China's Xinjiang 'still ethnically divided'

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
the problems of Uygurs and Tibetan now is that they are over-protected by privileges and preferential treatments ,such as all kinds of " the reserved quotas for the minority" and the exempt of trivial crimes and one kid policy".

CCP has provided such prvilieges and preferential treatments to almost all the minorities ,including UYghurs and Tibetans, since 1980s.

However, such over-protection doesn't make Uygurs and Tibet "go up",but to have made them lose competitiveness in career makets,just as cage-protection makes panda lose the capacity to survive in wild areas.


As one indians ,you should know exactly why "the reserve quotas of caste" works little.
How generous,Indians know how reserve quotas work but the difference is they are used in India not in usurped territories.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
And Obama?

Now, do we have a Uighur President or Premier of China?
the problem here is why there is no black President until Obama...over 10% of USA's citizens are the black...


BTW,well, Uyghur has only 0.005% of CHinese total population while the black has over 10% of USA's total population.

so, the chance is quite slim that one Uighurs president or pM of CHIna appears....hahaha
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Now, do we have a Uighur President or Premier of China?
Saifuddin Azizi - close to your mentioned position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saifuddin_Azizi (March 12, 1915 – November 24, 2003)
He was a vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the First through Seventh National People's Congress and an alternate member of the Political Bureau of the 10th and 11th CPC Central Committee.[4] From 1993 to 1998, he served as a vice-chairman of the CPPCC National Committee.
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797
the problem here is why there is no black President until Obama...over 10% of USA's citizens are the black...


BTW,well, Uyghur has only 0.005% of CHinese total population while the black has over 10% of USA's total population.

so, the chance is quite slim that one Uighurs president or pM of CHIna appears....hahaha

No need to seek western approval if Chinese are happy with the system let it remain as such all this politically correct sh!t does not help a country to progress its only hardwork and determination.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
the problem here is why there is no black President until Obama...over 10% of USA's citizens are the black...


BTW,well, Uyghur has only 0.005% of CHinese total population while the black has over 10% of USA's total population.

so, the chance is quite slim that one Uighurs president or pM of CHIna appears....hahaha
What a pathetic reply.

10% means a perfect 10 and Uighurs are only .005!!

Both are minorities and cannot ensure that they can overrule the majority!!

And yet this minority can claim that they had a Black President since the majority voted for the minority.

It speaks well of the US White population's mindset and lack of racial arrogance unlike China's narrow chauvinism and racial arrogance.

In India, Sikhs are a minuscule and yet we have had a President and the current PM, apart from Chief of the Army and also the Air Force. And they are only 1.9% of the population.

You may like to rethink your 'Ha ha ha',

I think it is rather misplaced and smack of arrogance, to put it as politely as I can.

I concede that Hans or those who feel they are Hans have arrogance instilled in their genes by years of indoctrination and wiping away of non Han bloodlines.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Saifuddin Azizi - close to your mentioned position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saifuddin_Azizi (March 12, 1915 – November 24, 2003)
That is indeed remarkable by Chinese standards.

Just imagine this man is allowed a seat with the Hans!!

I am sure he is more powerful than the Premier or the President of China.

The Peoples National Congress is constitutionally the highest state organ of power in China. The first Congress was elected in 1954 in accordance with the constitution of that year. Thereafter, it met every year, and was newly elected every five years. Between its sessions, its business was run by a permanent committee. In theory, the government was responsible to the People's Congress, whose legislative powers were confirmed in the 1982 constitution. In line with other Communist assemblies, however, in practice it remained principally a body of affirmation, not of criticism.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/national-people-s-congress#ixzz1G7ebwMQD
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
No need to seek western approval if Chinese are happy with the system let it remain as such all this politically correct sh!t does not help a country to progress its only hardwork and determination.
The issue is not western approval.

The Chinese society, including the races who were non Han and who were dubbed as 'barbarians' and humiliated and forced to convert/accept Han culture and way of life, are 'happy'. Amen to that.

What is being discussed are the Tibetan and the Uighurs who are also taken to be barbarians and the Hanisation of these people against their will!

That is why there were the riots in Tibet and East Turkmenistan.

Is it being suggested that these people are not within the Chinese pale and are happy?

In this very forum, it was claimed that the Dalai Lama ate young boys etc and how the advent of the Chinese, civilised these barbarians to become human beings and economically mobile.

if subjugation is progress and determination, then Han Chinese are indeed achieving that!
 

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
The issue is not western approval.

The Chinese society, including the races who were non Han and who were dubbed as 'barbarians' and humiliated and forced to convert/accept Han culture and way of life, are 'happy'. Amen to that.

What is being discussed are the Tibetan and the Uighurs who are also taken to be barbarians and the Hanisation of these people against their will!

That is why there were the riots in Tibet and East Turkmenistan.

Is it being suggested that these people are not within the Chinese pale and are happy?

In this very forum, it was claimed that the Dalai Lama ate young boys etc and how the advent of the Chinese, civilised these barbarians to become human beings and economically mobile.

if subjugation is progress and determination, then Han Chinese are indeed achieving that!
India was behind the riots in Tibetan and Uighurs.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
India was behind the riots in Tibetan and Uighurs.
Have you ever been to Pakisatan and bitten by a pakistani canine.Your statement sound like a typical pakistani which sees Indian hand in almost everything . someone dies its Indian hand someone is born and that also has Indian hand in it.

Mod Edit

Please moderate your language.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Uighurs have no connection with India.

Their leader lives in the US.

Tibetans are on their own and India merely gives the refuge.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
If by giving reservation and quotas to the minorities in China and it is ruining the competitive spirit of the minorities like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, it could also be correct to assume that because they are getting everything in a plate, they will not be able to compete for jobs and will be unemployed.

In India, there are reservations and quota for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes for everything including jobs and promotions. So, even if they don't have competitiveness, they still come out the winner!
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Despite the negatives for quotas and reservations China should've allocated more to minorities especially in education. Let more and more minority students have access to better facilities in advanced provinces mingling with people of different backgrounds, and bail them out of shadow of religious bigotry or subnationalism, and to cultivate the sense of "über alles Vaterland" by identifying themselves with Chinese first.

At a glimpse of Saifuddin Azizi's profile (I read his memoir before), one can easily realize how foreign powers tried to fish in the trouble waters when China was in chaos

Azizi was born and belonged to an influential Artux Uyghur trader family. He attended school in Xinjiang, and then the Central Asia Political Institute in Tashkent.[1] As a student, Azizi was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and a leader in the movement to create the First and Second East Turkestan Republics. After participating in the Ili Rebellion but still witnessing the People's Liberation Army's dismantling invasion of Xinjiang, he switched his allegiance to the Communist Party of China and accepted an invitation from the United Front of the People's Republic of China to create a new Chinese government.[2] He held the position of Minister of Education in the Second East Turkestan Republic and headed the second delegation of ETR Government to Beijing, that participated in ceremony of proclamation of People's Republic of China on October 01, 1949. In December 1949- January 1950 he accompanied Mao Zedong in his trip to Moscow and here on December 27, 1949 , he quit Communist Party of USSR and joined Communist Party of China in accordance with recommendation of Mao Ze Dong himself.
 
Last edited:

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
If by giving reservation and quotas to the minorities in China and it is ruining the competitive spirit of the minorities like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, it could also be correct to assume that because they are getting everything in a plate, they will not be able to compete for jobs and will be unemployed.

In India, there are reservations and quota for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes for everything including jobs and promotions. So, even if they don't have competitiveness, they still come out the winner!
well, the most $hitty policy is that CCP in fact gave up the compulsory education of mandarin in Uyghurs and tibtan areas after 1980s.

the consequence is that lots of young Uyghurs and Tibetan lose competitiveness in career market and are marginalized ,because they can not read/write Mandarin/Chinese scripts well.


the combination of the reservation and quotas+the giving-up of mandarin educaiton is a big failure. it ruined the competitiveness of Uyghurs and Tibetans.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
It is always über nationalism bordering on blind jingoism to strut around and wave their right hand in Nazi salute and shout slogans 'Sieg Heil!' that leads to expansionism and the quest for lebensraum! And the consequent resultant is War!

Subnationalism can always be curbed, to some extent, by goosestepping and howling "Vaterland über alles ", but it can never be wiped out. Even if Nazi Germany, apart from the Untermensch and Mischling, and the supremacy of the Herrenvolk of the Volksgemeins, subnationalism was still rampant - Prussians, Sorbs of Saxony and Brandenburg, Slavs, Rheinlandbastard,, Juden and so on and so forth.

In the olden days, when China was not under the international microscope, the Hans were able to forcibly assimilate as through humiliation the 'barbarians' of the North, South, East and West.

Today, it is different. Tibetans and Uyghurs are fighting for their identity, religion, culture and custom and doing so in the full glare of international scrutiny and with a world that is sensitive to human rights, genocides etc etc!! They cannot be 'assimilated' as the Han Chinese had done earlier throughout history. That is the reality.

However, to be fair to the Chinese, if the Tibetan and Uyghurs are allowed a free hand and do not get assimilated, it might give rise to other minorities to follow suit and that would lead to chaos. CCP does not appreciate unrest. It prefers an orderly way of life that does not create headaches for the CCP or allow the situation to reach a state where the CCP itself becomes irrelevant.

In so far as Azizi is concerned, his CV is so similar to all social climbers who seeks the limelight by sniffing how the wind blows! Hardly a person who could be taken to be reliable and instead appears to be fickle as the wind. But then such lotus eaters are all over the world!
 

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
I think the problem in Tibet and Xingjiang is people to land ratio. There are only 2 people per square KM in Tibet and only 10 people per square KM in Xingjiang. That is why Chinese government spent a lot of money in these two provinces and it did not produce too much economy improvement. If you build 10 km subway in Shanghai, 1 million people will benefit. If you build 10 km subway in Tibet, only 1 people will benefit.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
The fundamental difference between India and China is that China is a nation-state while India is not. Keep in mind that the definition of a "nation" is NOT synonomous with "country". A "nation" is any community of people with shared characteristics. Some nations don't have states, such as the Jewish people before the creation of Israel. Nations that do have states, and dominate that state, are called "nation-states". An example would be Bangladesh, where 98% of the population are Bengalis. Similarly, China is also a nation-state with over 90% of its population being Han.

India, on the other hand, is not a nation-state. There are literally hundreds of nations that make up India, from Telugus to Punjabis to Gurkhas. India is a civilization-state, where its people, despite having regional cultural differences, are all members of the unique Indic civilization. China is also a civilization-state in addition to a nation-state, because the Sinic civilization, for the most part, is self-contained in China.

Most other nation-states are parts of much larger civilizations. Take for example France, Italy, and Spain. All have their unique cultures, but they also share important civilizational aspects with one another, such as the Roman Catholic religion and languages based on Latin. The legacy of this "Western" civilization can be ultimately traced back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

So, in general, we see the hierarchy of identity as something like this:
Civilization/Culture -> Country/State -> Nation/Ethnicity -> Class -> Family -> Self


What China is trying to do is bring seperate nations (Uighurs, Tibetans) under the sphere of Han civilization; more specifically, under the sphere of the Han nation-state. It can do this because the vast majority of its population are Han, and the assimilation of such small minorities into the mainstream is not only possible but also desirable. As Sir Ray has pointed out many times, much of the history of China was the history of Han cultural imperialism, as Han civilization spread from its original home in the Yellow River Valley to occupy much of the land that is today China.

India, on the other hand, does not follow the policy of cultural nationalism that is prevalent in nation-states like China, but rather liberal pluralism. Each Indian "nation", if you will, is part of the much bigger whole that is India and Indian civilization. India does not seek to assimilate its people into one, but preserve diversity with unity.
 

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
The fundamental difference between India and China is that China is a nation-state while India is not. Keep in mind that the definition of a "nation" is NOT synonomous with "country". A "nation" is any community of people with shared characteristics. Some nations don't have states, such as the Jewish people before the creation of Israel. Nations that do have states, and dominate that state, are called "nation-states". An example would be Bangladesh, where 98% of the population are Bengalis. Similarly, China is also a nation-state with over 90% of its population being Han.

India, on the other hand, is not a nation-state. There are literally hundreds of nations that make up India, from Telugus to Punjabis to Gurkhas. India is a civilization-state, where its people, despite having regional cultural differences, are all members of the unique Indic civilization. China is also a civilization-state in addition to a nation-state, because the Sinic civilization, for the most part, is self-contained in China.

Most other nation-states are parts of much larger civilizations. Take for example France, Italy, and Spain. All have their unique cultures, but they also share important civilizational aspects with one another, such as the Roman Catholic religion and languages based on Latin. The legacy of this "Western" civilization can be ultimately traced back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

So, in general, we see the hierarchy of identity as something like this:
Civilization/Culture -> Country/State -> Nation/Ethnicity -> Class -> Family -> Self


What China is trying to do is bring seperate nations (Uighurs, Tibetans) under the sphere of Han civilization; more specifically, under the sphere of the Han nation-state. It can do this because the vast majority of its population are Han, and the assimilation of such small minorities into the mainstream is not only possible but also desirable. As Sir Ray has pointed out many times, much of the history of China was the history of Han cultural imperialism, as Han civilization spread from its original home in the Yellow River Valley to occupy much of the land that is today China.

India, on the other hand, does not follow the policy of cultural nationalism that is prevalent in nation-states like China, but rather liberal pluralism. Each Indian "nation", if you will, is part of the much bigger whole that is India and Indian civilization. India does not seek to assimilate its people into one, but preserve diversity with unity.

How come we saw Muslim and Hindu conflicts in India? We also saw Sikim exploded Air India 747.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
How come we saw Muslim and Hindu conflicts in India? We also saw Sikim exploded Air India 747.
Do you even understand what you are posting, or are you just posting because you have the prilvelige to do so?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
How come we saw Muslim and Hindu conflicts in India? We also saw Sikim exploded Air India 747.
Sikkim exploded Air India 747?

Hmmm, I have no idea why Sikkim exploded Air India 747. We need to ask the Sikkimese why they did it, and most importantly when. Do you know, when?


Mod Edit

:) :) :) :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top