China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
You need to get your logic straight here. Please link and quote ANYWHERE in ANY of my posts where I said or even merely implied that I don't want a "smaller group of people to become extinct or impure in some way". If you cannot find this quote, you need to apologize for accusing me of borderline racism. I was asking you about whether Tibetans or Uyghurs prefer Chinese government or self-government, NOT whether they have some kind of "racial right" to "purity" or "existence" in the face of demographic assimilation. I never said that anybody has such a right, but people DO have a right to consent to who governs them, even if indirectly.
What are you even talking about here with your "do as I say, not as I do" and "losing hope" silliness??? Regardless of whether the Chinese government is "suppressing" these groups of people or not, the fact remains that it is an open question as to whether Tibetans or Uyghurs prefer to be under Chinese rule or not. It is not an "NGO separatist" question just because you personally find it offensive that such a question exists in the first place. I sense that you are afraid of this question because you already suspect the answer. Also, I don't have any "prejudice" against Han just because I am asking this totally legitimate question. I happen to be Han myself, not that it matters to the question being asked of you in the first place!
Yes, the leadership of the CCP is ideology-based not ethnically-based, but this is a facile distinction given that NO government on this planet is "ethnically-based". And it's also interesting for you to say that given that the overwhelming vast majority of the political apparatus in the PRC is in fact Han. How many Standing Committee members are non-Han? I have also found it mildly amusing that the NPC frequently has its minority members seen dressing in their minority clothing during assemblies instead of in business attire as if to say "yes, look, we have minorities in our government! See their costumes!"
Oh yes, a most "harmonious" assimilation given the forced conquest of the entire country. Also that the Manchus were vastly outnumbered and needed the existing Han political structure to effectively rule the massive country; same goes for the Mongolians. They "harmoniously" self-assimilated AFTER they conquered the entire country.
Unfortunately for you the actual situation is far more complicated than your portrayal of it here. Tibet has been an independent country through various periods in Chinese history; in fact the only times it has been under direct Chinese rule was during the Yuan (Mongolian) and Qing (Manchurian) dynasties. After the Qing collapsed the Tibetans reverted to self rule until PRC forces entered Tibet in 1950 to reestablish control. So Tibet has certainly not been as Chinese historically as you are trying to imply. It's relationship with China has been complicated to say the least. If China went to Japan and conquered it, would you still say that "the idea that certain (Japanese) ethnicities have an inherent right to certain Chinese territories (Japan) is nonsense"???
Whatever. In an ideal world, if ever Tibet wants secession and the rest of China agrees, it will secede, the operative concept being that the rest of China agrees. Of course in the current climate this is not going to happen, but that doesn't mean reality is the same as ideality. The balance is between the right of self-determination and the prosperity of the country; this is how it should be calmly and rationally viewed, not as some rabid foaming-at-the-mouth instinct to stamp out "separatism" at all costs.
"I know what's best for you people so shut up and like it" sounds like the attitude many Westerners and Americans have WRT the entire world, should probably add "otherwise we'll beat you up" too.
If this is not a case of double standards singling out China then you should have the same zeal and support for Hawaiian independence, Guam independence, Ryukyus independence, returning good land to Native Americans, returning the Falklands to Argentina, returning Gibraltar to Spain, Palestinians to live in Israel, a Palestinian state, a Kurdish state, etc.
solarz
Brigadier
Ridiculous fallacy based on the assumption that the governing body of a nation must somehow be representative of the demographics of the general population. It's a nice PR move for a liberal democracy where governments face a popularity contest every few years, but a pointless exercise otherwise.
China is a technocracy. Government officials are career bureaucrats who rise through the ranks through a form of meritocracy, imperfect though it is. Their ethnic makeup has nothing to do with the state of ethnic relations in the country.
In the history of human civilization, the vast majority of mixtures between different cultures either result from wars of conquest, or from mass migrations that eventually lead to wars. The Manchu assimilation into Han culture is as harmonious as can be given a meaningful definition of the term in the context of history.
The Yuan Mongols were a completely different matter. While some of them assimilated, most of the Yuan culture carried on in the Mongolian steppes.
So basically, you are saying that Tibet has been a part of a political entity historically recognized as "China", since the 13th century, over a span of more than 400 years, of which there were nearly 300 years of continuous rule.
Ideal world? Your ideal is not my ideal, and I'll thank you not to impose your ideals upon me.
This distinction of yours between "Tibet" and "the rest of China" is a false dichotomy. The province of Tibet in the PRC is not asking for secession. The so-called "Tibetan government-in-exile" led by Dalai Lama is asking for far more than the province of Tibet in its separatist campaign.
So where does "your" right of self-determination end, and mine begin? Your cliche of "majority rule" begs the question, who are the people eligible to cast the vote? Everyone who lives in the province of Tibet? Everyone who lives in the territories claimed by the Dalai Lama's organization? Or only those people deemed to be ethnic Tibetan, and damned be to anyone else who happen to live in the area?
The answer is, there is no answer, because the so-called "right of self-determination" was designed not to empower the disenfranchised, but to destabilize existing social structure so that it can be easy prey for the imperial powers that promoted these so-called rights in the first place.
Equation
Lieutenant General
So what ISIS is doing is right in your definition? You obviously don't know what you're thinking.
Does all black people or any other oppressed minority groups wants to be call Americans? I find your way of thinking offensive to humanity. You are just making excuses to put down the CPC in any way you can pretending that your question is legit? Of course not every Tibetans and Uyghurs prefer to be under their own Chinese government, the fact remains is that they are still Chinese under a PRC flag and nation and the vast majority of them still do. I don't know why you are trying separate the notion that all Tibetans and Uyghurs aren't Chinese citizens.
solarz
Brigadier
Adherents of a certain political system always ask such questions. These questions always involve some kind of hypothetic poll or referendum, and are always guilty of three fallacies that betray the political bias of those asking these question.
First, they will never accept an answer that goes contrary to their views. If you point to a survey that contradicts their prejudice, they will simply dismiss that survey as unreliable. The reason for it being unreliable is always the same: that the country in question is not democratic, or in some instances, not democratic "enough". For example, point them to a survey saying 80% of Chinese support their government, and they will say such a survey is not believable because people in China don't dare voice their true opinions. Point them to a survey showing the popularity of Vladimir Putin, and they will say that it is not believable because Putin manipulates the media. They can always find some reason to dismiss any evidence that runs contrary to their prejudice.
Second, who would be eligible to cast a vote? A province is not a country. China is not a federation. Chinese provinces do not have constitutionally guaranteed rights and powers. Chinese provinces do not have the power to regulate who can or cannot live there: only the central government can. If China, hypothetically, agrees to host a referendum on Tibetan independence, it could easily flood the province with supporters of the central government (not necessarily Han), at which point the opposition would undoubtedly cry foul. However, that only underscores the point: a Chinese province does not belong to only the people living in that province. It belongs to all Chinese citizens.
Third, the very idea that a referendum or election is the only legitimate answer is based on the assumption that a certain political system is the only legitimate way of running a country.
@Iron Man
I see some fundamental differences between you and many others including me regarding following points (not limited). I won't try to convince you but want to point the differences out. And I don't believe the differences are reconcilable.
In our view different from you.
I see some fundamental differences between you and many others including me regarding following points (not limited). I won't try to convince you but want to point the differences out. And I don't believe the differences are reconcilable.
In our view different from you.
- "Chinese" as a concept of Nation/People is a western created term. You may equate it to Han-Chinese, which is not what "Chinese" thinks. There is no equivalent word in any East Asian language until European arrived. All names given to the "Chinese" by its neighbors are name of Chinese Dynasties. Check
- Even Han-Chinese is not a "pure" ethnic entity as you may think. It is a 3000 year old soup of proto-Han, Xiongnu (some mistaken them to be related to Hun), Xianbei (a proto Mongol people), Turk (yes, the one modern Turkish also clam to be offspring), Qidan (Khitan), Jurchen (Manchu ancestors) Mongols, Manchus. This is only about northern China. In the south, the proto-Han has mixed with all kinds of locals, many of them simply disappeared into the Han population, but you can realize their existences in the very distinct Chinese dialects.
- In "Chinese" term, Chinese is anyone living under the rule of a dynasty (in the pre-republic era, now in PRC+ROC) whose capital (therefor institutional powerbase) was within the Great Wall. Essentially it is modern citizenship.
- Because of point 2, Mongols were fully Chinese in Yuan and Qing dynasties, partly in Ming (the inner/southern Mongols.
- Kublai and his successors (House of Borgijin) were fully Chinese because they sit in Beijing and they claimed to be Emperors of Great Yuan.
- The house of Zhu (Ming) regarded House of Borgijin as legitimate Emperors of China after drving them to outer Mongolia. The Ming did not think the Mongolian Emperors as foreigners. They didn't have to but they did grant the Borgijin's legitimacy after driving them out, because the Chinese don't think in your way.
- The Manchu's Aisingioros claimed to be the heir of the house of Zhu for the very same belief of the Ming towards the Yuan.
- The Manchus and Mongols were under no pressure to assimilate but willingly chose to do so. That is self-determination in your logic. Determined to become a member of a bigger family.
- And no, Chinese with mind forged for 3000 years does not believe "self-determination". It is a western invention of late time and Chinese has no obligation to agree with it.
- And no, Chinese does not believe "nation state" for the same reason above. "Nation state" is bordering to racism as it defines right of people to a piece of land by blood (race).
- Last and most importantly, Everyone in China has a claim on every single square-centimeter of land because everyone shares the same blood with everyone else, shares the same ancestors.
superdog
Junior Member
Quite on point. The problem is some people don't understand the complexity of history and politics. It is fairly meaningless (other than in doing propaganda and eliciting emotional response) to process political issues using absolute terms like "xxx is either harmonious or not harmonious", "Han rule vs Uighur rule", "migrants vs indigenous" etc.. Once you fall into these inaccurate black and white contradictions you will get absolutely nowhere.
The question that "Did you ever ask if the Tibetan or Uighur people themselves prefer to be under Han rule, regardless of the economic benefits" is a prime example of such meaninglessness. It was loaded with antagonistic concepts like "indigenous group vs Han group", "self-determination vs Han rule", and then follow it up with another assumption: one can and should form preferences about governance based on an alternate reality in which economic development is a complete non-factor of life. I mean, WTH is the meaning of that? This is a perfect leading question designed to elicit animosity under the disguise of democracy, and it is what the "liberal" media has been promoting for decades.
They're obviously quite successful.
- Status