There was a pro-independence Uyghur site from someone that was a former resident of that region (which I can no longer) find that described the situation in a nuanced way that I think is at least relevant to both the Danish and the Arab response to this situation. The writer (again fiercely Uyghur) described the Chinese destruction of Uyghur Xinjiang as well as Tibet as not so much a willful destructiveness but rather an inability to understand that there are other cultures that value things differently than they do. In other words, the Chinese authorities couldn’t understand why anybody would want those rickety old buildings in the goofy foreign style, or why people wouldn’t want to speak the same wonderful language as everybody in Beijing. In doing what they were doing they believed that they were helping these people, at least to some degree. As many problems as we have in the United States one that we don’t have is homogeneity of culture. In one-culture places like Denmark or some Arab states, one is never confronted on a daily basis with people who are part of “another group”. As such there is some sort of blind spot to overcome which is on an instinctive, not intellectual level. The Danish president showed a clear lack of understanding in this regard, as do many of the more radical Arab “protesters”. Having never spent much time in direct contact with very different people they have difficulty allowing other ideas, even ones that are offensive, the space to "be wrong"? I hope that makes some kind of sense...
Those Chinese people were not that smart, to figure out a systematic plan to play the superior role of Han-Chinese or any culture. Those were most moronic people in a crazy crazy time. Yes, they did lots of harm to people in Tibet and other minorities in China. But it's not like they were targeting them for some ethnic cleansing. The biggest demage they did, was towards Han-Chinese, the 90%+ average Chinese, the whole Chinese culture and tradition. The most vicious fights and oppressing happened among those communists. The president was called traitor and put into prison, tortured to death. So were those generals, including those defeated the Nationalists and Americans. Almost all of the high school students were sent to farm. Almost all of the professors and doctors were sent for "re-education" by the farmers and factory workers. Whatever art pieces left were destroyed. It wasn't something targeting Tibetans. Yes, they suffered, but with other Chinese in that particular time. People only care that Communists took control of Tibet. But they never mind that it was a slavery society before. Those who live in the other end of the world just decide that Tibetans prefer to be a slave than live under CCP regime. Yes, some of the rebels got pressed and killed; yes, some religious and culture costume were violated during those years. But that's not ethnic oriented systematic destruction. But never mind that central government funded Tibet with tons of money and support, never mind the population has grown rapidly after the LIBERATION. Yes, anything replaces slavery is liberation, even it was from the damn communists. One might not understand or believe, as bad as Chinese human rights record is, comparing to average Han-Chinese, it's a Privilege to be a minority in China. They can have two children despite the one-child policy; they get more government support for education; they can go to top schools with much lower marks. The list can go on and on. yes, it's propaganda oriented. But it's also fact, that they were not treated worse than average Chinese.
...this is another discussion - but it's also a fact that many of these benefits, when granted, are offeset and then some by a myriad of other discriminatory factors both official and unofficial. It's also a fact that because of this the winners in the economic development of regions like Xinjiang & Tibet have overwhelmingly been recent Han Chinese immigrants who the government has resettled there.
Thank you for your completely erroneous and unsolicited diagnosis. And thanks in advance for any you might offer in the future.
I can understand your point of view. But from the Chinese government point of view, especially after the rebel, the best thing for them is that Han Chinese and people in Tibet and Xinjiang can live peacefully together. As you know, Chinese tradition is "you don't go far away if your parents are still alive". Only those losers like me go overseas Therefore, Chinese never had any systematic migration and settling plans. In Tibet, it could be a start, of course in the name of supporting them. I see that as a good move and legit one, which should bring people together. Of course, you will think differently if you consider Chinese as conquers. But really, if you know how average Han Chinese were treated in those places, that's really some poor and pathetic conquers to be. That's my beef with Chinese government all the time, they just treat foreigners and minorities better than average Chinese, simply because they believe it's good for their control over the whole people. Speaking of so-called winners of economic developments, I believe most of them worked to achieve that. You know, those first group of "settlers" were educated professionals, skilled workers, and they just followed the party to support their Tibetan brothers and sisters. For them, it was a huge sacrifice to make, due to different life style and living standard. I had friends were children of those "settlers" as well. All the financial aids and benefits the central government provided were to ease the tension and help the region, similar to what US and Canadian governments do to allow native Americans to open casinos.
Oh no! We can't offend muslims!!! STFU and get over yourselves... the "worst" of these cartoons were actually created by MUSLIMS to help FUEL THE FIRE. Now excuse me while I go read about more CHRISTIAN churches being burned and no riots happening, and I guess while I am at it I'll go read up on how Israel should be wiped off the map... and yet again, no riots or silly deaths to go along with it. And you honestly wonder why the vast majority of people can't stand the Muslim faith?
When I see statements like this I begin to have a deeper understanding of why some people can't stand the Muslim faith. It is because they are ignorant and prone to stereo-type and over generalizating an entire faith based on the actions of some of its members. I think it is wrong that people are becoming violent over this. I think it is wrong that some people are blaming entire nations for what a some journalists did. I think it is wrong to print more offensive cartoons to try and trick folks into being more angry. I think all of those things are wrong, but I also applaude those that were offended and publically and loudly called for peace. I understood that even the largest violent protests numbered in the hundreds so that it couldn't possibly be the majority of the religion out there acting violently. I also would never make a statement that the majority can't stand the Muslim faith, since that almost certainly isn't true, and there isn't a study or poll anywhere to back that up. As for Israel and Muslims I don't support the Palestinians that don't want there to be an Israel, nor do I support the Israelis that vowed never to recognize a Palestinian state regardless of who was their leader. Svpernaut's post was a real low point.
I have the great idea to solve all this. people who all hate each other gather somewhere, no weapons. and just beat each other up. then we send a b2 bomber and take them all out. then we'd rid the world of all the haters.
i was gonna say something but the fact of the matter is that supernut is a real low point period. does he ever say anything that isn't totally asinine?
Yes, it was a good article. But the funny thing is that the NYT has no qualms about showing a picture of the dung-encrusted Virgin Mary but is too afraid to show the Danish cartoons.
The last scentence is what I was referring to. Please look and see what my own feelings are about the violence over the issue.
c'mon gwayneco, the virgin mary piece has a serious provenance from major venues worldwide. it has been published over and over again ad nauseum. it is not the same thing as showing some bad illustrations of questionable taste. the times knew, for an absolute fact, that the virgin mary pictures would not cause violence to ensue. the same cannot be guaranteed had they republished the danish cartoons. they chose to report what was going on without stirring the pot. they were using their editorial judgement.
There HAS been systematic official migration to re-settle ethnic Hans in Tibet over the last decade or so for both political and economic reasons. The incentives offered by the government to immigrating Hans include altitude allowance, remoteness bonus, tax concessions, fewer hours, longer holiday - etc. Professional and official wages are the highest in China and are made up of over 30% bonuses. Also there is a huge array of military bases in the region with current and former officers and men offered incentives to settle down in Tibet after their service ends. A lot of these official policies basically cancel out the pro-minority policies that the Tibetans get and more - not to mention the unofficial discrimination that occurs. The policy has been spectacularly successful and the result is that the Tibetans are now a minority in their own homeland, and this factored with many other developments (for example Tibetan children are taught chinese in state schools, not tibetan) it is not hard to understand why Tibetans feel their culture is under assualt. Yeah, but walk around downtown Lhasa and see how many stores are owned by Tibetans now as compared to 10-15 years ago - then you understand why Tibetans don't feel like they're being helped very much. I'm sure many of the settlers worked hard, but similiarly, I doubt many of the party officials & connected individuals who are gettingrelatviely rich in Xinjiang and Tibet at the expense of rural natives worked any harder to achieve it any more so than party officials in traditionally Han provinces, unfortunately. The same thing is happening in Xinjiang with the "Go West" policy - see kashgar now before the bulldozers come in.
Sam, I absolutely understand your point. But you cut off my original reply regarding settler part. I actually said that Chinese started systematic settling program in Tibet. I understand that native Tibetans wouldn't be too happy about that, but I also understand it from the central government's point of view, not to rob valuable resource from there, but rather to keep it a controlled place. Same thing for Xingjiang, with Turkey's support, some native want sort of independency, not the semi-self-ruled destrict as the central government is controlling now. It has nothing to do with religion, communist or capitalist, no government would yield on that ground. As you said, now the majority in those areas are Han Chinese, so there is less danger for a rebel or anything. I understand the way it is. Speaking of corrupted officials taking advantage of normal people, you have to realize that is not targeted at native Tibetans. Corruption is a big problem in China, they actually demage average Han Chinese the most, simply because they are the majority. Those ones getting rich really fast, not only in places like Tibet, but also in Shanghai and Beijing, were those ones in real estate business, and you know it's the best example of collaboration between money and power. Before I further derail this thread, all I want to say is that Chinese never target any ethnic minorities. The suffer you mentioned for native Tibetans, average Han Chinese Wang or Li suffers at the same time and degree, if not even more.
I agree, I don't think we differ on this point. I think we also agree on this point, I think you misunderstood my response: in terms of corruption, the Tibetans aren't any worse off than ethnic Han in other provinces, particularly ones in rural areas in southern china (where many of the recent anti-corruption civil disturbances have happened). I think they do suffer to the same degree with respect to some things, but the difference is, putting aside the political oppression, etc - the average Han doesn't have to worry about his culture, language, traditions dying out to the same extent that the Tibetans do.
