4 ms·

> the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades The Chinese crackdown on Xinjian

> the Xinjiang situation was mostly a response to the non-stopping terror attacks in the region for the last couple of decades The Chinese crackdown on Xinjiang goes back well beyond the terror attacks. There used to be a secular, non-violent Uighur movement for their rights, including Uighur communists who simply wanted the right to use their own language at all times and not Chinese, like the laws ostensibly allow. However, in the 1980s and 1990s the Beijing regime imprisoned many of those activists or sent them into exile. At the same time, Han settlers were entering the area even though it was clear that this would change the region’s demographics. Once the secular and non-violent activism was shut down, there arose out of desperation new trends that were violent and/or Islamist. But that doesn’t mean the CCP’s policy of Uighur assimilation and Han settlement didn’t come first.

dumb1224 6y ago
I appreciate your point. But it is only one-sided story. Both sides have been victims of historical conflict, there is a long history of han ethnic people being driven away too. Arguing who did wrong first is a bit like a religious debate. Look at the globe one shouldn't fail to see it's a common pattern (Palestine etc). To argue who has the ultimate rights to the land is a tricky and dangerous task. Another observation I have is that there's little mention of the history of Xinjiang itself. The long-standing threat from Russian influence starting from before Republic of China (ROC) period. And the autonomous Muslim defense against russian puppet gov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_... and even the later alliance with the communist party. Sure you could argue from one-side that all that is happening is wrong but unfortunately a lot of the evidence today are from anti-china alliance such as epoch times, which in my opinion really hides the real issues of the chinese society.
- enriquto 6y ago
  You talk about Russian influence as a "threat", and Han influence as something natural that needs to be protected. I appreciate your respectful message, but please notice that another equally defensible position would be the opposite one: considering Han influence a "threat" to be protected against.
  - dumb1224 6y ago
    I apologise for my choice of words, I'm not a native speaker, nor could I do it in a more diplomatic way. However I do agree with you, for the opposite it might well see han population as a threat, probably right from the early dynasties. I have by no means implied Russian influence is 'evil', it is simply the historical narrative. It is only natural that from 1900s the powers around that area want to take control in the geopolitics. Same situation today. My point is that if you understand the situation better (which is hard because of language / culture barriers, similar to middle east crisis), you might be able to know more nuances of the issue.

dumb1224 6y ago

I appreciate your point. But it is only one-sided story. Both sides have been victims of historical conflict, there is a long history of han ethnic people being driven away too. Arguing who did wrong first is a bit like a religious debate. Look at the globe one shouldn't fail to see it's a common pattern (Palestine etc). To argue who has the ultimate rights to the land is a tricky and dangerous task. Another observation I have is that there's little mention of the history of Xinjiang itself. The long-standing threat from Russian influence starting from before Republic of China (ROC) period. And the autonomous Muslim defense against russian puppet gov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_(1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_rebellion_in_Xinjiang_... and even the later alliance with the communist party. Sure you could argue from one-side that all that is happening is wrong but unfortunately a lot of the evidence today are from anti-china alliance such as epoch times, which in my opinion really hides the real issues of the chinese society.

enriquto 6y ago
You talk about Russian influence as a "threat", and Han influence as something natural that needs to be protected. I appreciate your respectful message, but please notice that another equally defensible position would be the opposite one: considering Han influence a "threat" to be protected against.
- dumb1224 6y ago
  I apologise for my choice of words, I'm not a native speaker, nor could I do it in a more diplomatic way. However I do agree with you, for the opposite it might well see han population as a threat, probably right from the early dynasties. I have by no means implied Russian influence is 'evil', it is simply the historical narrative. It is only natural that from 1900s the powers around that area want to take control in the geopolitics. Same situation today. My point is that if you understand the situation better (which is hard because of language / culture barriers, similar to middle east crisis), you might be able to know more nuances of the issue.