From Alec Ash’s Six, comes a post about ethnic tensions in Tibet by a Chinese university student named Tony:
It is not easy to comment on Tibet. Even after a two-week trip there, I still have quite limited knowledge about the whole area. During the trip, I kept asking myself the same question: ‘how to describe the relationship between the Han Chinese and the Tibetans’. It seems that we are living in two worlds. Though most of the Tibetans I came across were kind and honest, I still felt a little bit uneasy to discuss that sensitive issue with them. However, on the Han Chinese side, I was continuously intrigued by the fact that many of them have stereotypes and prejudices when talking about Tibetans.
…
Similar scenarios came up during our trip to Shigatse, where we had a chance to visit typical local residences. On the way back, many travelers expressed that the Tibetan living style was primitive and their religious beliefs superstitious. What annoys me slightly was that when Han Chinese travelers were talking to local citizens, they kept asking questions such as how much money they made and, to some extent, judged all things in a sense of material wealth. As a Chinese, I think we have a better understanding than the Americans that Tibet is not a Shangri-la paradise. However, instead of romanticizing Tibet, it seems that many Han Chinese, at least some visitors, lack basic respect for the Tibetan culture and religion.
These observation are impressive, especially if you’ve seen more than your fair share of Han ethnocentrism, where Han opinions and observations about Tibet and Tibetans always seem to be limited to how much Han China has bettered them. While rational and well-balanced Han Chinese views on Tibet abound, they’re usually overshadowed by the less rational and less-balanced ones. Yet here, here we have a Han Chinese guy walking into Tibet consciously observing the dynamic between Han and Tibetan, and then making strong criticisms of the on-the-ground attitudes Han people have towards Tibetans.
After a paragraph explaining how the problems of ethnic disunity in the former USSR pushed China’s leaders to reflect on their own, Tony makes an incisive criticism of China’s “ruling elites”:
It is necessary to acknowledge the vitality of national and ethnic solidarity. But I am afraid such principle has gone too far in contemporary China. Instead of frankly pointing out the tensions between racial groups and the flaws in our ethnic policy, the ruling elites, from time to time, blamed ‘evil external forces’ for crimes. Admittedly, various international actors were partly responsible for the accidents. However, we should not overlook the severe flaws and obvious weaknesses within China’s domestic ethnic relations. Acknowledging these problems and having a transparent investigation of why someone committed an act of violence should not be condemned as unpatriotic. After all, it is a formidable task we have to undertake so as to prevent the situation from worsening.
Then and finally, Tony offers a “possible solution”:
In a nutshell, since Tibet and other ethnic problems have become the forefront of the Sino-Western conflict, one possible solution to avoid miscalculation is to establish a well-managed channel for China and Western countries, thus letting secret talk become open dialogue. Instead of helplessly looking at the escalation of international conflicts, this should be a cost-effective way to let both sides understand the real situation and help our Western counterparts see what might or might not work in China when tackling its ethnic problems.
…and, frankly, I’m disappointed. For one, I’m somewhat confused. My initial reaction was to ask, “why is this guy suddenly thinking about a ‘Sino-Western conflict’” and then postulating “a well-managed channel” for China to communicate with Western countries? Weren’t we talking about the friction between Hans and Tibetans, acknowledging it, and doing so hoping to “prevent the situation from worsening”? Why are we now talking about conflicts with Western countries?
The solution itself even sounds like the tired Chinese government refrain of “if they only knew the truth…”, one that usually is heard as “if only they’d believe what we told them.” Now, I’m willing to grant that I may not have understood the full implications of what Tony is suggesting here…but part of me can’t help but interpret this last paragraph of his as being far too preoccupied with how China looks in Westerners’ eyes (China’s “face”) than with how the current Chinese-Tibetan relationship looks in the eyes of the actual Chinese and Tibetans involved.
Now, it’s interesting to note how Tony acknowledges, even accepts, the issue of Tibet as being an international one, whereas the Chinese government and many other Chinese have repeatedly demanded that it be respected as a domestic, internal issue that everyone else should butt out of. That said, after several paragraphs of good, honest reflections on Han prejudices against Tibetans, his solution is still too much about managing how outsiders, Westerners, perceive China over this situation than how China could actually improve this situation amongst its people. After all, what contributes more to the current ethnic tension in Tibet: What Westerners think? Or what Hans, Tibetans, Uighurs, and other ethnic minorities think about each other?
Read Tony’s full post about ethnic tension in Tibet over on Six »
Tales of Han discrimination and ethnocentrism specifically with regards to Uighurs and Xinjiang were also seen in a comment posted on the UighurBiz forum and translated by John Kennedy over at Global Voices Online in a post titled, “Considering Han Chauvinism“:
In fact, Han in many places in Xinjiang don’t just discriminate against Uighurs, but don’t even see them as human. For example, six years ago I was in Xinjiang on a business trip. I was standing on Yan’an Nan Road in Ürümqi trying to get a taxi, and one Uighur girl came up next to me and was trying to get a taxi too. It always takes a long time to get a cab in Ürümqi in the winter. We were freezing and finally when one empty cab did pull up, it went right past that girl and stopped right in front of me. Strange, I thought, and after I got in I asked the driver why he didn’t stop for the girl. The (Han) driver said: we don’t pick up those leatherhats (Uighurs). I asked why. He said once he picked up an Uighur who gave him fake money, so I asked if he’d ever had Han customers who gave him fake money. He said he had.
I said if you treat Uighurs like this, aren’t you worried about the ethnic conflict getting worse? The driver said, they don’t dare, we have guns. Then I had nothing more to say. I was there for three days, and every time I got in a cab I asked if they were willing to take Uighur passengers, and got the same answer every time: Uighurs have bad tempers, can’t be reasoned with, they won’t stop for them, etc.
“We have guns”.
…damn.
For every intelligent traveling Chinese business man, there’s at least one dumbass Chinese taxi driver.
Damn.
Read John Kennedy’s full post on Han Chauvinism over on Global Voices Online »
I look forward to the day when Tibetans, Uighurs, etc., can appeal to the World Court to have a more impartial outlet for their grievances–AND for China to have a means of providing resolution to potentially unending objections domestically and abroad by having such an outlet. I look forward to the day when native Americans, Hispanic-Americans, or African-Americans can appeal to the United Nations for redress of issues not perceived to be adequately addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court–AND so the U.S. will also be better enabled to advance further forward in its race relations. I look forward to whites in Zimbabwe being able to make appeals, or for Chinese affronted in Indonesia to be able to make appeals. And so on. This should even include appeals related to border disputes as borders have generally been arbitrarily or forcefully decided rather than made by more objective criteria considerations.
While some local autonomy will always be necessary, sticking to the old tired line that everything is a nation’s own business flies in the face of the interdependence of humanity–NO MATTER THE NATIONAL ORIGIN OF THOSE PROPOUNDING IT (this argument is made by blind nationalists everywhere, yet it has yet to be loudly rejected by enlightened good world citizens everywhere, because such a movement has not yet found its confidence as it eventually will and must).
Of course, it is unworkable if the U.N. continues to be shaped in such a way that dictatorships, where there are no basic minimum of standards like elections and other rights enshrined in the UDHR, can be allowed to chair human rights committees and participate in the U.N. Similarly are their solutions to the problems of large populations continuing to have no proportional representation in the U.N. General Assembly, or the privilege of veto powers being able to sink any legitimate criticism (when it was only intended to avoid mutual war).
And of course, for an appeal to the World Court to work, it must be agreed to be possible for any country’s people to make the appeals. And until justice-minded individuals fail to be cowed by nationalist and self-defeating knuckleheads in their respective countries, and until civil society and like-minded individuals in each country fail to unite with those in other countries, this dream is just going to be painted as unrealistic, as unworkable, and so on–itself perhaps the biggest barrier to it happening sooner rather than later. We need a common language so that the kind of dialogue that is taking place here (the sometimes nasty and non-introspective barbs at others notwithstanding) can spread beyond those with advanced educations.
As any lawyer will tell you, it does matter where a case takes place, if you want to get justice. And, as those in law enforcement should be able to tell you, there’s nothing like the availability of a higher court drawing on a more diverse population to quell perceptions of local bias. It really is a win-win situation–just as it has already become so internally to nations, as long as a certain number of people can transcend their absolutely stupid, petty, and self-injuring “us-and-them” mind-sets to recognize their own best interest, which happens to also be the best interest of their domestic and “foreign” neighbors (at least if those neighbors are not absolute dictators who have no right to claim to represent anyone). It was a higher (more disinterested) court in the U.S. which ended segregation, and such powers need to be brought to the world level, for the benefit of all nations’ peoples, particularly its minorities, but also for the peace and security of its majorities.
I too look forward to the day such ideals can be realized. Cheers for the comments.
Kai… I was also thrown for a loop by Tony’s sudden shift to the China-West relationship. My feeling though is he is hoping that a better, real, official channel of communication, with clear public policy pronouncements by both sides will make accusations of secretive maneuveres and subversion, from both sides, less believable. So, if there are nefarious or domestic “foreign forces” at work, at least it is politely, openly implied that it’s not official government sanctioned medeling. Right now though, because of the lack of communication and political generosity, and there really does seem to be a huge gap, something goes down in China and the silence is deafening. Then the silence is assumed to be guilt, either by the Western governments or by the Chinese government, and then the blame game begins. The Western-Chinese blame game then just distracts from the real internal problems and internal solutions.
I’m glad he was candid and appreciate his idea, but there definately seem to be better ways of dealing with Han-Tibetan social issues than worrying about government to government communication. This is more about real people and real on the ground biases and stereotypes. Luckily, I know many many Han Chinese who have a balanced view of Tibet. They are neither condescending nor overly romantic. Unfortunately, they are often so into their real-life relationship with Tibet they don’t have the time or inclination to stop and share that experience and the balanced view that’s come with it with other Han Chinese. I wish they would.
Mike, agreed. I’m sure Tony’s concern for China-West communications is genuine and sincere but, again, it just didn’t seem to be the logical next step in thought after reflecting upon the problems or perception between Han and Tibetans. For one thing, are these prejudices against each other founded in how the Chinese and Western governments communicate/blame each other? I don’t think so, and hence jumping to the latter seems a misplaced target of attention.
Thank you Kai for the article. Sorry but I didn’t make myself clear. Personally speaking, to solve the Han-Tibetan social problem, firstly the Han Chinese need to acknowledge that they are, to some extent, responsible for the tension. However, many Chinese are still misled by officials. They didn’t even realize the problem, let alone to improve the relationship.
In this scenario, since it is almost impossible for Beijing to tell citizens that there are domestic ethnic conflicts, a possible approach may line in international dialogues. By discussing domestic tensions openly and directly with other countries, I think more Han Chinese will receive this government signal, thus develop a balanced view and improve their real-life practice.
Hey Tony! We should be thanking YOU for sharing it on Six, as the Chinese English blogosphere could use more perspectives from local Chinese confident enough to articulate their thoughts and ideas in English for the benefit of foreigners lacking Chinese language skills.
We agree that Han Chinese need to acknowledge that they are, indeed to some extent, responsible or contributing to the ethnic tension. They are, indeed, being misled and still being misled by officials, government positions, and educational rhetoric. I agree that many fail to realize that there is resentment against them and, more importantly, don’t seem inclined to want to understand why there is resentment or think the resentment is impossible, illogical, or unacceptable relative to what they perceive as their benevolent contributions and leniencies.
I think I better understand what you’re suggesting now, that you feel the government can give a subtle signal through their international dialogue to the domestic audience. However, I still don’t find this persuasive, especially when you lead to it by saying “it is almost impossible for Beijing to tell citizens that there are domestic ethnic conflicts.”
Ignoring the fact that most Chinese aren’t going to pay as much attention to international news/proclamations than domestic news/proclamations, how do you think Chinese citizens will react to the dissonant information? The domestic news says there’s no problem but the international news does? That’s the same situations as it is now. Okay, so let’s say, as you suggest, the Chinese government side in international discourse begins to be more honest. Will Chinese citizens see this as the truth and adjust their views accordingly or will they just see it as their government playing international politics pandering to foreign governments?
I do think being more open and direct about domestic tensions with other countries is an improvement, but I don’t see it as being much of a solution nor do I see how it can bring any meaningful improvement to Han-Tibetan tensions on the ground.
Tony, of course, don’t take this personally. It is a big problem and the solution has to consider a variety of even contradictory interests. While I don’t think the solution you suggest is the solution, I do believe the solution is in YOU, you as a Han Chinese person who is educated, rational, and aware of there being a long-standing problem. From people like you, we hope, come a solution or, absent a perfect solution, a stable improvement and continuous progress.
When will people understand that the government can’t do much about ethnic tensions outside of affirmative action, which makes things even worse?
For those who have been to China, Uighurs have a terrible reputation as thieves. People say that Hans should be taught to be more tolerant, but that’s exactly what the government is doing, spreading propaganda that Uighurs are nice folks who love the hans all day long. In reality, shouldn’t it be up to the Uighur community to ACTUALLY CONDEMN THE THIEVES rather than living in a continued victim complex?
Racism exists everywhere. Even here in the good ol’ USA certain races earn much less on the same jobs, persecuted more often, and are generally more more discriminated against. The government can’t force perceptions on people, it’s the communities themselves who must speak up against their reputation. So far, what I have heard from the Uighur community is that they don’t care how the reputation is formed over the years, but they want the Hans to suddenly change their perceptions. That’s like hans asking Uighurs to suddenly change the later’s minds about Hans being a bunch of greedy people. That’s not going to happen unless people start to act differently. So in order to fight against the prejudice, what has the Uighurs done to change their reputation? All I have seen is the usual blame the Hans game, yeah that will certainly change things.
I’m annoyed with a lot of posts on this topic.
First, you have the internationalist segment which wants China to be administered from New York or Bruxelles. These people want to impose their ideology and cultural mores from abroad onto China and continue spreading their homogeneity onto polities, societies, cultures, and civilizations based on other values. They’re willing to be tolerant of other societies as long as the practices of other societies pass muster under their value system, with the hope that one day, all other societies will transform into flavors of their own, with their fundamental differences smoothed out flat rock. The only truly reprehensible aspect of this segment is that they’re hypocritical. They pretend to be tolerant of other cultures when they fundamentally wish to push “universal human values”. If they would just admit that they’re pushing the values of their home societies they’d be a lot easier to accept; of course, by making themselves more obviously alien they’d have a harder, but in the end more authentic, reception from the societies they hope to influence.
With the original post, I’m opposed to the ethic of castigating racism as a universal evil. Statistical racism makes sense in the absence of specific information. If you’re in an area with high crime-rates associated with young black males, it makes sense to be afraid if you’re approached at night by a young black male. If you’re an ethnic Japanese in Tongzhou during the Tongzhou Mutiny, it makes sense to be afraid of the Chinese person at the door. On the other hand, in the presence of more specific information, the general does not override the specific. If you recognize that young black male as a graduate student with family in the area, there’s no need to fear. If you know that the Chinese person is a close friend with an alarmed look on his face, then he’s probably here to warn you and spirit you into hiding.
It’s the difficulty in using ethnic information responsibly that makes racism so dangerous, to the point where many Western societies dogmatically denounce racists and racism. Even if you observe the particular-general distinction, you still run afoul of endangering ethnic relations, and that’s the main problem China has to confront.
That’s my problem with the comment immediately above me. The poster above me claims that it’s all the Uighurs fault and that they’re all thieves. To start with, no matter what happens, the Uighurs are a minority ethnicity of significant size and some degree of international support. Unless Uighurs are dealt with, they will continue to produce unrest, and potentially terrorist activity that can disrupt the Chinese economy and polity. If you aim for a clampdown, well, internationally Sinophobia is at a high due to the failures of Zhongnanhai in dealing with ethnic conflict. China’s centrality in the global economy is thus that it will take time for other nations to disentangle their economic links with China, but if this keeps up this will happen. The end customer will start to feel disgusted at buying Chinese goods, and even if Chinese goods are still very cheap, they’ll be willing to pay some kind of price premium for goods produced or finished in a nation with a better image. So any clampdown will have an economic and political cost, and while you can’t preclude a clampdown from the policy toolkit, due to its effectiveness in the short-term, in the long-term it’ll wreck havoc.
The thieves argument seems like an awesome statistical bias. It may actually be true that the most prominent Uighurs most Han Chinese see or hear of are thieves. It’s like Muslims in the United States. If there wasn’t political education in the United States, most people would think all Muslims are terrorists because the only Muslims they know exist are the ones who launched terrorist attacks in their countries. They may often encounter Muslims on a day-to-day basis in various trades, but the prosaic quality of their interaction makes those Muslims much less memorable than the terrorists who launched attacks on the United States and continue to attack Americans for various political goals.
It also suggests the solution. I’m not sure whether the CCP would be completely amenable to dogmatically argue that all people are equal, regardless of ethnicity, considering the growing centrality of nationalism to its party line. On the other hand, minority relations pose a political, economic, and security problem, so they’d need some way of dealing with it. If the core of Han racism lies in a statistical blindspot, they could work through the state-controlled media to provide positive and catchy representations of minority heroes. By trying to make Uighurs more sympathetic it could help alleviate race relations.
Aside from this, another problem I have with the comments offered above is that China is a one-party state with controls on information and dissidents being periodically harassed, see Ai Weiwei’s happy fun time resulting in a trip to a German hospital. Political action in China must begin with the government, or the government will see it the growth of civil society as a threat. Any solution must at least consider China’s political structure, or it will become inefficient through fighting the government.
One text I’m really wanting to recommend is The Star Raft, which is now out of print. It’s strangely written, in the sense that the writer spends half of each chapter praising the efforts of the Chinese government and the other half of each chapter criticizing it, and it reads as though it was a propaganda text published for Western intelligence agencies to develop good will towards their new Chinese ally (this was written in the 80s). The subject of the book is Sino-African relations in , and has a few sections on the conflicts between ethnic Chinese and African students flown in for diplomatic reasons and the Chinese government consequently trying to use media efforts to improve the image of their African guests. It’s written for a popular audience, is accessible, and if you want I can pirate the relevant sections.
How much ethnic tension is normal in a modernizing society where different ethnicities are modernizing at a different rate? It’s most definitely wrong if the CCP says that ethnic tensions are solely due to foreign instigators (Uighur independence groups overseas, foreign intelligence agencies, or foreign intelligence agencies acting through Uighur independence groups overseas), but would it be a lie to say that the violent character of ethnic tensions are due to overseas groups, hoping to use violence to gain publicity amid a wave of Sinophobia?