Daily Review: By now, you’ve probably heard of the continuing ethnic violence that took hold of Urumqi, China over the past weekend.
In short, riots broke out where a lot of Uighurs (the ethnic minority) attacked a lot of Han (the ethnic majority) people and businesses. Clashes with police ensued and there have been horrific deaths and casualties from both sides. Yesterday, a group of Han residents even decided to band together to go on a vengeful counter-attack, but were largely put down by the Chinese police forces who, thank god, had the good sense to do so. As usual, the Western media is generally spinning the the story as the oppressed minority being fed up while the Chinese media is spinning this as evil foreigners trying to destabilize China from within. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.
As such, the recommended reading for today’s Daily Review come from Will Moss of Imagethief and Jeremiah Jenne of Jottings from the Granite Studio, exemplars of seeking and sharing that truth in the middle.
In “Riots in Xingjiang, and the price of omission” as published in the wee hours of this morning, Will wrote:
The Chinese government’s approach to communication in this case draws from a playbook that will be familiar to anyone who followed the Tibetan rioting last year. Evil external forces are directly indicted. Graphic images of rampaging minorities and bloody Han predominate. Horror is expressed by a mix of victimized Han and the ethnic group involved. There are elements of truth in this narrative that should be respected. Innocent Han who committed no crime other than living in Urumqi are being attacked. There are no doubt Uighurs who are completely horrified by the rioting, and who were injured in the riots. It’s possible that Ms. Kadeer’s World Uighur Congress encouraged at least a demonstration even if not actual rioting, especially considering the recent unfortunate attack on Uighur laborers in south China. There are almost certainly “terrorists” in Xinjiang.
But the missing from this official story, as it was missing from official reports on the Tibetan riots, is any acknowledgment that Uighurs in general might have legitimate grievances. Grievances about the influx of ethnic Han, the relative lack of economic opportunity, demolition of their traditional cities, limitations on their right to freely practice their religion, or whatever.
That’s a serious omission because, while it is made with an eye on propagating an official story of the spread of development and prosperity, it comes with a long-term price: it inflames the very tensions it attempts to paper over. And it, with marvelous efficiency, it inflames them on both sides. Uighurs are given the impression that their concerns are considered unworthy of acknowledgment by the State, a situation that is a classic recipe for convincing people to take extreme measures. Other Chinese, meanwhile, are deprived of any context for the riots, which feeds into a colonial attitude toward Uighurs that I have experienced firsthand. If you believe that you have given a people nothing but development and progress and economic opportunity, and they rise up against you, then you will come to see them as at best treacherous and untrustworthy and at worst as less than human, with predictable consequences. Legitimate grievances or not, the riots are almost certainly doing terrible damage to the Uighur cause in China.
Emphasis mine, and emphasized because this is particularly incisive towards understanding the psychology of Han Chinese reactions to this incident. In speaking with many local Chinese, the attitude that ethnic minorities are untrustworthy because they enjoy so much yet still cause trouble is pervasive, and often the only “reason” these Han Chinese can cite for “why” these ethnic minorities are causing trouble is “they just want independence.”
The fact that many Han Chinese lack greater understanding of ethnic minority grievances and the nuances of these grievances is particularly frustrating. While there will always be ignorance and oversimplification, Will is absolutely correct in pointing out how the government’s official story not only fails to acknowledge these grievances but also fails to address them. Doing so would bring a more complete, nuanced, and actionable appreciation for just what the hell the problem is to the Han Chinese throughout the rest of the country. Not doing so continues to engender and facilitate Han ignorance and emotional, racial, ethnic stereotyping and resentment.
Interestingly enough, this is the same mistake that the Chinese often accuse the Western media for. How often have the Chinese critics of Western media assailed it for not presenting more complete, balanced, or nuanced narratives about China? How often have they been attacked for fostering or allowing the persistence of anti-China and anti-Chinese attitudes in the West?
Jeremiah echoes Will’s thoughts in “Ethnic Tensions, Mad Libs, and other dysfunctional relationships“:
The other problem with the CCP response, especially the heavy emphasis on ‘benefits for the benighted’ is that not that they can’t seem to find a new script to run, but that they’re plagiarizing the one they’re using now.
Modernization? Economic benefits? Liberation from the yoke of tradition and backwards superstition? Schools? Hospitals? Civilization? Yep…sounds awfully like the justifications used by Europeans in the 19th century treaty ports, and the shocked response by the Han when faced with collective resistance to their presence is eerily reminiscent of the hurt and outrage expressed by Europeans in the wake of the Tianjin Massacre of 1870 or the Boxer Rebellion.
(On a side note, the US government has also tried running this play for the past six years with similar mixed success. Attacks on US troops in Iraq are blamed on ‘outside forces’ seeking to destabilize a ‘democratic Iraq,’ rather than acknowledging the depth of resistance and fear which exists among many Iraqis. As I said recently during a talk on the Tianjin Massacre, what the 19th century US press lambasted as ”The heathen forces of barbarism and xenophobia” we now politely call “insurgencies.”)
Collective violence is a funny thing. Grievances, hatreds, jealousies, and resentment can linger in the collective consciousness for a long time without being expressed through bloodshed, but the longer it simmers the more extreme the reaction when the barrier is breached and violence enters the repertoire of resistance.
I personally found the wanton violence on the part of the rioters in Urumqi to be abhorrent. But it’s also important to remember, as too many people in the United States failed to do in the aftermath to 9-11, that seeking to understand WHY somebody would commit acts of violence is NOT the same thing as condoning those acts.
Again, emphasis mine. Jeremiah’s last sentence is key, as seeking to understand the reasons for why anyone does anything is definitely not diminishing, excusing, or justifying whatever is being done. Only by understanding what’s actually going on, even if that is in the hearts and heads of those involved, can we even begin to map out what can be done in response, to fight or solve or heal.
Jeremiah also, of course, brings some humbling historical and cross-cultural perspective in his post, because the same rhetoric we lambast the Chinese government for trotting out yet again really isn’t that unique to the Chinese (though arguably they have an uncanny knack for making such rhetoric ring so ridiculously in Western ears). Fundamentally, this isn’t Chinese rhetoric or Chinese thinking or Chinese attitudes, it’s actually the rhetoric, thinking, and attitude of anyone, any country, any society that has put themselves in this kind of situation.
We’re all the same after all, eh?
-
What does American media’s coverage of the 2008 Lhasa Tibetan riots vs. 2009 Urumqi Uighur riots tell us about Americans? Can Uighur activists engage in spin?
-
“The only thing that can convince rioters to take to the streets and act violently is…Old People. Usually from abroad.” Josh from Cup of Cha jokes...
-
Several days ago, ESWN posted a translation of a Tianya post titled “What is the reason China’s younger generation is losing confidence in the Western...
Urumqi vs. Lhasa News, Uighurs vs. Iranians, Progaganda & Spin 
Quote: Josh on Why Urumqi Uighurs Rioted 
Chinese Youth on Western Media: A Diversity of Opinion 
I don’t get random acts of violence. The person you kill might be your enemy and shit, they might have even wronged you, but for all you know, they also might be your child’s favorite teacher, the person who bakes the best fuckin cake in the world, the only electrician who woulda given you the best price for fixin your damn TV, the person who helped your mom with her groceries, the father of the kid your child will grow up and fall in love with. I know people have their value whether their lives are connected to mine or not, but I live with the idea, always in the back of my mind, that they might be connected with me, in an important and good way, and I don’t want to mess with that.
Xinhua published very graphic photos of this destruction.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/07/content_11668474_8.htm
Disturbing.
“As such, the recommended reading for today’s Daily Review come from Will Moss of Imagethief and Jeremiah Jenne of Jottings from the Granite Studio, exemplars of seeking and sharing that truth in the middle.”
You just trumped the post I was working on with that sentence. I suppose I should thank you.
That picture is shocking, btw. Those of a sensitive disposition should avert their gaze.
I’m tempted to ask, which legitimate Uigher grievances have not been addressed at the policy level? Let’s take a look at the ones listed in the blog posts:
- the influx of ethnic Han: Since when limiting mobility rights within the same country, esp. in the context of Ethno-sectarian separation, becomes legitimate? Aren’t the same group of people often criticizing China of its Hu Kou regulations?
- the relative lack of economic opportunity: Free lunch does exist?
- demolition of their traditional cities: I bet everyone loves bigger homes than smaller ones. The real reason for the resistance, I suspect, lies in somewhere else, e.g., fearing the sectarian strongholds being diluted and dispersed.
- limitations on their right to freely practice their religion: the nation has the responsibility to regulate the religions, esp. those less tolerant of the others and non-believers. As a rule in China and elsewhere, if the religions back off from the politics, the politics will back off from the religions.
- or whatever: What, ever?
I’ve been involved into multiple discussions with a few ethnic Uighers on their grievances. I asked directly what their main complaints are and what in their opinion can be done to resolve the issue. The three main complaints, I was told, are:
- It’s their land. Han people should speak their language, otherwise must leave.
- It’s their land. They should get the majority of the oil money, regardless of who digs the well and who pumps the oil.
- It’s their land. Han people look down on them, that’s unacceptable.
I didn’t agree and couldn’t help with the third issue, instead asked if the following compromises were acceptable:
- Progressive bonus for multi-lingual government workers and school teachers, aiming at eventually requiring all of them to be at least bi-lingual.
- Similar to ASRC, put a certain percentage (e.g., 10-20%) of the oil field stocks into a non-trade mutual fund, then transfer the ownership of the fund to the local people, regardless of the ethnicity.
They didn’t respond, and refused to respond to my questions ever since. That’s when I came to the conclusion that in their ideal world, the best case scenario is not multiple ethnicity peacefully sharing Xinjiang but something else. If it’s not total independence, it’s pretty close.
In my view publicly acknowledging Uigher’s grievances is quite a naive way to resolve the issue. If you’ve ever haggled with a Uigher you’d know it. Hu Yaobang (sometimes referred by many Nationalist netizens as Hu Luanbang, 胡乱邦, a.k.a. messing up the county) failed miserably on this. Furthermore, it’s not like Israel and Palestine don’t understand each others’ points. They are too close and have been fighting for too long not to see the other side’s story. However, there are things that simply cannot be compromised on both sides.
IMO the only viable solution to the Xinjiang issue, same as the Tibet issue and the Taiwan issue, is to letting the history run its natural course. Riots like this aren’t going to be significant in the long run. And the sky isn’t falling, so relax and move on.
I’m going to reserve my personal thoughts for a later time, but I’m REALLY interested in hearing what people think about this.
CnInDC,
You hit a few nailheads. I often struggle to justify a “middle ground” to Chinese on this issue. But maybe the Uighers you dealt with were boneheads, those demands are bullshit.
- I use to work with a pretty smart Uigher guy at a think tank, he also once worked for the UN and he said the public service in Xinjiang wouldnt touch him with a stick. So he was big on pushing the “discrimination in the work force” point.
- The only problem is that the Han do almost universially treat them like shit. I usually hate political correctness, but China needs some.
- The other problem is the unofficial policies to flood Tibet and Xinjiang with Han to shore up legitimacy.
But there are pissed off and discriminated minorities everywhere, doesnt mean you should randomly hack at strangers with knives on buses.
- Han universally treat Uighers like shit? Not based on my experience as well as many other Han people who ever had any direct contacts with them. The universal attitude, based on my experience, is fear. Han wouldn’t want to be close to any of them and get into trouble. Han do universally treat beggers and pocketpickers like shit, but even that does not apply to Uigher ones. Refer to this link: http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/07/08/two-restraints-one-leniency-a-backfiring-minority-policy-on-all/
- The Uighers I talked to were elite Uigher students studying in the US. They, by their own choice, went to regular Chinese schools to pursue better education opportunities. They speak fluent Chinese, but the hatred is impossible to overlook.
- For historic reasons, there were official policies to flood south of Xinjiang with Han Bing Tuan. I’ve had Han classmates who grew up in Aksu. But these days, most Han go to Xinjiang by their own choices. Government only encourage Han officials to temporarily take shifts in there to shore up the quality of local government.
“…They speak fluent Chinese, but the hatred is impossible to overlook.”
When I wrote the above I had thought the meaning was obvious, that these elite Uighers’ hatred towards Han was obvious. I have no idea where people get the impression that the Chinese hate the Uighers. IMO nope, Chinese generally don’t hate Uighers but consider those diehard extremists annoying and disturbing. They haven’t been significant enough to Chinese as a whole to deserve hatred, like the Japanese did.
If the Uighers really are hated by the Han, I think the hatred is well-deserved. China is certainly no egalitarian paradise, but it does offer many opportunities for people to improve their lives. Unfortunately, few Uighers seem to be exploiting these opportunities. If the Uighers want acceptance from society they should start using Mandarin more widely, take advantage of every educational opportunity available, and work harder to improve their economic situation.
“If the Uighers want acceptance from society they should start using Mandarin more widely, take advantage of every educational opportunity available…”
Irony, surely?
If not, you’re asking a colonised people to embrace the dismantling of their language, religion, and culture. Come to think of it that encapsulates CCP policy in Xinjiang and Tibet.
I often find such attitude towards the indigenous people even more patronizing and annoying than colonization. Who made the decision that the Uighers must always dress in their traditional clothing, speak Uigher all the time, work their tails off all their lives farming that arid land so that their “language, religion, and culture” can be preserved in a living museum?
I bet neither the elite Uigher dissidents nor the rioters on the streets want this. Quite a few of them, if I understand correctly, dream of a middle east style oil rich power, where money just shower from the sky so they can enjoy all the amenities of the modern world without hardworking. Not going to happen, I’m afraid.
Moreover, isn’t their “language, religion, and culture” always changing with the time? Years ago when I sat as the only Han student in the Russian 101 elective class, my fellow Uigher and Khasack students eagerly explained to the professor which Russian vocabulary was how close to their languages. What’s so wrong to transform a few Chinese words into their daily vocabulary? Is the Islam religion close to extinction? I don’t think so. Then why so gung ho about leaving the mosques alone? Even the British spied on their neighborhood mosques, why can’t the 1984 stereotyped Chinese do the same?
In essence, I believe this is a racial/sectarian violence with economic causes. The difference between this and the riots in Dehli, Paris, and LA is that our cases are more of a growing pain and can be alleviated over time. No use to spin it towards human rights, religious freedom, climate change, eco-preservation, or whatever personal frustrations you’ve got in the west.
Modernization (or for than matter, any life changing matters, like jobs moving out of the country, keeping up with the tech trends, etc.) is indeed painful, but there’s no way around it. Eat the bitterness and work harder you’ll succeed. Take it all out on the others, not helping at all.
“I often find such attitude towards the indigenous people even more patronizing and annoying than colonization.”
Wow! Next you’ll be looking back on the Japanese occupation through rose-tinted glasses.
Or maybe I’ll be calling my home association bylaws (e.g., paint color of the front doors) cultural genocide, the school district superintendent (e.g., Ms. Rhee) Hitler, and Human Rights Watch my neighbors’ kids playing in the toddler lots.
I’m sure culturally-threatened indigenous peoples around the world are secure in knowing that you “find such attitude [of cultural exceptionalism] towards the indigenous people even more patronizing and annoying than colonization.”
Let’s put aside for the moment that the “Han” — that undefinable blob of a tribe, currently masquerading as modernizers and economic do-gooders, are burning Uighur books and forbidding Uighur language (not modern enough, according to the reports). When most educated armchair intellectuals discuss indigenous (read: “poor”, “disenfranchised”) people, it’s not uncommon to hear them say what they know/believe is right for these people.
One of your “Han”, Ma Ying Jeou of Taiwan, said to the indigenous citizens of Taiwan: “I see you as humans and as citizens of this city. I’m going to educate you well and do a good job of providing you with opportunities. That’s the place from which the attitude of aborigines needs to be adjusted…now that you’ve come here, you need to play by the rules here…”
How comforting! Just play by the rules, don’t rock the boat, do as everyone else does, and you’ll be rewarded (with a little trickledown — not anything really significant). Well, I think it’s safe to say that many “indigenous” people would like to have more– more money, more appliances, more stuff. But what they don’t want is to be lumped together with whatever hegemonious nationalist blob is hellbent on reprogramming their cultural hardwiring.
Loss of cultural distinction is the death of its people, for with the loss goes all the dimensions that secure survival of their race. This is sadly an oft-repeated story in the sagas of nation building, and the Uighurs are doing exactly what most other “indigenes” have done — they’re fighting back with whatever means they have.
They’ll probably lose, but they’re not going to lose by lying down and being bulldozed over. As you say CninDC, “Chinese don’t hate Uighurs,” and I’m sure that’s probably true. It’s probably more apt to say that the “Han” colonizers don’t want the Uighurs to go away mad, just go away.
Here comes it again. If you have issues with Ma Ying Jeou, please take it on Ma directly. Why beat the bushes and use the Uighers to carry your cause?
The push for modernization isn’t always an external force. A friend of mine, herself an indigenous Brazilian, takes field trips to Amazon tribes many times a years to learn the local languages and at the same time, teaches the local people Portuguese and skills to survive the outside world. She brought back hand-made soup from the local workshops, which is now vital for the local culture to survive. She tell me the obvious: it’s not like the endangered culture can be vacuum dried and preserved.
And apparently many Uighers understand this too, refer to the following if you read Chinese:
http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2581666.html
Hear! Hear! Another great cultural archivist. I wish the Uighur culture will be standing still for another 2 seconds for you to apply your magic preservation potion or it could have been dead already by now.
Do you happen to know quite some Uighurs defend their cultural distinction by resurrecting the Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law (check out how the rioters execute the Han in Urumqi)? Even among the educated Uighurs, 民考汉(Uighurs receiving Han education) and 民考民(Uighurs receiving Uighur education) disagree a great deal on where to go from here? If you read Chinese check these out:
http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2581666.html
http://blog.ifeng.com/1492969.html
CnInDc, are you a Chinese nationalist? You appear to be going out of your way to prove the Uighurs as serial villains and the Han as hapless victims. Your flimsy attempt to use Sharia law (re your reply below) as a basis of perceived Uighur evil reveals your unmistakable bias.
Everyone is well aware how some Uighurs expressed their extreme displeasure with extreme violence. This wasn’t Sharia law, but just murder. China, on the other hand, executes more people annually than any other nation (not to mention extra-judicial use of torture). These executions far outpace the number of hands and heads chopped off by Uighur executioners.
Second, I’m very familiar with the programs in the deep Amazon to teach tribal leaders to speak Portuguese (reply below), and I’m not at all sure what you’re alluding to with regard to the Uighur situation. Some Brazilians are helping tribal leaders learn Portuguese so they can speak in court on their own behalf and talk to the media to tell the world about what the Brazilian government is doing to them and their environment. Are you suggesting altruistic Chinese implement such schemes to help disaffected Uighurs, Tibetans and Hui?
Finally, your criticism of my using a quote by Taiwan’s Ma Ying Jeou was not to take issue directly with Ma, but to illustrate Han chauvinism. Perhaps, you couldn’t see that for some reason.
An Ma,
I wouldn’t resort to labeling people in order to win a debate, be it nationalist, fen qing, 50 cents party or racist. I would examine their arguments, at least take a look at the links they provided, trying to sort out the facts and rationale, then consider my position, e.g., what does it make me if I accuse a billion more people (e.g., “Han, that undefinable blob of a tribe…”) of chauvinism out of one or two (not quite plausible) examples. Is it possible that I cherrypick two other examples and chauvinize the other 5 billion population left on earth?
I’ve disagreed with CnInDC very strongly before but I do think he makes a good point here that everyone needs to remind themselves of every so often.
We often resort to typecasting people because it’s easier to dismiss them that way, but from a rhetoric standpoint, it’s best to make sure you’re actually able to dismiss their arguments.
I think both of you are bringing up good points. The question is whether or not these equally agreeable points can coexist in an unfair world.
Look, at least the uyghurs should have the decision to keep their culture if they want to. China momentarily shut down the mosques. Is that religious freedom? I think not.
You’re talking an awful lot about the “uyghur elite”. Have you asked the nan-baker or meat seller on the street in Urumqi what they want? Have you been to Urumqi yourself? Do you know that Uyghur children HAVE to learn Chinese to have a chance to succeed in the future and even with that it is extremely rare to have a high-political place as a Uyghur.
Look at Chinese history. A few decades ago, China streamed in Chinese people to Tibet and Xinjiang to mention the two current areas in focus, they payed Han-Chinese families to move so that now they could have a territorial claim to the area. It’s colonization. Just like the Western Empires earlier. But hey, Britain has given up its places now. China has the power not to and therefore wont.
You’re wanting the world to move on even though 16-24 million Uyghurs are out there. (officially 10 million but demographically speaking could be around 16-24).
and you say that Chinese don’t hate the Uyghurs- they do. Just as much as the uyghurs hate the Chinese, except that the Chinese are the Victors so therefore they aren’t reminded of their defeat every day. But Chinese people do not easily associate with Uyghurs in Xinjiang. When I lived there I saw many times Chinese TV shows saying (zui mei li hai shi wo men de Xinjiang – the most beautiful region is still our Xinjiang.) they celebrated how many years Xinjiang has been theirs. And they couldn’t even pronounce “Yaghshemesis” or “Hello” properly in Uyghur. That’s how little they try to understand the Uyghur culture or tradition.
Did you know btw, that husbands, uncles and sons of uyghur families have dissapeared and the families don’t know where they have gone? This is probably due to the Olympics that were happening and China was in fear of riots and also due to the fact that China will be celebrating 60 years in October. Another thing that would stir riots in Xinjiang.
I’m not saying China hasn’t done anything good with Xinjiang and Tibet, some development things are “good” for the region. But how much is that worth compared to the freedom and rights of millions of people?
Stalin used Gulags – labour camps. And China still does! What kind of time are we living in? The people put in these hardly have a fair trial either, often none at all.
Turkey’s primeminister said to stop buying Chinese products and now China’s telling him to take that back. The thing is, one country can’t get China to stop because China has such a hold on today’s market. China is writing its own history currently. They choose which facts to reveal. Initially in these riots they claimed that there were only 6 dead, then when they saw that BBC had claimed 160 dead, they changed it to 154 and that’s what they’re sticking to now. and that’s only in Urumqi. We have no information regarding what’s happening in Kashgar and all those other regions.
I agree with Richard’s comment (bottom of page), to find a middle ground truth we have to include all narratives. Not just Western and Chinese but Uyghur too.
Exactly what I would have said.
I’m not saying anyone on here has suggested this, but…
How do people compare the situation between Tibetans and Uyghurs? I’m getting a vibe about a double-standard, with the same people who support Tibetans not supporting Uyghurs, even though their situations, though not identical, are strikingly similar; their complaints about the Chinese government and the Han ethnicity are certainly almost the same.
So, what’s up with that?
I think the Tibetans didn’t deserve the sympathy in the first place.
But then I’m also interested to know how people compare the Dalai Lama with the Pope as well as the organized religious establishments behind them. A colleague told me when John Paul II visited Belgium his friends showed up on the streets all wearing T-shirt printed “He CUMs!” and that was considered cool. When the Catholic churches in the US was deep in the sexual abuse scandals they got little sympathy from the public. But then the Dalai Lama was received as if he discovered a new gospel. In essence, these two are quite similar in many ways.
Reminds me of the Chinese idiom, 外来的和尚好念经, or, Monks from afar chant better.
If reader’s comments in major international papers reporting on the riots are any indication, there’s a noticeable anti-Uighur sentiment prevailing. Is this a reflection of a broader anti-Islamic sentiment? This probably has something to do with it, coupled with a lot of general moralising about how bad these people are to have done what they had done.
It’s so easy for the media to fan these flames, since they sell newspapers — or adspace on their websites. This mentality is the same kind of blarney you see in old Hollywood movie portrayals of non-white races: Indians will burn your home and massacre your wife and children; Chinese will stab you in the back and sell your daughters into slavery; Jews will rip you off and diddle with your sons.
Unlike the Uighurs, the Tibetans have H.H. Dalai Lama, a charismatic and inclusive person, who manages to draw attention to Tibet’s plight extremely well. If the Uighurs had their own DL, perhaps there’d more more sympathy for them–but it doesn’t help them when Xinhua, the US and British press say “Uighur” and “Taliban” or Al-Qaeda” in the same breath.
An Ma, you’re wrong: they have Rebiya Kadeer. That’s right, the mother of 11 children is out there to prove how China is forcing its one-child policy on the Uighurs. Surely she’s charismatic enough to promote the Uighur cause. I mean, it’s obvious that the photo of Sishou is something planned by CCP. And it’s obvious that she became a high official of CCP to promote the Uighur cause – after all, that’s what the “Mother of Uighurs” is supposed to do.
Weichen, surely you’re not comparing Rebiya Kadeer to the Dalai Lama. While her name is recognized in human rights circles, and she’s been praised for her efforts, she has nowhere near the recognition or the influence of the Dalai Lama. However, I won’t begrudge her growing international clout as the CCP continue to villanize her, thus drawing her name into more and more newspapers and websites–and into the minds of a larger international audience.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your reference to the “photo of Sishou”
I’m surprised you haven’t heard about it – in an interview with Rebiya Kadeer, she used a photo of the Sishou protest, which happened several days earlier than the Uighur incident, as evidence for CCP’s oppression of the Uighur protestors. Later, netizens from China realized the error, and Alim Seytoff apologized for her (http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=71020090220). Funny thing is, she still insists that the photo was handed to her by the CCP (http://www.mitbbs.com/regnews_wenzhang/Headline/31244947.html)*
* the information is in Chinese, so I’m not sure if you could read it…
Some of the post here is Han hate Uighers and Uighers hate Han.
But what happened there in the last few days is brutal an cruel I have read by reporters in there. You just don’t kill the old, young and innocent by cutting off their heads.
Its not difference from Iraq. The Al Qaeda cut US GI head off when ever they can.
It is worst than Communist.
The thing is. The brutal killings are going on on both sides. China has decided to execute everyone even remotely connected to the riots.
And we are almost only shown the Uyghur killing Chinese in the media.
Chinese police are SO quick to come and help Han Chinese who are being attacked by Uyghurs, but when Uyghurs are beat to death by fists and clubs by Han Chinese the police are slow to respond. That’s not treating a population equally. And China has such firm control of their country and media that they can choose to show what they want and hide that which is not good for them.
We don’t know half of what’s going on behind the scenes towards the uyghurs.
Like for example, (forgot to mention this in my longer post above.) how uyghurs and lots of other minorities are being shipped away over train to factories where they are practically human slaves, working for almost nothing per hour. With no hope. No future.
This sense of hopelessness is what is driving the whole riot. People are giving up and don’t care if they die any more anyway, because they don’t feel they have anything to live for. They feel worthless. Because their identity is being/has been stripped away by China.
Aime, don’t a lot of Han people get “shipped away over train to factories where they are practically human slaves, working for nothing per hour” as well, “with no hope, no future?”
When some Hans in Urumqi banded together into a vengence mob, what did the Chinese police do? When this mob heard rumors of Uighurs breaking into a hospital and killing patients, what did the Chinese police do?
Just curious. The appeal to emotion here is getting thick.
right.
injustice, repression, corruption, etc exist in Han communities too, thus the Deng Yujiao uproar, the Sishou protest, Declaration of the Anonymous Netizens.
boilovers will continue to arise if these etcs continue to run rampant.
by the thought of it, what does that tell us about Chinese governance and since “a lot of Han people get shipped away over train to factories where they are practically human slaves, working for nothing per hour as well, with no hope, no future…”, so all this talk about success and wealth is veneer?
and is the plight of these poor people ever reported on Chinese media?
Here’s an experiment:
What’s your answer to this question?
“which Uyghur grievances have not been addressed at the policy level” – what about in practice?
“does free lunch exist?” – no, but marginalisation does.
“i bet everyone loves bigger homes” – did/do Uyghur get bigger homes? same faulty logic – did the CCP ever ask the Tibetans what they really want? a train that traverses their peaceful landscape?
“…regulate the religions” – ever wondered why CCP has to regulate the religions?
“It’s their land”- how very true!
“i don’t get random acts of violence” – are they truly random?
Hu Yaobang basically suggested self-rule except in the areas of defence and diplomatic ties but his idea was vetoed.
“let history run its course” – surely human factors and forces are behind the making of history. If Hu Yaobang’s recommendation had been put into practice, perhaps we would see a different Xinjiang today.
a good read – Wang Lihong’s “My West Land, Your East Country”, a book written by a Han mainlander and published in traditional Chinese. This book is banned in China.
btw, the very name of “Xinjiang” is problematic. It means “new land” – the land was new to the Hans and the Manchus but not to the Uyghurs. I don’t blame the Uyghurs for feeling resentful. I’m Chinese, Han Chinese.
thank you. someone understands :)
“sort out the facts and rationale”
what is “fact” – the media reported that the authorities said X no. of people died in a massive earthquake. Say if someone wants to ensure that this number is factual and attempts to verify the given number by drawing up a list of the names of the dead victims, but if the authorities disallow this doing, does it make what the media reported what the authorities said “fact”?
Okay, if authorities permit this investigation, in a totalitarian state where freedom of speech and expression are suppressed and secret police are present, will timid civilians be ready to submit the names?
Fact-finding is not always possible but of course, ideally it should be done, and it should be done when it can be done.
“rationale” – perhaps this gets even more complex and involves judgemental issues.
Good points, all fairly well-known. So, here’s the problem: On one hand, you can always suspect government manipulation of “facts.” On the other hand, you can always suspect subjective bias in the distortion of “facts.”
I guess we’re back at: “I would examine their arguments, at least take a look at the links they provided, trying to sort out the facts and rationale, then consider my position”
I’m afraid not. We are NOT back to that particular point; rather I was trying to add a different perspective to that particular point.
My observation is that the ideal situation of being able to verify all facts may not be practicable in reality, especially in a country where there is information censorship and suppression of free speech. Investigators may be barred and then, their own people may be prevented from receiving all-round information.
Indeed, this “verify all facts” stance could be conveniently used by a dictatorship to avert negative comments.
“They mowed down their own people with their own tanks.”
“Did they, or did we? Any proof? Did you check all the facts behind?”
But I noticed the italicised and emboldened print used for “I” and “my” and I guess that’s what you’re trying to point out, that ultimately, in forming our opinions, certain subjectiveness is inescapable; it is only a matter of how much.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
“But then the Dalai Lama was received as if he discovered a new gospel. In essence, these two are quite similar in many ways.”
Any speculative element here?
I’m speculating too — perhaps His Holiness was warmly received because those who welcomed and received him felt a genuine respect for him as a person, for what he represents such as peaceful persistence, for Tibetan Buddhism, for Buddhist beliefs and practices in general, or for other reasons, such as sympathy for a fellow human who has lived 40 years in exile, dismay at the erosion of traditional Tibetan culture in his homeland, disgust at the CCP’s treatment of him, etc.
I don’t know and I won’t know. I can only speculate, but if I had been there to receive him, it wouldn’t have been because “monks from afar chant better”.
Kai, your post is title “Urumqi Riots, Western & Chinese Narratives, & Truths In The Middle”.
What about the Uighur narrative? There no truth in that?
If this were happening in the West, do you think anyone there would care what the Chinese media were saying?
You’re forgetting that the West is the center of the world. People care what the center of the world thinks. People in the center rarely care what the rest of the world thinks.
I thought China was at the centre of the world now. Zhong Guo and all that? Look at any world map on the wall in China.
Oh don’t be silly. Surely you’ve been in Asia/China long enough to know the story behind that, right? If not, off to Jeremiah’s http://www.granitestudio.org you go! Shoo!
Yeah, yeah, well check out this guy then (and we’re not talking J.R.R. Tolkien):-
http://www.alexhoffordphotography.com/node/2192
Richard, you’re projecting far too much into my title. The title was generally crafted to represent what I excerpted from Will and Jeremiah in the post, both of whom discuss the Western and Chinese narratives and…wait for it…the truths in the middle. Effectively, the Uighur narratives are getting their play through the Western media machine (far more so than the Chinese media machine, right?). Rebiya isn’t appearing on Uighur media, is she? No, she’s using the Western media apparatus to promote (her version of) the Uighur narrative. Wouldn’t you agree? Is my title indicative of some conspiracy to exclude, dismiss, or belittle the Uighur narrative? I surely hope you don’t think so!
You’re being silly, Kai ; ) Uighur’s have no media. What I mean is you don’t post about Uighur narrative represented in other media. Not Chinese and not Western. Such as Al Jazeera, or Turkey media, and so on.
Hm, Turkey media…yeah.
Anyway, you’ll notice that the subject of this post is not about the Western, Chinese, or Uighur narratives, but rather about the posts on Imagethief and Jottings from the Granite Studio that I’m reviewing and recommending others to read. I believe if you’re upset that this post doesn’t mention the “Uighur narrative” (which I don’t think is particularly more prevalent in Al Jazeera or the Turkey media), you should be lodging your complaint with Will Moss or Jeremiah Jenne, right?
Those two gentlemen never use the title “Urumqi Riots, Western & Chinese Narratives, & Truths In The Middle”. ”
Uighurs narrative has no voice. Only what Chinese or Western or other muslims medias want to say.
Kai Pan, you are not a kind person. Not everything is China against West. This is an internal Chinese problem.
I will not join your website anymore.
Richard, I think there must have been a misunderstanding somewhere. I didn’t say Will and Jeremiah’s titles were “Urumqi Riots, Western & Chinese Narratives, & Truths In The Middle”. I said my title was a summary/description of the subjects they wrote about. This is what a title often is, a summary/description. You asked why I didn’t include “Uighur narrative” in my title. I explained the reasons why, and those reasons are pretty boring but legitimate.
Furthermore, I never said “everything” is China against West. Where did I say that? Uighurs narratives do have a voice, and they often have a voice in Western (or Muslim) media, just as Tibetans have their voice through Western media as well. The Dalai Lama does not run a media empire, but he’s well-loved by the Western media who is often happy to report on him and what he has to say about the Tibetan narrative.
And just how am I an “unkind” person? This is so weird.
Agree. I think Uyghur narratives should be included here too, for better fairness and a more-rounded picture.
(Recall how western media is being condemned by some Chinese as being biased.)
Sure, let’s start with the Uighur narratives you think are not getting enough play.
Errata -
sorry, found these mistakes as i re-read my previous posts
His Holiness has spent 50, not 40, years living in exile, it was in 1959, right? a long, long time.
and 王力雄 pinyins into Wang Lixiong.
here’s the name of his book in Chinese – <>
i apologise.
Why is it an experiment?
Why not? What’s your answer?
I asked a question and I was hoping for a reply, but Kai, if you’re not ready/willing to provide it, it’s fine.
Cheerio.
LoL, ironically, I too asked a question and was hoping for a reply but, Littlegirl, if you’re not ready/willing to provide it, it’s fine.
Cheers!
i was expecting you to say that.
bad – who put fwd the Q first? don’t know what you’re trying to dodge.
anyway, like Richard, i too am going.
bye-bye.
LoL, again, the irony is that I put forward the question first so it is I who doesn’t know what you’re trying to dodge.
Or do I need to explain how your “initial question” is a) rhetorical and b) actually previously answered by me already? So again, what’s your answer? What are you so worried about? Did me saying “experiment” suddenly put you on the fritz? If you’re secure in your knowledge, beliefs, and position (as you appear to be when posing such a rhetorical question), what makes you so worried about answering it when someone rephrases your rhetorical question as a serious one?
So, again:
“…is the plight of these poor people ever reported on Chinese media?”
What’s your answer to your own question? You should know mine already if you’ve been following the conversation. I THINK I know your’s, but I just want to be sure so I don’t put any words in your mouth. You have the conviction to pose such rhetorical questions, why not the conviction to change them into statements?
Why is everybody looking so much into the “Uighur narrative”? Surely it’s fair to say that the western media has already provided enough of the Uighurs’ side of the story. For example, WSJ published Rebiya Kadeer’s op-ed letter. And also, it’s not like the Uighurs have their own media to broadcast what their point of the view is. Granted, the title may be worded a little badly here, but no need for people to say: “I won’t come to your website anymore…”
Shrug, people get into a tizzy every so often and feel compelled to make some sort of ultimatum-ish statement. They usually come back with a different name.
The whole “where’s the Uighur narrative” criticism above seems to stem from a failure to understand that this post is built around recommending the summary criticisms of the “Western vs. Chinese” narratives by Will Moss and Jeremiah Jenne, whom I consider to be “exemplars” at finding the “truth in the middle” (itself just a catchphrase summarizing the fact that usually both sides are simultaneously right and wrong or exaggerated). As far as the subject matter is concerned, I don’t see how my title is misleading or incorrect, but like you, I grant that different people read into certain things differently.
The problem with the Western media is it’s so full of the whole ‘human rights and democracy’ discourse, it doesn’t matter what’s really going on with the Uighurs. Western media just uses it as an opportunity to show what’s wrong with developing countries and why those systems of governance (and by implication, their culture) is inferior to the enlightened West.
Western media didn’t give voice to the Uighur narrative, it gave voice to the Western narrative. It always does.
And the poor Tibetans … the Dalai Lama doesn’t represent them. He sold the West an exoticized fantasy of Tibetan Buddhism that doesn’t exist. He’s a snake oil salesman. Western media coverage of the Dalai Lama is not coverage of the Tibetan narrative.
Nah, I wouldn’t say the Dalai Lama is a snake oil salesman, but you’re definitely right that the Western narrative (of the Tibetan narrative) is exaggerated to a fault, just as the Chinese narrative (of the Tibetan narrative) is as well, just to the other side. I do agree that the there’s a strong exoticized and romanticized notion of what Tibet/Tibetan Buddhism was or could be (absent China) in the Western narrative, and that’s something for the West to reflect upon while the Chinese ought to reflect upon their own distortions of their relationship with Tibet. I do reckon that bits, pieces, and even substantial and meaningful chunks of the Tibetan narrative (and Uighur narrative) can be found in both the Western and Chinese narratives, though. The key is in differentiating the truths from the spin.
I agree with a lot of what you say, Kai, except you forget the fact that China invaded and colonised Tibet. The West didn’t.
1. What part of what I said suggests I forgot what you think I forgot?
2. Roger/Richard, I thought you said you weren’t going to visit my CNR anymore? Stop trolling, you moron.
The preceding comments are perhaps more of an indication of human nature than any real illumination of the Uighur situation. What is it about the Interwebs that brings out those hearts of darkness? The comments aren’t reacting to the general sentiment or argument expressed but rather a specific word that reads the wrong way. No one seems to be trying to understand each other and the few attempts that do exist are clearly with the intent of proving the other person wrong as opposed a sincere wish to understand…come on guys, when you do that, everyone loses!
Its the same attitude, I think, that led to the the murder of Han people, the discrimination against Uighurs, and more.
I can’t make any judgments on the Uighur riots because I don’t understand and I won’t pretend I do…its a human tragedy borne out of that malicious force that is culture.
Regardless: 高山仰止，景行行止，虽不能至，然心向往之