and no roads. And Xinjing is landlocked, it will never even have a port. I think Xinjing has a better chance of raising their standard of living if they stick with China. Who else has the money to develop that infrastructure?
Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits.
Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation.
Even the Dalai Lama has said that Tibet should remain a part of China. I'm sure the Uighurs can do the same.
EDIT: tl;dr version: Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country.
|
LOL I am getting tired. Can someone else respond to that post?
". All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries. "
"Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits. "
"Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation."
Intriguing stuff.
edit: more fun
"Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country. "
Sorry if I sound overly cynical, but I am bit tired indeed.
|
The entire concept of land "belonging" to some group of people or other is ridiculous. It produces messes like Israel where everyone thinks that he/she is entitled to some piece. The land is China's because China can hold it, at least for the time being. When that ceases to be, it will be the land of whoever controls it then.
|
Dude how can u know that China will test the nuke on Japan soon?
Yes China really do because they find nuke on gobi cannot demonstrate its massive kills, luckily Japan is the best place for test, as US did many years ago...
On July 08 2009 15:44 MK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:42 asleepingpig wrote:
A place full of Gobi and desert. Maybe Uighurs can live better than Tibetans because they can sell oil. ok, so CHina should leave them alone. OH WAIT ! No, because China has to test some nuke there. that ?
|
What do u exactly mean by "because China can hold it"? Are proposing to maintain the status quo until a stronger nation takes it over?
|
On July 08 2009 16:05 v1rtu0so wrote:
LOL I am getting tired. Can someone else respond to that post?
". All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries. "
"Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits. "
"Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation."
Intriguing stuff.
edit: more fun
"Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country. "
Sorry if I sound overly cynical, but I am bit tired indeed.
No worries, I'm also coming at it from a cynical point of view.
For China, Xinjiang = money because of oil and gas.
For the Uighurs, China developing Xinjiang = jobs and money
They don't have to care about each other, they don't even have to like each other. They just need to take the money.
|
On July 08 2009 15:56 v1rtu0so wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:34 GoodWill wrote:On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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. edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria". Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit. I believe they were the vast majority, before Chinese gov't started its aggressive transplantation of Hans to the region -- this is why there are now so many conflicts in that region between Hans and the natives. The chinese gov't have been very successful; as you say, the Uighurs are indeed no longer the vast majority. Congratulations!
Guess where that's happened before? Who else have been very successful and who else are indeed no longer the vast majority? I should congratulate you too for taking what's been granted.
Do you condone the forceful conquest of these regions by whichever dynasty was strongest then?
Let's hope not. Regardless of to whom this land have belonged in the past, it has been theirs (Uighurs and Tibetans) for many years now and they have come to strongly associate with it (not something Hans can say). Surely, modern China is morally better than ancient Chinese dynasties (or whoever lay claim to that land forcefully)? Or am I expecting too much?
Guess where that's happened before?
I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last quip. I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians.
And now that the uighurs AREN'T the "vast majority" (like the Indians) and they dont "own" their land (Remember when I mentioned they were part of the Chinese dynasties? Yeah, you never refuted that), you feel very comfortable recommending China giving up the sovereignty of those territories while conveniently ignores what's happening at your doorstep. Native American Independence movement is not ancient history, I might add.
|
On July 08 2009 16:14 moriya wrote:Dude how can u know that China will test the nuke on Japan soon? Yes China really do because they find nuke on gobi cannot demonstrate its massive kills, luckily Japan is the best place for test, as US did many years ago... Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:44 MK wrote:On July 08 2009 15:42 asleepingpig wrote:
A place full of Gobi and desert. Maybe Uighurs can live better than Tibetans because they can sell oil. ok, so CHina should leave them alone. OH WAIT ! No, because China has to test some nuke there. that ?
Nice! I like your fury.
|
On July 08 2009 16:16 GoodWill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2009 15:56 v1rtu0so wrote:On July 08 2009 15:34 GoodWill wrote:On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote:On July 08 2009 14:58 asleepingpig wrote: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." 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? 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. edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria". Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit. I believe they were the vast majority, before Chinese gov't started its aggressive transplantation of Hans to the region -- this is why there are now so many conflicts in that region between Hans and the natives. The chinese gov't have been very successful; as you say, the Uighurs are indeed no longer the vast majority. Congratulations! Guess where that's happened before? Who else have been very successful and who else are indeed no longer the vast majority? I should congratulate you too for taking what's been granted. Show nested quote +
Do you condone the forceful conquest of these regions by whichever dynasty was strongest then?
Let's hope not. Regardless of to whom this land have belonged in the past, it has been theirs (Uighurs and Tibetans) for many years now and they have come to strongly associate with it (not something Hans can say). Surely, modern China is morally better than ancient Chinese dynasties (or whoever lay claim to that land forcefully)? Or am I expecting too much?
Guess where that's happened before? Show nested quote +
I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last quip. I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians.
And now that the uighurs AREN'T the "vast majority" (like the Indians) and they dont "own" their land (Remember when I mentioned they were part of the Chinese dynasties? Yeah, you never refuted that), you feel very comfortable recommending China giving up the sovereignty of those territories while conveniently ignores what's happening at your doorstep. Native American Independence movement is not ancient history, I might add.
Hasty hasty hasty much?
Do you even read my posts before you categorize me as one ofthose "blue-eyed, China-bashing CNN-NBC-devils"?
It takes amazing skill to misinterpret this: "I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians."
I am not even American btw.
I clearly state that what US has done was wrong and it's a great shame.
In any case, just because some other country has done some wrong in the past should not be an excuse for doing it yourself. Imagine what insanity this kind of pathetic logic can lead to if one could apply it to Nazi Germany!
|
Virtuoso are you trolling or just trying to get your post count up? Because honestly your "debating" has been dog barf.
Until the USA secedes from all territory won by conquest, gives up all economic benefits of centuries of rape and plunder, and gives full and equal rights to all minorities and women, until THAT happens, you should kindly sit down and stfu about the moral outrages of other gov'ts policies.
I find it repulsive, as a US citizen, that you sit here throwing around high-handed ideals while being completely ignorant of your own country's actions. Are you kidding me? American Indians is just a start. I find it pathetic that you dismiss 2 centuries of genocide as "I admit it was wrong, now let's move on." Saying it's wrong don't excuse jack. Would you stop whining if China gave a tacit admission that its imperialist ambitions are wrong, then continue to profit off them? Because the way I see it, California's still US territory (not Mexican), Alaska's Inuits have to live next door to Sarah Palin, and American Indians still have rampant issues with alcoholism, unemployment, domestic abuse, and teenage pregnancy.
Don't sit here like some kind of asstard and talk about how great the USA is and how all their evils are all just some bad dream from the past. You think Cuba wants us housing and torturing our worst criminals on their beach? That sounds like something the Cubans enjoy?
US marines chilling on Okinawa raping schoolgirls? That sounds like something the Japanese enjoy? Not being allowed to build a military is something Japanese enjoy?
The entire oil markets being constrained to using the US currency for the sole reason that the US won WW2 and was able to dictate the economic model for the capitalist market? Then the Socialist system capitulating, leaving the US to utterly rape the commodity system? The entire MidEast region being forced to sell THEIR PRODUCTS and ONLY accepting US currency? LOL?
Seriously, if you have no clue what your country does in terms of hegemony and tyranny on a daily basis, you need to go open a book, not a TL thread. You are WAY off and have absolutely no right to go criticizing other countries for their realpolitik policies. I don't know where the hell you learned your highfalutin idealism, but it sure wasn't in the halls of American government. Maybe you took some crappy 200 section class on Int'l politics in college and think you know what's up now, or maybe you just watch a whole lot of NBC and CNN and now you think you're some kind of geopolitical expert. Regardless, you're arguing pure drivel and you need to stop.
|
Hasty hasty hasty much?
Ok, that's not an attack or anything.
Do you even read my posts before you categorize me as one ofthose "blue-eyed, China-bashing CNN-NBC-devils"?
Holy shit man, where did I say you were "one ofthose "blue-eyed, China-bashing CNN-NBC-devils"? " Tense much?
And, no, I didn't read your post, the quotes I used were from a 3rd party.
I am not even American btw.
The fact that you are not an American has given you credibility in this discussion, I have made a little checkmark next to all your comments indicating you posts are unbiased. Good thing I'm no longer Chinese, phew.
Oh, I recommend you select a different country from your profile, by the way.
It takes amazing skill to misinterpret this: "I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians."
I TOTALLY read, quoted and responded to that in my post, my bad for the misinterpretation.
I clearly state that what US has done was wrong and it's a great shame.
In any case, just because some other country has done some wrong in the past should not be an excuse for doing it yourself. Imagine what insanity this kind of pathetic logic can lead to if one could apply it to Nazi Germany!
Well then, I don't see any point for further discussion. US is still not giving native people their sovereignty just as China is not giving up her land. I compare the two because both deeds are in the past already, the Chinese province in question is now Chinese, just like every corner on the American and Oceania continents belong to Europeans conquerors and their offsprings.
Finally, did you know that American movie studios produce shit like this every day?
These cowboys and frontier men are not celebrated or anything.
|
LOL MY COUNTRY?
I am a Korean citizen. Chill out bro.
Regardless, it doesn't matter what US has done in the past. What da fuck does that have to do with the China? You being proud of the chinese gov't actions, only because of your simplistic claim that "US has done worse" (they really haven't), is just not logical and deplorable. Should a Rwandan proudly proclaim to a German that his county's ongoing genocide is OK because "Nazis have done worse"?
You also make some ridiculous claims. What's the shit about Indians having alcoholism, unemployment etc? And Cuba? I can't even fathom what type of logical fallacy you are making here.
It seems like you have developed a severe case of false victimhood and demonization of the US for everything. I also just love the way you jump to conclusions and treat me like as if I embody CNN and NBC?
It is genuinely disappointing to see that a Chinese who is apparently fluent in English (and hence presumed to have full access to any media and opinions) is only capable of this sort of knee-jerk, blame-US-for-everything mindset. I shudder to think what the Chinese in China are like. Let's just hope you do not represent your people very well.
|
Osaka27154 Posts
It appears we have progressed past the scope of the original topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://plotter-world.com/movies/western/images/vwest003.jpg)
