62 year old Guangzhou man is New York City's Sad Panda
China: Nine nations in one?
Electrolist: Berlin 8-bit retroblaster tonight
Interview: Rich Medina funks up the Shelter
Thanksgiving turkey conundrum? The solution: Taobao
As a country that has largely distanced itself from the clusterf*ck we call 'The International War on Terror' back in America, China has generally been considered one of the safer places in the world in terms of not getting blown up. While we hope that this doesn't change any time soon, recent developments have given us some cause for concern.
It all started earlier this week when a man strapped with explosives boarded an Australian tour-bus in Xi'an. The man was sniped at the airport 'Dog Day Afternoon'-style and the hostages all returned alive to Australia shortly thereafter. According to Xinhua news, the terrorist responsible for the attack was a local factory worker and his motives remain 'unknown' (no surprise there). Xi'an Mayor Chen Baogen was quick to address the incident:
"Xi'an police have prepared emergency plans and held regular exercises for all possible incidents, including traffic accidents, public security incidents, fires, explosions, epidemic outbreaks and natural disasters," Chen said.In other words, no matter what happens, DO NOT change your plans to go see the terra-cotta warriors (again, no surprise there)."We have the full capability of ensuring the personal safety for tourists from both at home and abroad," the mayor said.
At first this looked like an isolated incident, but then news of two more attempted terrorist attacks hit the press yesterday. The first took place yesterday aboard a China Southern flight from Urumqi to Beijing. China Daily reports that the airplane was forced to land in Lanzhou and that none aboard were harmed. The second attack never even made if off the ground. According to reports the terrorists were planning an attack on Beijing set to coincide with the Olympics, but have all been either killed or taken into custody by Xinjiang police.
Before this week, foreigners in China had rarely been targeted in violent crimes, but this disturbing new trend doesn't seem to bode well for expats and tourists. Though it is unclear whether or not these more recent Xinjiang-based attacks bear any relation to the incident in Xi'an, they would all seem to indicate that the perpetrators are concerned with attracting the attention of the international community.
All this comes on the heels of a Saturday announcement that the People's Congress is preparing to take a more aggressive approach against extremists and separatists, particularly in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Nur Bekri, Xinjiang chairman has already stepped up his rhetoric.
"We will never slacken in our fight against these evil forces,"and Xinjiang police commissar Hou Xiaoqin is similarly adamant.
"As the country's frontline in battling terrorism and separatism, Xinjiang's anti-terrorism fight is of crucial importance to the stability of the whole country"
Other media outlets, however, have warned this week that the Uighur culture may be the greatest casualty in any such war.
Photo of the Kurban Tulum and Chairman Mao Zedong Monument, at Unity Square, Hotan, Xinjiang by Centralasiatraveler:
Kurban Tulum, whom the Chinese call Uncle Kurban, was an Uyghur electrician, born in 1883 in Keriya County in southern Xinjiang in northwest China.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
post to facebook
Nitpicking here, I believe the preferred nomenclature is not 'The International War on Terror' but the 'Global War on Terror.' Hence the acronym GWOT.
Your concerns have been noted and yes that is nitpicking. Upon double-checking this with google (the ultimate arbiter of truth), it seems that while
'international war or terror' is a less commonly used phrase, people often say 'international "war on terror."' Even less common is the 'international war against terror.'
*yawn*
Other media outlets, however, have warned this week that the Uighur culture may be the greatest casualty in any such war.
--------------
oh yeah, like you care the "culture" when you invade affganistan. fuck that/
If you respect terrorist culture, you go to hell.
Uighur is Uighur, terrorists are terrorists...
Won't stop me from visiting Xinjiang again. I still have to convince my wife to take a trip to Kashgar though. I've met a few Uighurs here in Shenzhen, and they have mostly been very friendly (more than a lot of the locals).
I am a Shanghai local, just read Kadeer's discussion of Uighur culture and economic... feel amused, very! Let me provide some facts here:
-- one of my classmates working in Shanghai police station taking charge of all theft cases. He has told me that,due to ethnic sensitivity,they always let Uighur pocketlift go without charge as long as victim has no physical hurt.
-- it is to my surprise that Kadeer thinks Uygur is not Chinese, or maybe he has English language difficulty, what he wants to say is they are not Han ethnic? According to an ancient map drawn by Japanese(thanks), Uighur is a part of China since around 700AC (Tang Dynasty); as Chinese text book, the actual date is much earlier(in Han Dynasty)
-- I hv several friends whose parents had spent their entire young age in Uygur for helping them in agriculture and construction. when they were allowed to return Shanghai at their 40's, they got jobless,moneyless and had to start over again. Maybe what they had done was just hostilely exploited Uygur according to Kadeer's logic.
-- Uygur has 2 language system: Uygur and Chinese. it is amazed to know Kadeer cannot speak Chinese, while Han ethnic living there can speak Uygur. Very interesting!
Anyway, it is good for Kadeer to find his honey dad -- USA, he should be an American already, as a refugee. Good for him, and God bless America.
Uyghurstan (hehe) is indisputably governed by the Chinese. Are they or aren't they Chinese? They don't look 'Chinese' they don't sound 'Chinese' so what the f*ck eh? I don't understand why a rational person would care if some other people wanted to do their own thing. Just chill on the spouting of indoctrinated arguments from all angles. Bombs aren't chill either, nationalism is for weak-hearted Babylonians. Occupying a neighbor is equally as immoral as occupying a country across an ocean.
Oh, and the term 'Chinese' is commonly used to refer to an ethnic or language group, sorry PC people, that won't die. If you want to get all twisted over it then start calling people 'People's Republic of China-ers.' That is, if you want to define group identity by political boundaries, rather than culture.
Thanks for telling me about what 'Chinese' means in English. yes. i do mean the thanks. really my first time to aware it. It seems like English,Scottish and British argument.
China has many ethnics, and according to recent research, the most famous emperor (Zi, Shimin) in Tang Dynasty was not a Han ethnic either. but, who cares now? no one says Tang/Qing/Yuan dynasty should be separated from Chinese history.（Qing/Yuan original ethnic people definitely didnot look like Han at that time)
yes, different people have different opinion, I should respect them to have the right to speak up, and I understand it is meaningless to argue here. But just cannot understand why and how it could happen in that way -- trying to bomb a civilian plane because they want to declare they are not Chinese, after Beijing provide that territory massive funding every year?
By the way, we call Taiwanese as Chinese as well. And when Taiwanese in China, they usually say they are Chinese, whilst when they are in other countries, they say they are Taiwanese. emm... tricky. I guess it will take another 50 years for Taiwanese to say proudly that they are Chinese in every place.
i have to admit that USA is quite successful in this case, as least no state wants to be separated from Federal government.
It might take people like you, Susan, another 50 years to differentiate between party line politics, obtuse nationalism, and independent, informed opinions. But then again, where would you be exposed to such a radical concept as thinking for yourself, and not for your government, when they do all the thinking for you.
Jimin, thanks for your reminder. I guess u r sort of Chinese, at lease Chinese related. then, i assume you understand Chinese culture,history and philosophy. that is a too big topic. in short, the sequence order for 'Country', 'Family' and 'Individual' is different from West to East. Address on envelop can an example to reflect it.
Yes,I was very uncomfortable at the first 3-6 month in Shanghai after I had been away from this land for a few years, especially dislike the media -- all have the same voice. however, considering that it takes US/UK hundred years to complete their system, and I do see the progress of Chinese media month by month, so I am OK with it now.
btw, in Chinese philosophy, Man's nature at birth is good；whilst western philosophy is sort of opposite way. Chinese system is based on his philosophy assumption, so does western system. it is no point to argue which is right or wrong, it is important for Beijing to find a appropriate way to set up an efficient system to serve the people, the people who belongs to one country.
Wow. Chinese media is changing THAT fast? That's news to me.
Providing u can read chinese website.
A couple of nits to pick:
"i have to admit that USA is quite successful in this case, as least no state wants to be separated from Federal government."
--actually, more than a few Hawaiians would really love to separate from the US. Not that it'll happen, but just for the record, not everyone is thrilled to be in the Union. And at least those who aren't can voice their dissent (at least for now).
"in Chinese philosophy, Man's nature at birth is good；whilst western philosophy is sort of opposite way."
Hmmmm... didn't realize Jean-Jacques Rousseau and so many other Western philosophers were actually Chinese! Fascinating! I'm learning so much!
susan2jmsun: One just has to read China Daily and Shanghai Daily to know how fast Chinese media is changing.
Confucius(551 BC - 479 BC)founded the dominant philosophy of China. one of the his famous saying is: Man's nature at birth is good. Pls refer below USA website for more information.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
It is true that there are many schools of philosophy and religion in West，and i have never been unable to understand a phrase: Original Sin
Regarding Kadeer: "or maybe he has English language difficulty"
Hon, that He is a She, and She is very well respected in all countries besides your own. And She speaks English quite well... much better than most Chinese I have met. What was that you said about it being surprising that she can't speak Chinese?
Susan, you say you are providing facts, but actually, your facts sound a lot like party-line thinking mixed with hear-say. So all Han in Xinjiang can speak Uighur? Something tells me not. Something else tells me that is is odd that you have never considered that maybe the Uighur people who can't speak Chinese don't necessarily want to learn.
So pickpockets are released because the government cares about them? Aww that's sweet, and kind of surprising. Do you have a better source than a personal friend in Shanghai, which, as you may have noticed, is not in Xinjiang.
Some commenters don't dignify responses. But this one was fun.
This aside, most of the media I have read about these terrorism cases have been spot on about one thing: the oddity of the lack of information, mixed with improbable stories.
For example, isn't it interesting that a plane involved in a terrorist plot was allowed to continue on its course to its final destination almost right away? No interviews, no detailed plane searches... Wow! That is convenient. And everyone surrendered without a fight when they were prepared to bring down the plane. And how could Uigurs smuggle gas bottles onboard when the Chinese security people at every airport I have used in recent memory make me even drink my own water out of water bottles to make sure it is not an explosive?
And still no additional info. Lovely. Living in some countries requires a convenient and occasional suspension of disbelief.
Um, yeah, I know about Confucius. Kongzi too. The point is that Western philosophy is incredibly diverse and any and all propositions about the world, including the Doctrine of Original Sin, have been challenged by numerous thinkers throughout the history of Western thought, including thinkers who learned from non-Western philosophers. So it's more than a bit reductionist to attempt to create a simple binary distinction between "Chinese philosophy" and "Western philosophy" based on whether one thinks or believes humans are born "evil" or "good." And Original Sin is really more of a religious doctrine than a philosophical one, so better points of comparison vis-a-vis China would be Daoism and Buddhism.
One difference worth noting with respect to philosophy, the West and China, however, is that in the West there is a greater tradition of competing schools of thought, while in China, periods of diverse and competing thought have, more or less, alternated with periods in which a dominant model, whether Legalism, Confucianism or Chinese Marxism, have largely suppressed other ways of viewing the world, whether philosophical, religious or some combination of the two.
The West, of course, has experienced similar periods of suppression of thought. The most famous is probably the Dark Ages, called the Dark Ages because they were Dark. And Agey.
Yes, you are right. Sorry that I did not read Kadeer’s in detail. I start to read her discuss from bottom, then shocked, just took a quick look. Yes. Kadeer is ‘she’
I do believe she speaks very good English. Of course, she lives in USA now. But it doesnot mean she knows how to use certain words properly. Anyway, she cannot be blamed, because the definition of some words is different from country to country, from time to time.
I had 2 middle school classmates who were born in Uyghurstan and allowed to come back Shanghai in their teenage. One was back with her parents, the other boy was back alone because his mon married with a Uygur and decided to stay there. Uygur are nice people for sure. And also I am sure there are many people who know Uygur better than me, including those who only read books and articles of a few writers who can speak good English.
Now, it is an interesting phenomenon that every expression similar to Chinese media is ‘party line thinking’. And if I say any nice words to Chinese policy, I guess I will be labeled as brain-washed immediately. Alright, I am a Chinese, are happily ‘brain-washed’ by Chinese culture and history, enjoyed its every progress, and meanwhile very much admiring western civilization achievements.
==
This aside, most of the media I have read about these terrorism cases have been spot on about one thing: the oddity of the lack of information, mixed with improbable stories.
==
Yes, you are right again, no detail story of those terrorism cases have been provided so far, and will not be in the near future either, though It will come out some day in an unofficial way. We cannot say anything unofficial is not truth, just like we cannot say anything official is definitely right. We have to be patient. Media cannot report everything when the stake is high. Eg. UK did not want media to report their Prince was in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the security check in Chinese airport is not as tight as US and EU up till now, because no one dare to hijack planes for a decade here, we are worry free for quite a while. At least i can always pass the check point with no trouble, but did be stopped in EU airports (Munich and London) with the same hand carrier luggage during a transfer connection a couple of times.
Hope all Chinese airport now can enforce the security checking, better adopt USA standard.
My take on it is that the powers-that-be have fabricated/exaggerated the plane-jacking and the Olympic terror plot in order to justify putting the Xinjiang region in brutal lockdown until after the Olympics. Now they can do whatever they want and can justify it easily to the West (see, we have plane-jackings too!) and the domestic elites (see, they want to destroy our beautiful coming out party!). But of course this government would never do anything like that.
Oh, and Susan, if you want insight into the situation in Xinjiang, I would recommend reading Slate.com's excellent series 'Dispatches From China's Wild West'.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185456/entry/2185458/
One last comment: Susan, you mentioned that a map from 1300 years ago showed Xinjiang as part of the Chinese empire. By your logic, Italy would have claim to the entire Mediterranean World. I suppose also that north-eastern China should belong to the Japanese, since 50 years ago (just 50 years ago! Much closer than 1300!) maps showed Manchuria as being called Manchuko and part of the Japanese Empire.
WatchbagDVD,I have some questions:
Most of us agree that 1+1=2, though we know there are some special cases 1+1=0 or 1 or something else in some scientific or mathematic interpretation. Then, when we tell students about the result of 1+1, which answer we should give them at the first? More is better or less is better?
Let us look the business world. Pepsi Company has quite a few diversified businesses, whilst Coca-Cola only sticks on soft drink. Which one has better performance? Simplification or diversification?
In terms of philosophy and religion, will our life be in better condition if 2-3 equally strong schools quarrel all the time and fight for its believers, or will it be better to have a dominated one which is kind, soft, generous to other thoughts, and having the believe of good side of human nature? I mean Confucius and Buddhism . (Budda even allows people to believe other religions)
Luckily, China has never experienced religion war, and also I do not have the enough knowledge of Dark Age and different schools of western philosophy, because those text books I read were in Chinese. I think I can have a better discussion with you after I read some European history book in English later.
Alec, just to remind you that Japan lost in that war. Many place of China did be occupied by them, and experienced 8 years of anti-Japanese war. thanks for US and USSR and all the other helps, China is able to keep its land from Japan. If Japan wants Manchuria again, they need to start another war.
But you see, your logic is circular. You say: China is justified in invading and ruling Xinjiang because 1300 years ago China invaded and ruled Xinjiang. Therefore, by that logic, Japan would be justified in invading and ruling north-east China. If Japan tries such a thing, the other nations of the world should just shrug and say 'well, I saw it on a Japanese map', just like China expects other nations to accept their invasion and colonization of Xinjiang and Tibet. Nice 'peaceful rise'.
When should the US give Texas back to Mexico?
Hi Susan,
From what I understand of Chinese history, Confucianism, Mohism (Mojia) and various schools of Daoism more or less emerged during the Warring States period, prior to the Qin Dynasty's conquest of rival states and creation of the first Chinese empire. The first emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi, famously burned Confucian books and scholars and banned any school of thought that he felt threatened his absolute power and the philosophy of Legalism developed to justify his imperial reign.
So, the best fruit of China's intellectual tradition actually appear to come from a period of contention and competition between politically independent states. Many of China's famous early inventions--gunpowder, paper, etc.--also date from the time before the forced political union brought about by Qin, continued by the Han Dynasty and passed on from dynasty to dynasty from then on.
A lot of historians, writers and philosophers--Chinese and Western--argue that precisely because of the authoritarian history of China, supported by the state ideology of Confucianism from the Han on, China was unable to adapt quickly enough to meet the challenges presented by the Europeans who began to come in force from the 15th century on. The result was the decline and collapse of the Qing Dynasty, the Opium War and other humiliations. If China hadn't been so insistent on doing things in the established way--a way established, in essence, many centuries before--would it have suffered so much at the hands of the Japanese and European powers?
Today, China's "peaceful rise" might well be limited by its ability to first tolerate, then encourage diversity of opinion and political pluralism, including dealing with difficult questions regarding ethnic minorities that retain distinct identities and desires from the Han majority. The European Union has managed to balance real autonomy and cooperation between regions and states pretty well. Maybe that's a useful model, as unrealistic as it might seem at the present. I don't think the US is as good a model (it seems to be falling in the direction reactionary and doctrinaire authoritarianism, at least under Bush/Cheney).
Do Texans want to go back to Mexico? If so, Godspeed. And please take Crawford Ranch and all its inhabitants with you.
W-B-DVD, just a minor question. How does the 'authoritarian' theory account for China's continuing rapid economic rise versus say Mexico or India?
Alec, most Texans have northern European heritage, though the tide is definitely turning, which would account for their not feeling Mexican. This resulted because Texas was flooded with white ethnic immigrants from the US by business interests that advertised widely in the eastern states. This was accompanied by largely unsuccessful attempts to destroy the native culture. Well the native culture of the Spanish who had moved in and killed most of the native Americans. And Alec, while you are a cunning linguist your logic does appear to me to be fallacious... Susan's reasoning is in direct rebuttal to those who claim that Xinjiang was recently an independent state. I believe that before the Han came it was a vassal state of one of the most authoritarian states of the late 1st millenium in Central Asia, the Tibetan Empire. Now there's a circle for you...
most Texans have northern European heritage
Only if most = a slight majority.
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/research/dssi/PopStats/ProjectionsTX_GenderRace.html
Departing from the conversation about Xinjiang. . .
Actually most historic anglo Texans have Germanic and Czech heritage because when Texas was applying for statehood, they needed to reach a population threshold, so Texans advertised in Czech and German newspapers giving away land to non-landed sons (ie any men who weren't going to inherit land in Europe). Which is why in central Texas there's still a smattering of German native speakers AND they eat kolaches and have really good coleslaw.
Anyways, "it used to be ours" is a poor argument for any land possession. Do we all want to report to the Vatican? Or Mongolia? Or London? Because you know what? The Pope, The Brits and or Chingis Khan owned all of our asses at one time or another.
And that's why native Texicans like Flaco Jimenez play accordian so damn good!
It 'used to be somebody else's land' is the natural state of human civilization. Mass movements of populations will continue especially now that it is physically easier to do it. Whether or not the way the Chinese government is dealing with the Uigher people is morally correct or not, arguments for independence need more of a substantial basis than just 'cause....
Alec,we can see conspiracy theories never rest, eg. Pearl harbour, USA moon's landing, Princess Diana's death, 9/11 NY world Trade center, now it comes China terrorism cases(btw, so far its nature is still unclear and under investigation). if Beijing really wants to do something, there is no necessary for them to make up such case, because all media in China will support w/o condition, right? So, why they take the unnecessary risk? and so 'unprofessionally' organized that only stayed at Lanzhou airport for 1 hr? Oh...because Beijing is not experienced in doing so, right? so that you can identify this plot.
My guess, let us hope the best, the plane case might just be a false alarm.
"According to an ancient map drawn by Japanese(thanks), Uighur is a part of China since around 700AC (Tang Dynasty); as Chinese text book, the actual date is much earlier(in Han Dynasty)"
It's possible I confused her meaning. I though she meant that at one point in the past Xinjiang was within the sphere of the Chinese culture, therefore it was now and forever part of the Han Empire, despite having a radically different culture. If she's claiming that Xinjiang has always been part of China from ancient until modern times - well, that's just historically wrong.
Part of the problem may be the school textbooks she's referring too. In the book by China Road by Gifford he mentions that in state sanctioned textbooks here they include reproductions of ancient maps of China which have been carefully doctored to include the areas of China (Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang) that are chafing at the yoke now. So to Chinese kids these areas were once Chinese, when in reality it's just government propaganda.
My bigger problem with this whole discussion is that it's so typical of all the arguments I get into here - the Chinese people accept the information they get from the government or news here and use it to counter arguments about a range of issues. And if confronted with the 'you're just regurgitating government propaganda' they claim that the West's sources are propaganda as well. They can't seem to differentiate that yes, while popular news outlets can be biased, the press is so vast and multifaceted and free that the truth with come out, and you also cannot question Western university researchers who have made it their life's work to know the true history of China. Far more trustworthy than Party-approved academics whose primary job is legitimizing the current regime, truth second.
Anyway, Susan, you seem like a really nice person, and you've kept this conversation wonderfully civil, so I don't mean to be dumping one of my China gripes on you.
Also, yes, my initial conspiracy comment was largely facetious. Largely.
Alec, Thanks for your nice comments on me, however, you have specified that 'my bigger problem with THIS whole discussion is...THE Chinese people....' as I am the only person here who say clearly that I am Chinese, so i can hardly think your 'China gripes' is not on me. Btw, I donot like your Japan/Manchuria example at all, because it is not relevant., and because my grandpa dad, a farmer, was killed by Japanese soldier during that war, though i hv the faith that Japanese people are good at nature, only were wrongly driven by their government.
I feel very difficult to discuss with you, because you seem to have an assumption that whatever Chinese/Chinese media said is wrong or suspicious.
Alright, The reason I mentioned map 700AC is to prove that not only presently but also historically; Uyghurstan was and is a part of China, though it is a fact that China central government control over that territory was interrupted several times, and sometime weak sometime strong. By the way, on Chinese text book, Uyghurstan came to be a part of China in 60 BC (Han Dynasty).
Actually, I am not clear yet, you mean that Uyghurstan should be independent? or Beijing need handle their religion/ethnic issue more sensitively? or you are really interested in history and the impact of history on today’s politic and culture? Or …. Sorry, I donot get it.
Emm.. thanks for your last comments on conspiracy.
WatchbabDVD, thanks for your detailed explanation, really. All your description of China history is correct. and your opinion is right to some extent, however, i cannot agree with you in full. To my understanding, decline and collapse of the Qing Dynasty is due to extreme use of Confucius, mistakenly thought China was the Central Country, neglected the sea, no interested in engineering, (It is a pity that science and engineer was not in real concern in those dynasties, even today, we cannot scientifically explain how Chinese Medicine,eg.acupuncture, can cure disease, and it might remain as a mystery for quite a while), But more important ....
History is created by people, and sometimes, a very few extraordinary people, not philosophy. Eg. It is Henry VIII who gave English an Ango-Catholic Church and Elisabeth I; it is Churchill who was so determined and never give up. As history is about people, philosophy/religion is to serve people and government. So philosophy/religion should be revised/improve/change to fit the needs of different time. Buddism have been revised many times in past 2 thousand years. The problem of Qing Dynasty is the emperors failed to foresee threats, as a result, they lost in many wars, finally nowadays historians blamed the philosophy.
For sure not every Confucius saying is right. To fit today’s life, it is better to re-interpretate it.
Of the political pluralism, so far I am still not a fan of America president election….
Tired today. Let us discuss it later.
Sorry Susan, you are right. I should not say 'the' Chinese people, because of course that is generalizing. Please replace that with 'many'. And yes, China has invaded, ruled, been cast out of Xinjiang many times in its history . . . I don't think that gives the Chinese to claim it as their own. Actually, in the vast majority of it's history Xinjiang has not been under Chinese control. A quick timeline, for your edification.
Before 200 BC - ruled by various nomadic cultures
200 BC - 60 BC - Ruled by the Xiongnu, a nomadic people from Mongolia
60 BC - 220 AD - Struggle between the Xiognu and the Han, ruled by both off and on. The area was under a Han 'protectorate' and was more of a vassal kingdom than a true part of the Chinese empire
220 AD - 500 AD - China controls eastern parts of Xinjiang, sometimes as little as a third
500-600 AD - Turks emerge as the dominant power in Xinjiang
650 - 760 AD - Tang dynasty controls parts of Xinjiang
760 - 900 AD - Tibet (!) controls southern Tibet, Uyghur Khanate the northern part.
900 AD - 1200 AD - Uyghur Khanate dominant power
1200-1700 AD - swears allegiance to the Mongols rather than be bulldozed. Ruled by Mongols or various splinter kingdoms
1755 - 1912 - Qing dynasty invades and conquers. Brief times of independence within this period
1912 - 1933 - ruled by regional warlords
1933 - 1949 - independent
1949 - PLA invades
So from this history, yes China had a protectorate over Xinjiang for a few centuries almost 1700 years ago, but for a solid 1000 year block it was not part of China, until China invaded again in 1755. That's like Italy claiming its WW1 invasion of France was justified because Gaul was once part of the Roman Empire.
And if we rely on the 1755 invasion to give the Chinese rule legitimacy - well, that was the same time that the European countries were carving up the world. Should England's conquest of India have given England eternal jurisdiction over the sub-continent?
No. China is strong and Xinjiang is weak. China is ruling rather brutally over a conquered people. You can try to re-state the facts to suit what you want, but at some point you simply have to face reality.
By the way, I only brought up the Japanese invasion example to show a similar case of invasion /conquest, one which the Chinese feel like the victims and are upset about. I'm sure there are thousands of people living in Xinjiang who have had relatives killed by Chinese soldiers during the PLA invasion or after that have the same feelings you do about your murdered father (which I'm sorry about). Empathize with them. Do I feel bad for what America has done in Iraq? Absolutely. I feel terrible, and I wish we hadn't done it. I hate my government for doing it. Don't feel like you have to support everything your government does just because you're Chinese. It's okay to love your country and also disagree with some of its actions and policies.
Hi Alec, where u find about timeline? translated from Chinese, or copied from a website? if website, pls give me the link, thanks
The timeline comes from the Wikipedia entry for Xinjiang at wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is a blocked website in China (it is an online encyclopdia) so you have to go through anonymouse.org. Just enter the address (wikipedia.org) into the bar that appears when you go to anonymouse.org. Also, I would highly recommend the Slate.com article I suggested earlier if you want more reading on modern Xinjiang. That one is not blocked.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185456/entry/2185458/
alec, thanks. i feel the most annoying thing for daily life is this GWF. hope it can have a customer service dept:-D as least they should tell us why some websites are blocked if there is nothing related to sensitive politics. it is said a Shanghaist has file a legal case against ChinaTelcom Shanghai (ISP), because he can on longer visit some sites, therefore the contract has been violated... i guess court rejected his case.
Pleeeeeeease this site not put on any sensitive Chinese characters, otherwise it might be blocked as well.
alec, After a rough check, edited as below commented after slash line.
1200-1700 AD - swears allegiance to the Mongols rather than be bulldozed. Ruled by Mongols or various splinter kingdoms
// Yuan Dynasty 1271-1368 was established by ethnic Mongol
1933 - 1949 – independent
//GuoMintang army (the one in Taiwan now) was there, detail timeline unclear
1949 - PLA invades
// though there were wars before they arrived Xinjiang (in Ganxu Province w Guomintang), PLAentered Xinjiang in peace. At lease no big conflict.
That land is quite big, difficult to clarify details. And your China/Japan vs. China/Xinjiang is not a comparison like for like.
My initial purpose to mention that history is to rebut some arguments that PLA entered Xinjing w/o historical base, not the intention to get into these details, because I agree with Izmore’s comments
----
It 'used to be somebody else's land' is the natural state of human civilization. Mass movements of populations will continue especially now that it is physically easier to do it. Whether or not the way the Chinese government is dealing with the Uigher people is morally correct or not, arguments for independence need more of a substantial basis than just cause....
----
at article provides some useful info. I guess as far as SLATE has no Chinese version, this site will not be blocked. because BBC got blocked, but CNN is OK.
That article provides some useful info(typo in previous msg)
Susan - the initial purpose of my posting was to demonstrate that Xinjiang has not been part of China for centuries, that in fact it was independent for a thousand years before the Han Chinese invaded in the late eighteenth century. I was trying to clarify the common government propagated myth that Xinjiang was always part of the Chinese Empire, which I believe you have conceded. And as the Slate article demonstrates, the Uyghur people want their own independent state.
So is China morally wrong? I don't think anyone could argue otherwise that was in the possession of the full facts and a unbiased mind. However, you bring up an interesting point that all nations throughout history have engaged in these invasions and gradual displacements of native people. (I hesitate to call the Han migration 'natural' since it is pretty obvious that the central government is trying to tip the demographic balance so that Xinjiang (and Tibet) will be forever in the future Han Chinese). Certainly the Western nations have engaged in similar policies. My gripe is that Chinese people will condemn Western practices (Iraq, the Opium Wars, Africa, whatever) but refuse to admit they are doing the exact same thing right now in nations that should not be theirs. We have a saying in English: The pot calling the kettle black. Obviously the West is guilty of it too: America is upset about Tibet, but continues to occupy Iraq. I suppose the difference would be that a large number of Americas (myself included) realize that the Bush war in Iraq was unjust and done in an attempt to increase American power (oh, how it backfired), while the vast majority of Chinese simply refuse to accept that their country could ever do anything so self-motivated and downright evil.
Again, love your country, disagree with what the government does.
i know China has not continuously have Xinjiang, our middle school text book clearly said that point, though it is my first time to see a clear timeline
you know, there is nothing definitely right or wrong. and Iraq case is different from Xinjiang.
Sorry to disappoint you, I will definitely disagree Xinjiang independent, and i will not change this stand.
i do disagree with some government policies, but not all.
The difference with Iraq is that in a few years America will leave. China will not leave Xinjiang. And America is not exporting its citizens so that it can claim Iraq forever, unlike China and its western provinces. Which is worse? Hmmm . . . .
Emm...how many Americans want to live in Iraq? and will American allow Iraqis come to USA freely? that is another different.
USA wants to be the judge/police of the world, that is good, at least someone volunteer to be this role and wants to take this responsibility. however, sword has 2 sides...
Chinese (not only Beijing) has the confident that Xinjiang's situation is improving and will keep on improving. the Uyghur is better off nowadays than before.
there are always some people want to leave their land or country for certain reasons, even lots of Shanghaist move to other countries. it is also common for those who lost in economic growth want some favorable government policies and special treatment. Meanwhile, I fully agree that Kadeer's Claim that 'We are not the Uighurs of before', because nowadays none Chinese in China is the same as before.
Xinjiang and Tibet are a part of China. this concept is not going to change for a very very long time, regardless who is in charge of Beijing. if you want to ask why, sorry that i am not capable to answer, better explanation can be provided by someone who has deep study of China.
I agree with Alec. Whatever one thinks of Iraq, the situation is different-- while war and colonization are both terrible things, it does nothing for the debate to pretend they are the same. Intelligent people can disagree as to which is more "wrong", but the two conflicts represent totally different dynamics.
Let's be clear-- it would be unthinkable for the US under any leadership to say that it is annexing Iraq. Nor is the US pumping the country full of non-indigenous people. The Uighurs are Central Asians by any common definition (language, food, history, political culture, dress, history, music, literary tradition, crafts, customs, religion) and direct contact with Han Chinese on a day-to-day basis is a very recent phenomenon. Indeed, even most European colonizations did not have, as their aim, the irreversible dilution of the native population (the British could not have diluted India if they had tried). The best analogy is the European colonization of the Americas-- a low intensity, on-and-off violent conflict between two hopelessly mismatched sides. Now that many decendants of immigrants realize that this was wrong, there are very few left to seek reconciliation with. China seems to be on a similar trajectory with respect to Uyghuristan and Tibet.
With respect to the timeline, a few clarifications to Susan's clarifications:
THE MONGOLS:
1200-1700 AD - swears allegiance to the Mongols rather than be bulldozed. Ruled by Mongols or various splinter kingdoms
// Yuan Dynasty 1271-1368 was established by ethnic Mongol//
I assume Susan wanted to imply that since an ethnic Mongol whose ancestors were later assimilated into Chinese culture founded a Chinese dynasty, then that makes all of Chingiz Khan's territory fair game. So Russia and Hungary would also implicitly belong to China? The Uighur area was actually split between Kublai Khan's Chinese holdings and the Chaghadai Khans. In the relevant historic period, China was merely a battered subject of the Mongols-- like all the others who had to bow to them.
THE MODERN PERIOD:
1933 - 1949 – independent
//GuoMintang army (the one in Taiwan now) was there, detail timeline unclear
1949 - PLA invades
// though there were wars before they arrived Xinjiang (in Ganxu Province w Guomintang), PLAentered Xinjiang in peace. At least no big conflict.
The last big revolt under warlord Ma Zhongyin (who was Huizu, but also supported by Uighurs) started in 1930 and was a reaction to the then governor's (ultimately successful) attempt to absorb the Muslim city-state of Hami into Xinjiang. That the governor happened to be Guomindang is inconsequential-- the rebellion was against being included in China. Red Army troops on loan from Stalin were eventually what quashed the rebellion. This was preceded by years of on-and-off rebellions against Chinese governors, resulting in huge numbers of deaths-- numbers are unclear, but enough to cause huge migrations of Huizu and Uighurs to Russian Central Asia. The Ma rebellion was the last. A crushed and expanded Xinjiang was merely the Guomindang's parting gift to the PLA.
Are you trying to tell me during the British empire,the whole empire people move everywhere (colony people to London, for example)freely? no visa required? or maybe France was able to accomplished it? that is very new to me. you may say that is not relevant. then i would like to tell you, this is one of the the main points. i believe rational people understand what i mean.
Thanks for your very detail history study of China, have you ever noticed Han ethnic was not in the same language and had many small states fighting each others a couple of thousands years ago? it was at some period that someone determined to unify China and also unify the language. Maybe you prefer China to go back to that chaos status? How fascinating will it be to Asia, and how wonderful a new world! WOW.
Have a nice day.
No. I didn't mention anything about freedom of movement. What I'm saying is that there are still Indians in India. Indian culture still exists. The Chinese government is flooding the Uighur lands with Han. There will be no Uighur culture, no Uighur people soon. The results of European colonization of Asia and Africa were damaging, sometimes terrible, but did not result in the disappearance of a distinct people (much like the colonization of the Americas). That is what the Chinese colinization of the Uighur lands is doing.
My "detailed history of China" as you put it, was neither detailed, nor of China (it was the history of the Uighur lands). I was responding to what you had written. I'm sorry if these "details" are inconvenient for Han nationalism.
There's a big difference between unifying similar peoples with a common heritage and subjugating a people with whom you have nothing in common. The Uighur language is Turkic, it's not even the same family as Chinese, which is Sino-Tibetan. Uighurs have never been Buddist, Daoist or Confucian. Their traditions go back to Islam, Nestorian Christianity and Zoroastrianism. If they will be unified, they should be unified with the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, the Turks, etc., with whom they share a common heritage, language, etc. that is NOTHING LIKE THAT OF THE CHINESE.
China's great-- it's a wonderful country in many ways. Nobody here said they want it to break up. You and many Chinese I have spoken to automatically think that if someone doesn't express Han nationalist then that person is not a "friend of China". That's ridiculous. I believe that it makes sense for it to be together with Taiwan and I hope the two countries can work out a way to make it happen. China, however, is wrong on Uighurustan.
MW,i believe i have already discussed your point on my previous posts. China was, is and will always be a country with many ethnics. All ethnics have the same right in China. even, except Han, other ethnics have some more favourable terms: eg: they can have more than one kid, 5-10 ethnic marks will
be added on their national uni admission exam, etc
Xinjing and Tibet are not semi-colonies, Beijing has not treat them as kid and please do not think Beijing as an evil mother.It is perfectly OK if other ethnics want to be the top leader of the country. it happened in our history (Yuan, Qing and probably Tang dynasties) and it will happen again. Just as black people can also be USA president.
Pls Kindly check how many Mongolia people live in the independent nation of Mongolia and how many live in Inner Mongolia (China)? China is a well ethnic diversified country. China is not only about Han, it is also about 56 ethnic groups.
It is not appropriate to use western understanding of country,nation,ethnic relation to judge China, because we have different history, culture, philosophy and religion.
Further, it is not appropriate to think western democratic system is the only right practice. it seems like the old thought that Catholic was Orthodox, while all the others were heresy.
For this 30 years China's development, we own great thanks to western technologies, business concept, etc. However, Please bear in mind, it doesnot mean China will take in all west standard and concept, China is different.
China is different. Nobody contests that. Every country is *different*.
Uighuristan is *different* too. I'm not using Western understanding as a point of reference-- I'm using a Central Asian point of reference. Many Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Turkmen are now happy that the Russians are no longer ruling their lands, that they can once again speak their own languages and that their culture is not being eroded by an outside, dominating culture. This does not mean that they want to be Western or want to have Western democracy. They just want to be masters of their own fate.
The "national harmony" theory is convenient for Han Chinese, just as it was for the Russians. It's nice when you're the dominant culture to say that you have a "multinational" country-- the "small nations" get nominally recognized until they are forced to disappear, marginalized and flooded with ethnic Han settlers. Just look at what the Han did to the character system of the Yi-- the Yi used to have their own character system that was different from the Chinese. The Chinese took the Yi characters, threw out most of them, turned the rest of them into syllables and made it into a syllabry. Not a simplification of the characters like with Chinese script, but a reduction of the characters to just meaningless one-syllable glyphs.
Chinese friends from Urumqi have told me about how me about how when they were kids, they would never play with the Uighur kids and they and the Uighur kids would throw rocks at each other. Uighur friends have told me about how taxi drivers sometimes won't let them ride in the back because they don't trust them not to run away. Chinese friends have told me how "there never used to be crime until the xinjiang ren came to the city" and they half-joking call them "kongbu fenzi". I have spoken to many, many Uighurs and Mongols who are not happy to be part of China and do not consider themselves Chinese-- they understandably are more willing to say this to a foreigner.
hi, i forgot to tell you that many local Beijing people do not like Shanghaiese, the same as many local Hangzhou Wuxi, Suzhou people. maybe i should use a different word: dislike or sort of hate. In accordance to your reasoning, should Shanghai be seperated from China? because we have a different dialect, our culture is different(Shanghai is prefer west culture), and Shanghai's local identities(dialect,and some other tradition stuff) are in danger of disappear due to the moving in of people from other parts of China.
Or, maybe Guangdong should also be separated as because they even have a sort of different written characters, and their dialect is very much different from rest of China.
Your reasoning goes no way than to bring chaos to a unified country.
And, it is this reasoning that separated old India to nowadays India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. well done.
Enjoy your history study, which might finally bring you back to the very original old day.
I agree Beijing's policies are not always right. many of them need to be changed or improve. eg. the intense Internet censorship is very unwise, Very. However, the determination to unify a country is not going to change, with the support of billion.
MW, if you want to carry on this discuss, pls state your nationality.
Beijing censorship, on the internet and otherwise, has allowed you to form your razor-sharp views, Susan. You should be thanking the propaganda machine for fueling your informed, level-headed rationale.
In other news, I highly doubt the fine people of Pakistan (or Bangledeshis, for that matter) are standing in line for a fat slice of marginalization from a predominantly Hindu government. Or a British one, for that matter. You know, just like in the Good Old India.
And while we're on the topic of chaos, that nasty Dalai Lama and his clique of ne'erdowells is really hankering for a spanking from Father China. What a silly man - let's hope he stays holed up in his mountain fort somewhere in nowadays India.
Misinterpretation. I have NEVER said that Beijing's sensorship have stoped me browsing other websites. use some proxy, it is just not as quick as direct browsing. And i believe many people here also can 'sneak' the 'Great Firewall' to visit BBC,VOA, freetibet, etc., just slow. At some companies in Shanghai, due to their server Internet setting, their staff even can visit those blocked websites with quite quick speed.
You hv made this conclusion based on assumption that we donot know the opinions outside of China. Censorship is unwise, but it does not mean we have been isolated. GFW is like a 'Tom and Jerry' game...it is annoying.
Are you sure you know all angles?
My friend in USA emailed me today, she told me they, overseas Chinese, had posted some video chips on youtube to support Beijing, but all those chips have been deleted by unknown reason. See, censorship is everywhere, different extent. Now all Tibet chips on youtube are criticizing Beijing.
Therefore, you have only one voice as well on the other side of ocean.
This discussion seems to be forever...this one may be my last post here. Thanks for so many people kind contributions, Some comments have enriched my knowledge, especially the ones about western philosophy and Slate website, Thanks. emm...I know some of you have tried to persuade me to change my viewpoint... i may change my opinion on other topics, But not this one: the unification of China.