3 ms·

Often in discussions like this, someone claims that the Uighur crackdown is necessary “because Islamist extremism”. I strongly encourage everyone to familiarize

Often in discussions like this, someone claims that the Uighur crackdown is necessary “because Islamist extremism”. I strongly encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the history of the Uighurs under Chinese rule, because this isn’t really about Islam. Namely, there used to be a very strong secular movement among the Uighurs, whose main complaint wasn’t the inability to practise Islam (some of these activists were atheists, even Communists themselves) but rather defending the use of the Uighur language in public and in official usage, and resisting the heavy Han Chinese settlement that would lead to the Uighurs becoming a minority in their own province. What happened is that Beijing cracked down on these secular activists, either imprisoning them in China or forcing them into exile in Turkey or the West. Thus by the early millennium, with the secular activists out of the way, the only forces remaining within Xinjiang that could organize were religious ones, with some support from other Muslim states. Beijing was pleased with the US War on Terror around that time, which allowed it to frame its crackdown on the Uighurs as a reaction to Islamist radicalism, but as I said, the roots really go back to ethnic and linguistic pressures, not religious ones.

christkv 6y ago
There is literally a corporation running the area like a modern day East India company on behalf of the Chinese state.
luckylion 6y ago
> resisting the heavy Han Chinese settlement that would lead to the Uighurs becoming a minority in their own province It surprises me that nativist anti-immigration demands are considered righteous in some regions and evil and backwards in others. I understand the general history like you do though, I don't disagree. Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism".
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > It surprises me that nativist anti-immigration demands are considered righteous in some regions and evil and backwards in others. Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. Xinjiang is a very different case entirely: China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and virtually none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public. > Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism". The major wave of knife attacks (which can be seen as a late sign of desperation) postdate China’s attempt to tie the crackdown on the Uighurs to the West’s War on Terrorism. Again, the chronology here is important.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? > Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. That would be great, but isn't the case. > China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and almost none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public. Absolutely. My point isn't that it's great what China is doing, it's just weird that "you need to assimilate, it's their province" is a weird take when that same stance is violently opposed in other circumstances. I don't think it's necessary either, human rights don't need a justification of regional ownership. Even if you don't think that Han shouldn't be allowed to settle there, you can still be appalled by the things the Chinese government is doing.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      > The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? It is not, at least not in the context of the present discussion. While whites are set to lose their majority, one of the minorities overtaking them are African-Americans, who cannot reasonably be called immigrants, because they were brought to the US against their will long ago, and they came before the late 19th-century and early 20th-century influx of European immigrants to which many white Americans trace their ancestry. > That would be great, but isn't the case. That certainly is the case. The second and third generations of immigrants into Europe are overwhelmingly assimilating to the host countries’ language. They may develop a new register of that European language that mixes in words and idioms from the language of their parent or grandparent’s country of origin, but few maintain a strong identification with the old language.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        That's a lot of goal post moving, and for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. Needless to say that this doesn't convince me, why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Principles that don't hold when transported to new circumstances aren't principles.

christkv 6y ago

There is literally a corporation running the area like a modern day East India company on behalf of the Chinese state.

luckylion 6y ago

> resisting the heavy Han Chinese settlement that would lead to the Uighurs becoming a minority in their own province It surprises me that nativist anti-immigration demands are considered righteous in some regions and evil and backwards in others. I understand the general history like you do though, I don't disagree. Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism".

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> It surprises me that nativist anti-immigration demands are considered righteous in some regions and evil and backwards in others. Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. Xinjiang is a very different case entirely: China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and virtually none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public. > Radical Uighur groups did help China make the case with their knife attacks on civilians to be painted as "just another brand of islamic terrorism". The major wave of knife attacks (which can be seen as a late sign of desperation) postdate China’s attempt to tie the crackdown on the Uighurs to the West’s War on Terrorism. Again, the chronology here is important.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Nativist anti-immigration demands in Europe or North America are generally criticized as hyperbole because immigration will not actually lead to demographic replacement in the near future, in spite of those activists’ claims. The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? > Furthermore, in Europe the immigrants invariably assimilate linguistically to their host country – by the second or third generation, the language of the old country is forgotten. That would be great, but isn't the case. > China has the numbers to change Xinjiang’s demographics, and almost none of those Han Chinese immigrants are learning Uighur and using it in public. Absolutely. My point isn't that it's great what China is doing, it's just weird that "you need to assimilate, it's their province" is a weird take when that same stance is violently opposed in other circumstances. I don't think it's necessary either, human rights don't need a justification of regional ownership. Even if you don't think that Han shouldn't be allowed to settle there, you can still be appalled by the things the Chinese government is doing.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > The US is steering towards Majority Minority, is it not? It is not, at least not in the context of the present discussion. While whites are set to lose their majority, one of the minorities overtaking them are African-Americans, who cannot reasonably be called immigrants, because they were brought to the US against their will long ago, and they came before the late 19th-century and early 20th-century influx of European immigrants to which many white Americans trace their ancestry. > That would be great, but isn't the case. That certainly is the case. The second and third generations of immigrants into Europe are overwhelmingly assimilating to the host countries’ language. They may develop a new register of that European language that mixes in words and idioms from the language of their parent or grandparent’s country of origin, but few maintain a strong identification with the old language.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      That's a lot of goal post moving, and for Europe I think you're fundamentally mistaken. Needless to say that this doesn't convince me, why you'd treat the same policy completely different in a moral judgement. Principles that don't hold when transported to new circumstances aren't principles.