|
Okay let's sum it up.
Uighur are getting dicked. They have massive unemployment, majority of their youth grow up not going to college, Central China do not let them practise their religion in the way they want (no mosque for youth, no individual pilgrimage to mecca, not allowed to practise Islam if they want to work for the government.)
We Hans on the otherhand simply don't give a damn about their religious needs. I believe that most Hans think that the Uighurs social problem are self-caused. We also do not understand why Uighur would raise up and start randomly killing people (This is after Hans spending so much effort and money to develop the region.)
The problem is of course systematic. The Chinese political system do not cater to religions.
In this particular case, the Uighurs are definately in the wrong; killing Hans is not going to achieve anything. Uighurs are not strong enough politically or militarily to force an outcome. They have no credible figure head to draw people to their cause.
Hans and in particular the leaders need to realise that you can't ignore religion.
Personally I think the government of China knows this; They hold all the cards and can do what ever they want. The Uighur holds no leverage and can bargain nothing.
I think it's irresponsible to blame the situation on Uighurs wanting to split the motherland. I very much doubt that the Uighurs want to leave China; they just want true autonomy which again is because their inability to have a political stake in China.
|
A pretty good summary. I'd agree with you on most all counts. I also think the government could do a much better job of accommodating the Uighur's religious needs. Pretty much everyone knows China doesn't care about toeing the line anymore when it comes to Communist ideology. I've seen plenty of PLA soldiers doing construction on Buddhist temples/tourist attractions lol.
Hopefully the one good thing that can come out of this riot is that China's leadership will see a greater need to address these systemic issues. I don't think Islam is inherently violent (only a moron would) and if China can solve the reasons that the Uighurs are upset, that would do the most for political stability. Al-Qaeda can't really make inroads in the population if the people are happy with PRC governance.
The only thing I would be against, and I think the PRC would be against too, is separatism. That wouldn't be in Xinjiang's benefit at all. Nor China's. Nothing wrong with wanting some government support to practice their religion, and China is usually very good about this. I think it's Xinjiang's remote location + all the foreign involvement in the area that makes China get defensive.
|
On July 13 2009 17:46 Jayson X wrote:
Bla, noone's going that way Bisuboi. You're like an old tape playing the same tunes over and over again in this thread, pointing at people and telling them they are dead wrong all togheter. Expecting everyone to understand without any attemp to help them understand leading me to believe that you simply think it is good and right and noone outside should put their nose in it.
Our standpoints are fundamentaly different in that you expect them to ACCEPT that it is how it is now and to play along. Yes if the black man just played his position in africa white people could have it so much easier. Nomatter what you do and what benefits you hand out, it still comes from a foreign opressor (yes i know what your standpoint is here, spare me the distorted history).
But as it is with everything, and i assume your goverment read history books, time is on your side and future generations either wont exist or simply wont remember / be teached about their grand-granddads.
If I could speak nonsense, I'd respond to you. But at this point, I can't because what you wrote is definitely not English. Don't bother posting if it's going to be a lazy mess that basically says you disagree with me, then throw in a generic example about blacks in Africa (which has nothing to do with this topic). I've given a fair bit of reasoning for my opinion. I think it's pretty ridiculous at this point that you're still complaining I'm not helping you understand. Willful ignorance can't be cured by others, dude.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "played his position" either. Are you talking about basketball? I think Dikembe Mutumbo's retired already. Also, I'd love to see you point out a single regime in Africa that is currently being run by white people. Sorry, your post was truly fail.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
The big issue is.....I don' t have access to Facebook here now 
|
On July 13 2009 18:46 BisuBoi wrote:
If I could speak nonsense, I'd respond to you. But at this point, I can't because what you wrote is definitely not English. Don't bother posting if it's going to be a lazy mess that basically says you disagree with me, then throw in a generic example about blacks in Africa (which has nothing to do with this topic). I've given a fair bit of reasoning for my opinion. I think it's pretty ridiculous at this point that you're still complaining I'm not helping you understand. Willful ignorance can't be cured by others, dude.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "played his position" either. Are you talking about basketball? I think Dikembe Mutumbo's retired already. Also, I'd love to see you point out a single regime in Africa that is currently being run by white people. Sorry, your post was truly fail.
I don't know what pisses me off more about you, the huge stick up your ass or the national flag attached to it.
One day your way of life is going to bite you right in the ass. IN YOUR ASS I TELL YOU!
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
|
On July 13 2009 17:42 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2009 05:40 BisuBoi wrote:
I totally agree with you but that's the reality of the human condition. Scarcity breeds this kind of behavior. And see, the thing is, I would have no problem with people decrying how all governments do this. It's the position that "wow, this is sick. If they had democracy/freedom/Western values, this would never occur," that really pisses me off. You are a big baby. You argue that hypocrisy is bad. I want to know why. Come on sissy-boy, tell me why.
Great troll or greatest troll?
|
On July 13 2009 19:55 Jayson X wrote:
I don't know what pisses me off more about you, the huge stick up your ass or the national flag attached to it.
One day your way of life is going to bite you right in the ass. IN YOUR ASS I TELL YOU!
I don't know why I found this quote so funny =\
|
On July 14 2009 10:44 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2009 19:55 Jayson X wrote:
I don't know what pisses me off more about you, the huge stick up your ass or the national flag attached to it.
One day your way of life is going to bite you right in the ass. IN YOUR ASS I TELL YOU!
I don't know why I found this quote so funny =\
Haha, someone got owned  Don't know if he deserved it but nevertheless I really liked "stuck up your ass or the national flag attached to it"
|
I don't know, I think Bisuboi won pretty much every debate in this thread because the other guy would always start posting retarded flames. When that happens you know you won.
|
I wanna quote a passage I read long ago about Hannah Arendt which I think is incredibly relevant to this situation.
This is the insight that makes Arendt a thinker for our time, when failed states have again and again become the settings for mass murder. She reveals with remorseless logic why emotional appeals to “human rights” or “the international community” so often prove impotent in the face of a humanitarian crisis. “The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as ‘inalienable’ because they were supposed to be independent of all governments,” she writes in “Origins,” “but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them.”
|
I don't understand the concept of inalienable rights because there is nothing inalienable about them. It's not like they're a theory of physics. Rights are a political ideal created by individuals and as such have no basis in reality. It is what it is: a human construct that exists only when humans actively will it into existence.
And the concept of telling empires to stop being empires is another ridiculous notion. I wonder how many people crying about the Uighurs and Tibetans realize that the Uighurs and Tibetans have done their fair share of empire building in their time as well. It's not like Tibet was around since the dawn of time. It was created through conquest and assimilation just as the current TAR and XUAR were.
|
On July 14 2009 12:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I don't understand the concept of inalienable rights because there is nothing inalienable about them. It's not like they're a theory of physics. Rights are a political ideal created by individuals and as such have no basis in reality. It is what it is: a human construct that exists only when humans actively will it into existence.
While inalienable rights are indeed created by people for people, the idea behind them is that now that we have established their existence, they cannot be taken away by any power, government or individual alike.
|
On July 14 2009 12:35 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 12:27 BisuBoi wrote:
I don't understand the concept of inalienable rights because there is nothing inalienable about them. It's not like they're a theory of physics. Rights are a political ideal created by individuals and as such have no basis in reality. It is what it is: a human construct that exists only when humans actively will it into existence.
While inalienable rights are indeed created by people for people, the idea behind them is that now that we have established their existence, they cannot be taken away by any power, government or individual alike.
You mean they shouldn't be taken away. They can (and are) taken away wholesale on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. I'm personally not a fan of the concept, since not everyone agrees on what specific rights are worthy of being deemed inalienable.
|
Yes I think the passage refers to liberal ideology or political philosophy that individual liberty and rights are founded upon natural law or universal ethics so that it is immoral to take them away.
|
|
|
The fact that the Uighurs is aggressors is not the larger issue. The larger issue is that
1) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that the Uighurs are more likely to approach their problems this way (as they have no significant control over the government over them)
2) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that its response cannot be significantly examined or controlled by the rest of Chinese people (those who are not in government, and even some of those in government).
|
On July 14 2009 16:04 Krikkitone wrote:
The fact that the Uighurs is aggressors is not the larger issue. The larger issue is that
1) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that the Uighurs are more likely to approach their problems this way (as they have no significant control over the government over them)
2) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that its response cannot be significantly examined or controlled by the rest of Chinese people (those who are not in government, and even some of those in government).
That makes no sense. That's like saying terrorism is ok because the terrorists don't have the current political power of the US. As haduken has mentioned in this thread before, Uighurs may have justifiable grievances but their current actions aren't the solution.
|
On July 14 2009 16:04 Krikkitone wrote:
The fact that the Uighurs is aggressors is not the larger issue. The larger issue is that
1) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that the Uighurs are more likely to approach their problems this way (as they have no significant control over the government over them)
I don't agree with this. The political structure of China might be a contributing factor to the problem but it is not the cause.
If anything, they should have attacked army and government targets but killing random people on the street?
2) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that its response cannot be significantly examined or controlled by the rest of Chinese people (those who are not in government, and even some of those in government).
I honestly don't see how any government would approach this situation differently.
|
On July 15 2009 00:02 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 16:04 Krikkitone wrote:
The fact that the Uighurs is aggressors is not the larger issue. The larger issue is that
1) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that the Uighurs are more likely to approach their problems this way (as they have no significant control over the government over them)
2) the Chinese government is structured in such a way that its response cannot be significantly examined or controlled by the rest of Chinese people (those who are not in government, and even some of those in government). That makes no sense. That's like saying terrorism is ok because the terrorists don't have the current political power of the US. As haduken has mentioned in this thread before, Uighurs may have justifiable grievances but their current actions aren't the solution.
Not saying that it is OK, saying that is is expected due to the situation. Violent slave revolts aren't OK, but they should be expected, especially by poorly treated slaves.
If groups that conducted terrorism against the US were actually made up of US citizens, then they Would be given(already have) political power. (because their members could vote) This would give them less of a reason to conduct terrorism.
If you are implying the solution for middle eastern based terrorism is to annex the entire middle east and add another 10-20 states and a few hundred million new citizens. Well that might work if the US were less centralized than it is now. As it is, they would feel like they had lost even more political autonomy.
As for whether or not their current actions are the solution.... well they are disorganized, but violent reistance of governments has been effective in the past (as has nonviolent resistance). Whether or not the action is effective isn't a justification, but it is an explanation.
I am not saying their actions are moral, but they might be the only (even if minimally) effective action. On the other hand, if China's government offered moral, legal, effective methods to get their needs addressed, then this would probably be less likely to happen.
The other, second and even Bigger issue is that the remainder of the non-Uighur Chinese citizens cannot determine if this is the proper response because they don't have access to the information needed. Of course Most of those people also can't affect the government that much, so it doesn't matter. However, the method that the Chinese government is actually using to respond may or may not be the best, but because the information is limited that cannot be assessed. Even members of the Chinese government itself may withold information from other members, because they have the means to control the information, and that gives them power/ability to hide poor judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
