you are looking at secondary issues. it doesnt matter what PRC policy is because radicals killed women and children BYSTANDERS. ALL reasons, convictions, excuses go out the window when people do that.
your logic is flawed. a change from monarchy to government doesnt mean that country stops being that country. im not even going to bother explaining why that is stupid. more flawed logic. numerous kingdoms does not mean it isnt China anymore. the land has always been called 中国. in fact, that term has been used since the ZHOU dynasty, before Qin. land isnt just what makes China. it was the language, culture, ruling hierarchy, customs, etc as well. further more, America had a civil war and was divided for a time until on side defeated the other and united the country again. did they stop being America then as well?
I agree with you here; violent rampage that kills innocents have no place in political argument. The ONLY thing that the police can do right now is to ensure public safety for all. And that's why those people are called Uighers? Because they're Chinese? LOL... Seriously, your legal distinctions itself are flawed. Example, we all know that Chinese people live in Hong Kong. But under British rule (however it got there is immaterial, as it was a legal distinction) it was nonetheless a British Crown Colony, and belonged to Britain. Laws were given by the English, trade was decided by them and militarily it was a British base. Like I had stated, Chinese CULTURE goes back nearly 5000 years and can be traced to the neolithic period. The political and legal state that we recognize as the People's Republic of China today, itself arose from the refutation of another political state, the Republic of China; that itself originally arose upon the fall of the Oing dynasty going by the same name. Obviously there are political and legal distinctions between the PRC and the much smaller ROC present on Taiwan today. For example, Mongolia was a part of Qing China. Why is it not a part of the PRC today? When the Qing fell, Mongolia fought for its independence. It succeeded. East Turkistan did not. Regardless of culture, political and legal borders shift, for reasons having to do with a variety of pressures. Another example would be the Chinese annexation of disputed lands along the India border back in the 1960's, and the recent resolution of the border with Russia along the Amur. Borders are decided upon either by negotiation, war, or rebellion. Hence, Xinjiang is a nominal part of the PRC today only as a result of all of the above. I know many people here want to use history as a legitimization for the PRC to claim regions traditionally not it's own (by your definition of culture, race, peoples). Well those that are intellectually honest would not do that.
wait... lemme get this straight, so you're trying to justify what China is based on the legal distinctions of borders over it's current regime? so China didn't exist pre 1949?... so over the last century, we've had 3 different countries in what is now China? and Germany and Russia's only existed for about 20yrs?
No, the People's Republic of China didn't exist until 1949. They arose from their split with the Republic of China, itself formed after the abolition of the Qing monarchy. Legally speaking; yes, what is now politically recognized as the PRC is the result of three separate and distinct sovereign entities over the last century. However, Chinese culture remained much the same (that's another reason why China would never balkanize, but that's another highly debatable thesis) despite their rulers being different parties. It's rather like living in the same building your whole life, but having three different landlords as the building change ownership; or working for the same company, but have the company acquired by some bigger corporation. Germany as we know it today, previously existed mainly as the Kingdom of Prussia, and was joined by the kingdoms of Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony and Württemberg, forming the greater German empire. After WWI, with rebellion, Germans overthrew the monarch in 1919, and formed the Wiemar Republic, which itself was replaced in 1933 by the Third Reich (led by the National Socialist party). Upon it's defeat in WW2, Germany was split into two separate sovereign states with heavy involvement of the Soviet Union, becoming the Federal Republic of Germany (aka West Germany), and the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany). The new eastern nation was primarily controlled and dictated to by Soviet decree, and lasted until 1990 whence popular sentiment and political will rendered the DDR moot; it was reabsorbed by the FRG. Russia too, had a similar series of land gains and losses over it's history, and upon the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, reverted to it's previously known geographic form. At one point, it had a substantial portion of Northwestern America, which was then sold to the United States in a land deal known as Seward's Folly (what later became the US state of Alaska). Additionally, one third of the continental US was actually bought from the French in what then was known as the Louisiana Purchase. Korea likewise, used to be one country but is now two simply because of war and politics. Obviously the people there are Korean. At one point, Korea also belonged to the Ming Dynasty as a vassal state. Should the PRC now claim both of them too? If you want a US example, the US had absorbed the Kingdom of Hawaii (which existed from 1810 to 1893, was usurped by American Businessmen becoming a free republic, but was annexed by the US in 1898). FYI, there remain native descendants in Hawaii that still demand independence from the US. My point is, using "history" in attempts to validate current possessions is a dubious exercise at best, and at worse, makes a claimant seem to be desperately grasping at straws. Having the most troops there today, in fact, is the biggest guarantee that the PRC has in keeping Xinjiang. But if it wants to be relieved of the financial burden of keeping troops there forever, then it has to start treating people there like equals. If most of the Uighers there want to be Chinese citizens, would there be a large scale problem then? Probably not. China's biggest problem is that it hasn't given the Uighers enough reasons to want to remain under PRC rule, and frankly seems to have given them ample reason towards the contrary. Again, most people aren't very political. They really just care about simple things. It's when those simple things aren't there that revolution becomes attractive. To me at least, seeing vast numbers of Uigher women and children confront police, while their men rabidly attack innocent Han Chinese, is a painful indication that there have been some very ugly undercurrents there for a very long time. So the question is, on whose watch did this happen? And to blame a business woman overseas for instigating the riots is a far stretch. Would you openly rebel and attack innocent _____ (insert name of whatever country you happen to be in) because someone in China called upon you to do so? You might find a few nuts whose fringe ideologies accept such manipulation (like the American born Jihadis), but to be able to muster crowds of hundreds or thousands that act in concert? I seriously doubt that. Again, some serious hatred had been percolating for a very long time, and such an outbreak was a long time coming. How can the CCP not anticipate something like this?
I really don't get this.. so in Xinjiang the riot is all about race and not welcoming them? and by the sounds of things it sounds like a mini civil war, and these explanations are logical especially what raplhy is saying but im just too tired to read it + the logic is not stupid and by the sounds of things crazyman doesn't seem to understand the whole concept of when a place is at war, it is broken and weak that another country can easily take over... and yes the country will still be called China but the culture and Gov. may change........ therefore it may not be the same country by it's traditions or the way the country is governed/ruled (my bad if this doesn;t make sense, cant think and got a big headache >.<)
you changed it completely. you said China, not PRC. there is a difference. China (Middle Kingdom) encompasses ALL dynasties AND the PRC. Chinese STILL call the country 中国. being Chinese is beyond being a citizen of the Qin Dynasty or a citizen of the PRC or an HK citizen. in short, it is BEYOND citizenship. as most ethnic identities are. which is why your other thread made no sense.
i do, often. i know you are mixed with a lot, so i dont know why you are here in Chinese chat. nobody sees you as Chinese.
All i can say is, i hope things calm down over there and people can get back to their normal life. im not even going to take side and play the blame game here.
No, I understand both your points. Being ethnically Chinese and legally Chinese are two separate distinctions. For example, the Han are both. But the Uigher, while legally Chinese they are ethnically and culturally Uigher. Or let me ask the question by way of your interpretation, so that perhaps you can better understand what I'm getting at. If the English conquered Hong Kong, do the people there stop being Chinese and suddenly become English? Of course not. The people in Xinjiang are Uighers and have Uigher ethnicity and culture. Just because they have been taken over by France doesn't make them French. China may now own the property that they sit on, but the whole ethnic history there is certainly not of Chinese origins. That's why a statement like Xinjiang being a part of China for thousands of years, makes absolutely no sense, as in, being Uigher is beyond being a citizen of the Qin Dynasty or a citizen of the PRC or an HK citizen. in short, it is BEYOND citizenship. as most ethnic identities are. So, in short, not only are the original people in Xinjiang NOT Chinese, that land has changed hands so many times in history that it would be a poor choice to argue that Xinjang has been a part of China for thousands of years and it will remain that way. China may own the real estate that the Uighers now sit on, but a few hundred years from now, who knows? Most super powers in history only last about 300 years. Maybe in 300 years, Uighers would own the real estate that Chinese sit on. History can offer some scary examples. Agreed. But I fear that the Genie is out of the bottle. It's going to take a tremendous amount of stick - carrot diplomacy to bring both groups back into a harmonious existence. Obviously, the depth of Uigher anger over whatever issues they've been stewing about was enough for them to riot. The PRC can do several things here (without regard to human rights issues). They can do what the Germans tried to do via their final solution approach, and just kill all the Uighers and unleash a storm of international criticism, sanctions, and become an international pariah. Or, they can pen up the 10 million or so Uigher into camps, enforce sterilizations, and the Uigher race will die out in about 70 years, leaving Xinjiang purely Han Chinese and nominally loyal to the PRC. Or, they can enforce sterilization of just Uigher men, so that Uigher woman can only conceive with Chinese men, thereby diluting their heritage and loyalties of their offspring. Or, they can just let thing as is, and wait for the next big blow up and more bloody riots. Or, they can start treating Uigher and Han equally (allow Hans there to have more than one child without penalty too like the Uighers) and sharing of resources and political power within the PRC framework. Except for the last part, just joking, obviously. But the ball is now in the government's hands. How they choose to forward is going to determine the response for years to come. Let's hope that they choose wisely for everyone's sake.
wow your history is pretty bad. the Uighurs were NOT the first ones in that land at all. the Han Dynasty kicked the Xiongnu (modern day turks does not = xiongnu tribes) out. Uighurs are NOT indigenous to XinJiang LOL!!! research how Turkey was formed. the Turks were expansionists as well, they just lost to Chinese empire. crying about it now does nothing. also, your correlation fails.... being Uighur doesnt mean they are not Chinese as well. Chinese is also beyond one ETHNICITY. there are over FIFTY ethnicities in China. Chinese American? nuff said.
not only were the Xiongnu defeated. but XinJiang was China's since the Tang Dynasty. Turkey now makes noise about boycotting China. LOL. what, they suddenly have high moral ground??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Your reading comprehension is rather inaccurate. Where did I say that the Uighers were the first ones in that land? Where did I say they were indigenous to Xinjiang? Since you claim to know more history than me, please do tell us what happened to Xinjiang after the battle of Talas and the Anshi Rebellion (Hint: it was around the same time that Tibet invaded and captured the Tang capital)
"the people in Xinjiang are Uighers and have Uigher ethnicity and culture." this is mostly WRONG. it suggests that xinjiang is only Uigher, and it ISNT. "Just because they have been taken over by France doesn't make them French. China may now own the property that they sit on, but the whole ethnic history there is certainly not of Chinese origins." here you suggest Chinas claim lies solely on the fact Uighur are Chinese or that the land belongs to China currently. this is also WRONG. Chinas claim is due to historical CONQUEST. what about it? all you have shown is that there was conflict in Xinjiang and Tibet since a very long time ago. guess what, BOTH lost to the Chinese empire later on. thus the claims are QUITE legit (not the one sided invasion and subjugation of "innocent" peoples like tibetans" as some people suggest). despite your attempts to convince people Xinjiang is only Uighur.
Your problem is, you play fast and loose with words, and then complain about my statements being suggestive. eg. ..."but XinJiang was China's since the Tang Dynasty." What would most readers of English understand from a statement like that? I would read it as that area has been in the uninterrupted possession of China since the Tang Dynasty. But historically, such a view would be wrong. After the battle of Talas (751) , the Tang Chinese were driven out by invading Turks and then Tibetans. Thereafter, the land there passed between warring Khanates (some Uigher some not) until the Mongols conquered China more than 500 years later (1271) and then sweeping westward to more conquest. Thus, it was the mongols that reconquered the xinjiang area. Politically, China was just another prize in the Mongol booty sack as the golden horde wrecked havoc all the way to eastern Europe. So far from Xinjiang being China's SINCE the Tang Dynasty, Chinese people lost the Xinjiang area to the Turks and Tibetans, and then were themselves conquered by the Mongols. But luckily for China (the political entity), the curious thing that it does with conquerors is that it eventually co-opts them. Much like how the Normans co-opted the Vikings. Many in Europe feared Viking raids because of the obvious; most shore line European nations were of no military match for the Viking invaders, and for hundreds of years, were routinely plundered. Then came Normandy. Vikings liked the place so much, that they took to settling there, and over time, became more and more Norman themselves. In this case, the land co-opted the invader. This had been a phenomena that fascinates many Chinese historians, that despite being invaded and conquered, the cultural character of the Chinese people eventually subsumes the invaders, and over time, render them more and more Chinese, to the point that they then become and are considered Chinese. As the conquering Mongols became the Yuan dynasty, their area of control contracted and the bulk of the Xinjiang area remained passed between various hands. The Xinjiang area, in its entirety, didn't return fully to Chinese hands until the Manchu (another conqueror of China) took over. That why a statement like: "...but XinJiang was China's since the Tang Dynasty" ...is not correct. What would be more accurate is to say, Xinjiang was once China's during the Tang Dynasty. Also prior to the influx of Han Chinese into the Xinjiang area, about 85% of the indigenous population in Xinjiang was ethnically Uigher. So for you to say "... this is mostly WRONG. it suggests that xinjiang is only Uigher, and it ISNT." is really splitting hairs. As for you statement "being Uigher does not mean that they are not Chinese as well..." I would suggest you ask that of a Uigher. Legally they are of course, Chinese citizens but do they consider themselves Chinese? Hardly. If they did, they wouldn't rebel in such a fashion. The way the situation is right now, not only do they hate China, the political entity, but also unfortunately hate Chinese, the people; at least enough to openly attack them. I doubt very much that any of them would ever consider themselves to be "Chinese" Uighers.
NO there was a Chinese presence in Xinjiang for thousands of years since 206 BC, but I agree the Chinese rule in Xinjiang wasn't continuous but was intermittent (if thats what your disputing). Xinjiang like many others places in the world suffered from foreign invasions but alot of time it was under some form of Chinese rule. Your Wikipedia article documents some of this, however its quite lengthy and differcult to unravel. Heres an article from Encarta which gives a shorter summary of the history of Chinese presence in Xinjiang: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553576_2/Xinjiang_Uygur_Autonomous_Region.html Xinjiang first came under the loose control of imperial China during the Han dynasty (206 bc-ad 220). About 100 bc the Han extended the Great Wall from Gansu into Xinjiang and established several military garrisons along what became the Silk Road. The indigenous Uygur inhabitants were nomadic herders and oasis cultivators who were organized into tribal alliances and small kingdoms. Chinese influence waned after the Han dynasty and the Uygurs regained control. Periods of more effective Chinese control came during the Tang (Tang) dynasty (ad 618-907) and the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1279-1368). Xinjiang was made a province in 1884 during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911). In the 20th century a Han Chinese warlord, Yang Zengxin, gained control of the province and was later appointed governor. Yang was assassinated in 1928 and the province was only loosely controlled until the Communists gained control of China in 1949. Communist troops then moved into Xinjiang and were subsequently followed by large numbers of Han Chinese military colonists who were resettled on military farms. In 1955 Xinjiang was established as an autonomous region. The Uygurs have resisted Han cultural assimilation and have periodically clashed with Communist authorities. Despite official policies and documents that guarantee the rights of minority nationalities, there has been Han repression of minorities, resulting in strife and violence between the Uygurs and the Han. Dude, what you described about China is the same for most countries in the world ie. subject to foreign invasions in the past, borders changed due to being invaded or by invading other lands and internal divisions which "fractured" the country due to warring factions or warring kingdoms and then bloody wars to reunify the country. Don't believe me?? Here's a challenge for you. Show me some countries whose borders hasn't changed since it's birth or inception in history?? hasn't been invaded by foreign powers?? Split up by warring kingdoms or clans? has never experienced bloody infighting to unify the country?? I mean look at England for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_England It was invaded by Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and the Normans etc, England was also split into rival kingdoms for lengthy periods in it's history!! and bloody wars were used to united the country!! This is the same classic formula for most countries in the world.
for the record, there are Uighurs, Han, Hui and Kazakhs living in Xin Jiang. so yes, your statement ""the people in Xinjiang are Uighers and have Uigher ethnicity and culture." is most definitely incorrect. i see what you are doing. you are trying to change the subject.....sure, you can nitpick the constant rule over Xin Jiang. that is irrelevant. my whole point was China's claim is from conquest, not the mere fact Uighurs are legally Chinese today, or that China currently has Xin Jiang in its possession. it is a valid counter to your statement: "Just because they have been taken over by France doesn't make them French. China may now own the property that they sit on, but the whole ethnic history there is certainly not of Chinese origins." your doubts are also irrelevant. fact is out of the thousand or so participants of the incident included both Han and Uighur. There are 8 million Uighurs. your sweeping assumptions on Uighurs are once again flawed.
Not ure what the Riot and tension is all abot, in that region........seems like China is trying to curtail Free speech, like they did to Tibet.
