Ethnic violence in China leaves 140 dead

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Revy]

:( horrible

[IrishWorker]

Do posters think that the PRC offical line of outside agitation by Uighurs is only propaghanda?

[Agrippa]

Do posters think that the PRC offical line of outside agitation by Uighurs is only propaghanda?

Unfortunately, I'm sure many do...

I'm also waiting for the "they're all Islamists!" argument, by the same people who probably support Hamas and the Sadrists....:lol:

[khad]

Unfortunately, I'm sure many do...

I'm also waiting for the "they're all Islamists!" argument, by the same people who probably support Hamas and the Sadrists....:lol:
Your anti-Chinese racism is well-known. You're too obvious, troll.

[Agrippa]

Your anti-Chinese racism is well-known. You're too obvious, troll.If you could provide a specific quote from me, on this message board, or anywhere throughout my life, of my displaying "anti-Chinese racism", or provide an example of my "anti-Chinese racism" being "well-known", I'd appreciate it. I was under the impression that I actually admired traditional Chinese culture, unlike Maoists who advocated its destruction.

"anti-Chinese racism" is just the line you WWP/PSL goons use on anyone who criticizes your line on the PRC. It's a move stolen directly from the mainstream-right's playbook, the way they voucher and affirmative action advocates of being "racist" towards whites.

[khad]

If you could provide a specific quote from me, on this message board, or anywhere throughout my life, of my displaying "anti-Chinese racism", or provide an example of my "anti-Chinese racism" being "well-known", I'd appreciate it. I was under the impression that I actually admired traditional Chinese culture, unlike Maoists who advocated its destruction.

"anti-Chinese racism" is just the line you WWP/PSL goons use on anyone who criticizes your line on the PRC. It's a move stolen directly from the mainstream-right's playbook, the way they voucher and affirmative action advocates of being "racist" towards whites.Fuck you

http://www.revleft.com/vb/party-socialism-and-t111656/index3.html

As an aside, the Viet Cong were also imperialists for trying to graft their bureaucratic agenda onto the just Vietnamese national liberation struggle, leading to the creation of a Sinic puppet state. Have a nice day.

[Agrippa]

Fuck youI love you, too. :laugh:



http://www.revleft.com/vb/party-socialism-and-t111656/index3.htmlSo because I think the Socialist Republic of Vietnam turned out to be a client-state of the PRC, and because I oppose the bureaucratic organization models of the NLF, which lead to the creation of such an obviously capitalist state, I'm an "anti-Chinese bigot"? Basically you've proven my point - anyone who takes a stand against "socialist"/"marxist" capitalism in China is an "anti-Chinese bigot". I'm sure if I criticized the USSR, you would be calling me an "anti-Slavic bigot"

In order to establish that I am an "anti-Chinese bigot", you'd have to prove that I have some irrational prejudice against Chinese culture, which you can't, because I don't. As I've said, one of the reasons I oppose Maoism is because the Maoists supported the total, almost culturally genocidal, destruction of all forms of traditional Chinese culture, and subsequent Westernization of Chinese society, using, as a pretense, a perverse bastardization of the legitimate Chinese communist/anarchist "cultural revolution" critique of Confucianism.

[khad]

So because I think the Socialist Republic of Vietnam turned out to be a client-state of the PRC, and because I oppose the bureaucratic organization models of the NLF, which lead to the creation of such an obviously capitalist state, I'm an "anti-Chinese bigot"? Basically you've proven my point - anyone who takes a stand against "socialist"/"marxist" capitalism in China is an "anti-Chinese bigot". I'm sure if I criticized the USSR, you would be calling me an "anti-Slavic bigot"
There's an evil Chinese behind every rock, just waiting to get YOU.

I've no more to say to a demented fuckup who even calls the Viet Cong imperialists working for some grand Chinese conspiracy.

[scarletghoul]

In order to establish that I am an "anti-Chinese bigot", you'd have to prove that I have some irrational prejudice against Chinese culture, which you can't, because I don't. As I've said, one of the reasons I oppose Maoism is because the Maoists supported the total, almost culturally genocidal, destruction of all forms of traditional Chinese culture, and subsequent Westernization of Chinese society, using, as a pretense, a perverse bastardization of the legitimate Chinese communist/anarchist "cultural revolution" critique of Confucianism.Fuck off, confucio-fascist reactionary.

[khad]

Fuck off, confucio-fascist reactionary.

The people in China who support confucianism are revisionist cappies. The "harmonious society" bullshit is the direct result of the liquidation of socialist ideology from the party.

[Sarah Palin]

Christ I woke up this morning and it's like China's gone to hell and a handbasket

[Communist Theory]

Fucking commies...






I'm waiting for Glenn Beck to say that.
Can anybody post the episode where he reports on this?
Undoubtedly he will pour water on somebody and make a reference to Venezuela.

[khad]

Bless our souls. Han supremacists abound on this thread.
Apparently illiterates too. Yes, my support of socialist East Turkestan constitutes "Han supremacism."


I would support the old Turkestan, as it was a socialist republic, but these current activists tend to be shitheads.

Nevertheless, I would like to wait for more facts to come in before jumping the gun. As was the case in Tibet recently, many of the Chinese capitalists in those parts have created problems with homelessness (peasant displacement), drug addiction, prostitution, and general social degeneracy. I would bet that many of the rioters are unemployed workers, as is the case with most disturbances of this kind.The only thing I see are idiot racists.

Depending on how the facts of this situation turn out, this thread should perhaps be moved to "workers' struggles"

[Revy]

This (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/100002353/will-the-urumqi-riots-create-a-new-peoples-hero/) article claims that this situation will allow for the promotion of Rebiya Kadeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebiya_Kadeer) as a "Uighur Dalai Lama" - another exiled leader of a separatist movement in China, in fact, the Dalai Lama has written the introduction to her autobiography.

Do we really want to see a Balkanized China? China is not a "Han" nation. It is the separatists that want to see it become that though.

[khad]

This (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/malcolmmoore/100002353/will-the-urumqi-riots-create-a-new-peoples-hero/) article claims that this situation will allow for the promotion of Rebiya Kadeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebiya_Kadeer) as a "Uighur Dalai Lama" - another exiled leader of a separatist movement in China, in fact, the Dalai Lama has written the introduction to her autobiography.

This is troubling. I had certain misgivings about the Iranian protests, because I saw them as a popular revolt that played (mostly unintentionally) into the hands of that neoliberal dog Rasfanjani. Now another capitalist dog is set to score a political victory.

If it's like this, leftists around the world should not support this unrest.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is the case that the Uighur people suffer discrimination from the Chinese state, mainly in the form of laws that prohibit religious expression, such as restrictions on the right of women to wear the Hijab, as well as the construction of mosques and other religious institutions. Uighur workers are also more likely to suffer unemployment and wages that are lower than workers in other parts of China because industrial development has mainly been confined to a small number of urban centres on the eastern seaboard, whereas Xinjiang is located in western China. However, the position of socialists on this issue should be to recognize it for what it is - a protest movement that is based on ethnic identity and has carried out violent attacks against the property of the Han minority, as well as individuals who belong to the Han ethnic group, in much the same way as the uprising in Tibet last year. This indicates that the uprising (if it can be described as such) is not progressive and ultimately obstructs the development of class unity between Uighur workers, and workers from other ethnic groups, including the Han, who are a minority in Xinjiang, despite accounting for more than 90% of the population in China as a whole.

[khad]

It is the case that the Uighur people suffer discrimination from the Chinese state, mainly in the form of laws that prohibit religious expression, such as restrictions on the right of women to wear the Hijab, as well as the construction of mosques and other religious institutions. Uighur workers are also more likely to suffer unemployment and wages that are lower than workers in other parts of China because industrial development has mainly been confined to a small number of urban centres on the eastern seaboard, whereas Xinjiang is located in western China. However, the position of socialists on this issue should be to recognize it for what it is - a protest movement that is based on ethnic identity and has carried out violent attacks against the property of the Han minority, as well as individuals who belong to the Han ethnic group, in much the same way as the uprising in Tibet last year. This indicates that the uprising (if it can be described as such) is not progressive and ultimately obstructs the development of class unity between Uighur workers, and workers from other ethnic groups, including the Han, who are a minority in Xinjiang, despite accounting for more than 90% of the population in China as a whole.

There are many Hui and Kazakhs in Ürümqi.

[khad]

Latest casualty count: 156 dead, 1080 injured

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/07/content_11668740.htm

Chinese embassy attacked in the Netherlands:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/07/content_11667144.htm

Reports of revenge looting in the city:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0707/p06s12-woap.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6656359.ece


Well, it doesn't bode well. The Han Chinese outnumber the Uighurs more than 3:1 in the city.

[fatpanda]

a lot of uighurs shout "death to communists!kill the communist"

[The Author]

Columns of troops pour into China's restive west
By WILLIAM FOREMAN, Associated Press Writer William Foreman, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 20 mins ago

URUMQI, China – Hundreds of helmeted troops in riot gear swarmed the central square of the capital of western Xinjiang on Wednesday after ethnic riots left at least 156 dead. The city's Communist Party boss promised those behind the killings would be executed.

Ethnic clashes have paralyzed Urumqi over the past several days — with minority Uighur and Han Chinese mobs roaming the streets and attacking each other. The violence forced President Hu Jintao to cut short a trip to Italy where he was take part in a Group of Eight summit — an unprecedented move by a Chinese leader.

The government further responded Wednesday to the violence by pouring columns of troops into the far-flung province, hundreds of which were stationed in People's Square in the middle of the city.

Communist Party chief Li Zhi told a televised news conference that many people had been arrested, including students.

"To those who committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them," he said, adding government forces would crack down on any security risk. He did not give details.

More than 1,100 people were wounded in the violence, and hundreds of vehicles were damaged or set on fire in the riots on Sunday. It was not known how many Uiqhurs (pronounced WEE-gers) and Han Chinese died or who was behind their deaths.

Li would not say how many of the 156 dead were Han — the majority ethnicity in China — and how many were Uiqhurs — a largely Muslim minority — even though more than 100 of them have been identified and handed over to their families.

He said both groups were responsible for the violence. "The small groups of the violent people have already been caught by police. The situation is now under control."

China's top police officer also vowed there would no leniency for those who took part in the violence in Urumqi (pronounced uh-ROOM-chee).

Public Security Minister Meng Jiangzhu was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency that "key rioters should be punished with the utmost severity."

Meng repeated the government's accusations that the riot was masterminded by overseas separatist groups. China has specifically accused U.S.-exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer and her overseas followers of being behind the violence. She has denied the allegations, and accused China of inciting the violence among Urumqi's 2.3 million residents.

Hu arrived home Wednesday "due to the situation" in Xinjiang, the official Xinhua News Agency said. It did not say what action he would take.

Andrew Nathan, a China expert who heads the political science department at New York's Columbia University, said Hu's departure was "unprecedented."

"It bespeaks of the new populism of the leadership. The top leader is concerned when things are happening to the people. He goes home because it's not good to be away," Nathan said. "I think that's the signal they want to send. It's not about that things are out of control."

At the Urumqi People's Hospital, a newlywed who was attacked said she does not know what happened to her husband.

"He must be unconscious. ... They have been searching the urgent care wards but have not found him yet," said Dong Yuanyuan.

Dong was leaving for her honeymoon with her husband on Sunday when they were dragged off a bus and beaten unconscious.

An air of chaos still permeated the city Wednesday, with swarms of police and paramilitary troops patrolling the streets where armed Han Chinese men also wandered in groups. About 50 Han Chinese, many carrying metal rods, shouted and harassed a foreign reporter who walked by and would not let another journalist with a video camera film the scene.

In a Uighur neighborhood, people carried rocks and makeshift weapons — a knife attached to the end of a wooden stick in one instance — stood guard in groups.

Uighurs say the riots that started Sunday — put down by volleys of tear gas and a massive show of force — were triggered by the late June deaths of Uighur factory workers during a brawl in the southern Chinese city of Shaoguan. State-run media have said two workers died, but many Uighurs believe more were killed and said the incident was an example of how little the government cared about them.

Chinese authorities have been trying to control the unrest by blocking the Internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook, and limiting access to texting services on cell phones. At the same time, police have generally been allowing foreign media to cover the tensions.

On Wednesday, workers in Internet cafes in two other Xinjiang cities, Turpan and Kashgar, said Internet connections had been cut.

"The police came to us and told us to shut down our Internet cafe for the next three days, but who knows how long this will last," said the manger of the Huo Zhou Internet cafe in Turpan. He would give only his surname, Pei.

An operator with China Mobile's service center in Xinjiang, who refused to give her name, said all the services for cell phones, except making and receiving calls, had been suspended, including sending and receiving text messages — one of the major ways Twitter messages are distributed.

Concerns about what was happening in Xinjiang have even extended to Beijing. A female clerk at the Furong Hotel, a two-star hotel, said they received a notice from local police branch Tuesday asking them to report to the police if they received any Uighurs or Tibetans. She said there were no orders not to receive them as guests.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_as/as_china_protest

[RedStarOverChina]

The Han Chinese rioters beat up a lot of Uyghurs merchants, but didn't kill any...yet.

As someone from mainland China who speaks a few words of Uyghur, I was devastated when I heard the news.

Back when I was little, we did not distinguish people on whether they are Uyghurs or Han. No one discriminated anyone on the basis of ethnicity, not openly, at least. I had my first crush on a Uyghur girl.

To think it would all end like this...


I made a few random phone calls to Urumqi two days ago, and a few more today. Some who picked up were Uyghurs and some were Hans, but everyone fears for his/her life.

[RedStarOverChina]

The majority of the deaths were incurred by a series of explosions in a shopping mall, clearing targeting civilians, Hans and Uyghurs alike. Whoever did this did it with prior knowledge of the riot. In other words, it was carefully planned.

Events like this make me wonder if the CCP's "anti-terrorism" rhetorics were more than a mere bag of hot air.

It remains unclear who was behind the explosions.

However, judging by the rapid response of the World Ugyhur Congress (which is backed by the good ole' USA) to the riot, they do seem to be behind the incident (WUC has waged a full-blown propaganda campaign to justify the bloody racist riot). The state media claims to have evidence of their online agitation and even quoted from one of the posts appeared before the riot.

But the WUC is not known to be responsible for blowing up buildings like the East Turkestan Jihadists.

Perhaps they had learned from the Jihadists? Or maybe the WUC worked with the Jihadists (which they had always denied)?

[khad]

redstar, thanks for your updates

[RedStarOverChina]

Thanx.

I only hope there can be more platforms in which Han and Uyghurs could freely exchange concerns.

For the most part, "ethnicity" is a taboo in China, officials and commoners alike avoid ethnic issues like the plague. The lack of communication only encourages Han supremacism, which in turn contribute to the growth of Uyghur supremacism and even Islamic militancy.

Zhou Enlai's wife once warned of Han supremacism in Xinjiang, and that warning needs to be heeded more than ever now.

Otherwise, a "Balkanized" Xinjiang seems unavoidable.

[RedStarOverChina]

OK, there's an interesting phenomenon that I observed. The Uyghur nationalists very much model themselves on the Tibetan exiles. The leader of the World Uyghur Congress, Rebiya has copied everything from the Dalai Lama, going as far as calling herself the "spiritual mother of the Uyghurs"---when she was, in fact, a venture capitalist with tax problems who got rich doing business under the protection of the Chinese government.

So Rebiya ripped off Dalai Lama by doing everything he does, including using fake pictures; repeating the mantra "all Uyghurs are peaceful protester"; and pinning all the deaths on the Chinese government.


Only problem is, the Western media isn't buying it the way they bought Dalai's stories.


However there has been scant evidence to support Ms (Rebiya) Kadeer's claims. A series of graphic photographs of the victims of the riots appear to show an overwhelming number of Han Chinese corpses, while reporters, who have been allowed to circulate freely in Urumqi by the Chinese government, have not heard similar claims from the local Uighur population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5774908/Chinese-province-of-Xinjiang-teeters-on-the-edge-of-fresh-violence.html

Is it because they "know" that Muslism are inherently violent and Buddhists inherently peaceful? Or is it because Tibetans seem far more trustworthy than Uyghurs?

[Small Geezer]

So because I think the Socialist Republic of Vietnam turned out to be a client-state of the PRC


But they didn't. Vietnam was allied to the USSR after the Vietnam war.

[L.J.Solidarity]

Here's (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/787/) an article written by chinese socialists, it's from monday and they think the riots are a product of anti-uighur racism and police attacks against previously peaceful protests.

[RedHal]

OK, there's an interesting phenomenon that I observed. The Uyghur nationalists very much model themselves on the Tibetan exiles. The leader of the World Uyghur Congress, Rebiya has copied everything from the Dalai Lama, going as far as calling herself the "spiritual mother of the Uyghurs"---when she was, in fact, a venture capitalist with tax problems who got rich doing business under the protection of the Chinese government.

So Rebiya ripped off Dalai Lama by doing everything he does, including using fake pictures; repeating the mantra "all Uyghurs are peaceful protester"; and pinning all the deaths on the Chinese government.


Only problem is, the Western media isn't buying it the way they bought Dalai's stories.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5774908/Chinese-province-of-Xinjiang-teeters-on-the-edge-of-fresh-violence.html

Is it because they "know" that Muslism are inherently violent and Buddhists inherently peaceful? Or is it because Tibetans seem far more trustworthy than Uyghurs?

oh I'm sure Washington is working overtime with her on a brand new media campaign. With all the resources at their disposal, I wouldn't be surprised if the imperialist media turns her into another Dalai Lama, heck get a few liberal hollywood celebs and you'll have the liberals all lined up. You're right in that it will be more difficult because she is muslim, but nothing is impossible with the massive control of the media by the imperialist powers.

http://www.uyghurcongress.org/SiteFiles/Rabiye%20xanim%20%20Bush%20bilen%20ayrim.jpg

[Dean]

The Western media has more or less ignored the Uighurs in the stead of the Iranian riots. 140 dead? Who gives a shit? We have Muslims to bash, not praise!

NBC and CNN are currently perps. The U.S. Imperial state has no interest in condemning China, or not that much at least.

[khad]

The Western media has more or less ignored the Uighurs in the stead of the Iranian riots. 140 dead? Who gives a shit? We have Muslims to bash, not praise!

NBC and CNN are currently perps. The U.S. Imperial state has no interest in condemning China, or not that much at least.
If it is indeed terrorism, then this talk of riots is rubbish.

[ls]

I think it's been stirred by both the PRC and from forces from afar, it's a very sad development for the Chinese proletariat.

[st.joshua]

"But nothing is impossible with the massive control of the media by the imperialist powers."

Are you for real. China were you can't access youtube, Wikepedia, BBC and information on the Tianeman square massace has less control over the media then America were we know about the Kent University shootings, Peekskill riots, My lai massacre e.t.c.

This massive riot shows us how much the Uygher people resent living under the opression of the Chinese "Communists" not becasuse they have an irational hate of Chinese people. They cannot freely express their religion e.g. they are forbidden from celebrating Newruz (Uyghur new year) and raditional Meshreps (cultural festivals).

So what if George Bush met Rebiya, all he did in the end was to demanded that China release her Children, a canadian citizen and stop supressing Uyghurs in East Turkestan. Rebiya did get rich doing business under the protection of the Chinese government right up until she publicly critisized the government then she was arrested and imprisoned for 5 years 7 months.

The Uyghurs are just like the Tibetans. Having been invaded by the Chinese "Communists" which is determined to eradicate their culture and their way of life. Not even being alowed to wave the flag of their homeland (Tibetan and Uyghur flags are outlawed) or posses a picture of the people they want to lead them (Pictures of the Dalai Lama and Rebiya Kadeer are also illegal).

Are we to Pretend that what the Chinese Government is doing in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) is moraly justifiable and "for the good of the Uyghurs". With the majority of inhabitants in Urumqi (Capital city of Xinjiang) are Han chinese the Native people of East Turkestan (like the Tibetans) are suffering a Cultral Genocide

[Agrippa]

Fuck off, confucio-fascist reactionary.

Oh....I understand. If I denounce Han colonialism, I'm racist against Han people. If I then explain that one of my primary objections to Maoist praxis is the systematic, culturally genocidal treatment of traditional Chinese culture, I'm a "confucio-fascist reactionary". I guess the only people who lived in China before the revolution were Confucianists. :rolleyes:

[Glenn Beck]

Dude, the PRC went to war with Vietnam. They didn't have normalized relations until 1991.

Anyway, I'm not exactly psyched about the prospect of a bloody war for East Turkestan under the creeps that run the "official" Uyghur movement, but the Uyghurs will claim what is due to them one way or another. The PRC might be digging their own grave in much the same way the USSR did.

[Agrippa]

Dude, the PRC went to war with Vietnam. They didn't have normalized relations until 1991.

Very good point. However, that was after relationships between the PRC and the NLF soured, and as a consequence the NLF sided with the USSR, another political entity I would consider an imperialist power, much to the objection of WWP/PSL kids.

And, in in the post-Cold War "New World Order", Vietnam is once again a PRC client-state, (but also a client of western imperial powers) so I don't feel my initial statements were inaccurate.


I'm not exactly psyched about the prospect of a bloody war for East Turkestan under the creeps that run the "official" Uyghur movementOh, I agree, Rebiya Kadeer is a bourgeois nitwit who can go to hell. At the same time, I wouldn't necessarily have celebrated a bloody war between the US and a Stalinist Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, New Afrikan, or Chicano state, other than as a contradiction the genuine communists can exploit. However, that's wrong, I should reverse that. It's the bureaucrats such as the Dalai Lama, Rebiya Kadeer, Huey Newton, Eldrige Cleaver, and the WWP/PSL that exploit the contradiction between capitalism and the communist current of the working-class

[RedStarOverChina]

Oh....I understand. If I denounce Han colonialism,

So immigration = colonialism.

Now I'm a fucking colonist because I live in Canada?


Xinjiang has always been and remains to this day a multi-ethnic land. Hans, Tubos (proto-Tibetans), Turks, Mongols, Kazakhs, Hui and various other ethnicities call it home, most of them are there long before the Uyghurs are there.

EVERYONE has the right to live and work there, regardless of his/her ethnicity.

Justifying a racist massacre (comparing the murderers with the Black Panthers) because you don't like Han immigrants is out-right reactionary and racist. You've cross the line.

[Dimentio]

It is the case that the Uighur people suffer discrimination from the Chinese state, mainly in the form of laws that prohibit religious expression, such as restrictions on the right of women to wear the Hijab, as well as the construction of mosques and other religious institutions. Uighur workers are also more likely to suffer unemployment and wages that are lower than workers in other parts of China because industrial development has mainly been confined to a small number of urban centres on the eastern seaboard, whereas Xinjiang is located in western China. However, the position of socialists on this issue should be to recognize it for what it is - a protest movement that is based on ethnic identity and has carried out violent attacks against the property of the Han minority, as well as individuals who belong to the Han ethnic group, in much the same way as the uprising in Tibet last year. This indicates that the uprising (if it can be described as such) is not progressive and ultimately obstructs the development of class unity between Uighur workers, and workers from other ethnic groups, including the Han, who are a minority in Xinjiang, despite accounting for more than 90% of the population in China as a whole.

The Han are a minority supported by weapons of the People's Liberation Army. In Urümqi, they are a majority of the population. Because of state migration policies which have made the Uighur a discriminated group in their own homeland.

It is funny that you could support Iran against imperialism, even though Iran probably is less progressive than the Uighur protesters.

My position is that ethnic fighting is always wrong and tragic, but that if there is a case where it is understandable, this is surely one. It is the responsibility of everyone in China and outside of it to try to increase the understanding between the majority population workers and the workers of the minority populations, bringing forth some kind of revolutionary counter-balance to the capitalist exploitation conducted by the PRC government and the Chinese and international corporations in all of China (and maybe especially in Tibet and the Xinjiang/Uighuristan).

[Agrippa]

So immigration = colonialism.

No, immigration does not equal colonialism. As an anarchist I believe in absolute freedom of movement. The policies of the PRC towards its eastern territories is a policy of colonialism. The thousands of Europeans and Euro-Americans who have migrated to Palestine in the past five years are not just immigrants, they are settlers. If you are unaware of the settlement policies of the PRC in Uyghuristan, (Or Xinjiang, as the racist PRC has named it) it's probably because you've never visited, and choose to remain ignorant of the nature of the proletarian sturggle in that country.


Now I'm a fucking colonist because I live in Canada?

Is a Han Supremacist empire currently in the process of colonizing Canada? If not, than no.


Xinjiang has always been and remains to this day a multi-ethnic land.

How does that justify genocidal imperialism in any way, shape or form?


Hans, Tubos (proto-Tibetans), Turks, Mongols, Kazakhs, Hui and various other ethnicities call it home, most of them are there long before the Uyghurs are there.

I completely refuse to speculate as to whether any one indigenous ethnic group of Xinjiang has been there "long before" another, however I am exceptionally skeptical of your claim that "most" Han have been there "long before the Uyghurs are there". You have refused to learn the blatant reality of the history and current situation of your Uyghur class-comrades, and the imperialist regime you live under, which gives you, as an ethnic Chinese, socio-economic and political privilige compared to ethnic minorities such as Turks, Kazakhs, Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc. Just as I, as a white man living in the US, has socio-political and economic privilige compared to blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, East-Asians, etc.



EVERYONE has the right to live and work there, regardless of his/her ethnicity.

The same is true of Palestine and Sri Lanka but European-Jewish/Russian and Sinhalese settlers in those countries still bear responsibility for their actions.


Justifying a racist massacre

Your characterization of the proletarian uprising in Uyghuristan as a "racist massacre" shows that the only racist in the situation is yourself, as you've allowed your Han chauvinism to come before international solidarity. If Han settlers were attacked, it was only because they refused to join the Uyghur sisters and brothers in rising up against capitalism and imperialism


(comparing the murderers with the Black Panthers)

There is no difference between the Uyghur national liberation struggle in the PRC and the New African national liberation struggle in the US - only your ethnic chauvinism prevents you from seeing this.


because you don't like Han immigrants

Again, it's not a matter of not liking immigrants. Most immigrants are poorer than the general population of the country they are migrating to. (For example, Cental American immigrants in the US) The Han in Turkestan are not immigrants, they are settlers, "pawns in the game" (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) of Chinese industrialization and gentrification of its eastern territories. Where the gringos who flooded the American Southwest after it was conquered in the Mexican-American War also mere "immigrants", or were they settlers? What about the Scots (who, like Han Chinese, were themselves members of an oppressed ethnic group) who helped settle Northern Ireland and the East Coast of North America?


is out-right reactionary and racist. You've cross the line.

The only "line" I've crossed is your line of personal discomfort, a line that's fairly easy to cross due to your desperate attempts to maintain a false perception of reality and deny your unchecked ethnic privilige.

Would it be "reactionary" and "racist" of me to point out that Black and Chicano proles who attacked white and Korean-owned businesses during the 1992 LA riots were not mere "racist murderers" but were responding legitimately to centuries of poverty, apartheid, and ethnic colonialism? You're the one who is a reactionary and a racist for only believing the side of the story the state-owned Chinese media has told you. I don't expect any better from any of these Maoist honkies, but you for one should at least have slightly more sense.

It's one thing to brag about how cosmopolitan and anti-racist you are because you had a crush on a Uyghur girl when you were a kid. It's another to show genuine international solidarity, and to approach the issue from a genuinely international perspective, something you obviously refuse to do.

[RedStarOverChina]

No, immigration does not equal colonialism. As an anarchist I believe in absolute freedom of movement. The policies of the PRC towards its eastern territories is a policy of colonialism. The thousands of Europeans and Euro-Americans who have migrated to Palestine in the past five years are not just immigrants, they are settlers. If you are unaware of the settlement policies of the PRC in Uyghuristan, (Or Xinjiang, as the racist PRC has named it) it's probably because you've never visited, and choose to remain ignorant of the nature of the proletarian sturggle in that country.


What an absurd comparison. You yet again fail to understand the difference between immigration and colonialism.

Han immigrants are mostly workers and small merchants who settle in large cities such as Urumqi, and do not drive away or kill off people of any ethnicity, nor do they occupy any substantial amount of arable land.


"Xinjiang" was the name first used by Qing rulers who saw themselves as recovering territory held by China during Han & Tang dynasty. There is no racist undertone in the word.

"Uyghuristan" was never formally used. Xinjiang separatists call it East Turkestan, so do your research before accusing me of being ignorant.




I completely refuse to speculate as to whether any one indigenous ethnic group of Xinjiang has been there "long before" another,You don't have to, if you, you know, read a book or two about it.

Uyghurs originated in what is modern day Mongolia. They were driven away and fled into Western Xinjiang (Kashgar) around 9th century. Later on, Qianlong, the Qing ruler of China, settle Uyghurs all over Xinjiang, making them the dominant ethnicity after the destruction of Dzungar Mongol empire which ruled over modern day Xinjiang.

The Uyghur dominance in the area was reinforced by various campaigns of ethnic cleansing against the Hans, (and to a lesser degree, the Hui) the last of which occurred in 1944.




You have refused to learn the blatant reality of the history and current situation of your Uyghur class-comrades, and the imperialist regime you live under, which gives you, as an ethnic Chinese, socio-economic and political privilige compared to ethnic minorities such as Turks, Kazakhs, Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc. Just as I, as a white man living in the US, has socio-political and economic privilige compared to blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, East-Asians, etc. I have always criticized CCP's ethnic and economic policies in Xinjiang. Do NOT mistaken me for being supportive of their policies.

Unlike you, I have lived with Uyghurs and know specifically what their grievances are, and it's not as simple as you think. Oppression comes in various forms, and not all of them visible, especially to foreign eyes.

But that is no reason to support indiscriminate, racially motivated violence against other workers.

Only ONE cop died in the fucking massacre, whereas more than 180 bystanders died either because they were Han or that they did not approve of racial hatred.

They did not go after the cops, even though they claim to have encountered them first. Nor did they swarm government buildings. Instead, they went for the Han neighborhood, beating up and killing everyone who looked Han; and set off a series of explosions in a shopping mall, which killing 60 civilians.

If that's what your version of proletariat revolution looks like, I want no part of it.


Their goal here was not to struggle against the government. They dispersed and fled whenever cops arrived. Their intention was to create ethnic hatred and balkanize Xinjiang.



Your characterization of the proletarian uprising in Uyghuristan as a "racist massacre" shows that the only racist in the situation is yourself, as you've allowed your Han chauvinism to come before international solidarity. If Han settlers were attacked, it was only because they refused to join the Uyghur sisters and brothers in rising up against capitalism and imperialismYeah, that's the way of going at it.

If the workers don't rebel, kill them all!!!

Jesus fucking Christ!




Again, it's not a matter of not liking immigrants. Most immigrants are poorer than the general population of the country they are migrating to. (For example, Cental American immigrants in the US) Oh, so all the Han immigrants are filthy rich capitalists who exploit Uyghurs? Yeah, they are like Jews, they must be loaded!

So that's your stereotypical view of Han Chinese immigrants in general?
:cursing:

Nowadays, few capitalists are as expressive of their racist assumptions as you are.

[BobKKKindle$]

The same is true of Palestine and Sri Lanka but European-Jewish/Russian and Sinhalese settlers in those countries still bear responsibility for their actions.There is no comparison between Palestine and Xinjiang. What makes immigration into the Occupied Territories colonial in nature is the fact that the immigrants have been able to expropriate the land and property of Palestinians with the support of the Israeli state, and are allowed to carry out acts of violence and intimidation against Palestinians without punishment, whilst the Israeli government maintains the oppression of the Palestinian people through checkpoints and the ongoing construction of the West-Bank barrier, as well as the blockade, in the case of Gaza, which has led to Gaza's citizens being deprived of crucial supplies, such as medical equipment, and foodstuffs. None of these features exist in Xinjiang. This is not to say that there is no official discrimination against Uighur citizens, but to describe the situation in Xinjiang as a case of colonialism robs the term of any meaning. It's worth pointing out that the majority of Han citizens (not to mention the Hui) in Xinjiang as in other parts of western China are not rich capitalists but migrant workers who have travelled to the western provinces in search of work, and so describing these events as some kind of anti-capitalist rising is a gross distortion, equivalent to describing anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland and Russia in the same way.


There is no difference between the Uyghur national liberation struggle in the PRC and the New African national liberation struggle in the US - only your ethnic chauvinism prevents you from seeing this.Firstly, suggesting that the oppression of Uighur citizens is somehow comparable to the intense social and economic discrimination experienced by black people in the US is wrong - they are quantitatively and qualitatively different forms of oppression. Uighur people have never been prohibited from attending the same schools as Han Chinese. Secondly, as far as I know there were never any cases of supporters of Black liberation carrying out pogroms against other ethnic groups.

[Revy]

Wow.

this is a terrible race riot which has left so many people dead - not an uprising. It reflects deep divisions being sowed between workers - it is in fact the exact opposite of a "proletarian uprising", it is a race riot, with Han being murdered.

Han Chinese are not colonizing Xinjiang, they are migrating there. Migration =/= colonization. Han Chinese are moving there for the opportunities not to oppress/enslave those Uyghurs. Would you argue that the mass migration of Southern Blacks to Northern cities in the early 20th century was "colonization"? Of course not.

As for Xinjiang's name, last time I checked the capital is still called Urumqi. And the full name is actually Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Proletarian uprising? Decide for yourself:

axP7u_Txk10

[ComradeR]

It's odd that anyone could mistake these race riots as a proletarian uprising, much less support them. As others have pointed out these were attacks on Han working class Immigrants simply for being Han Chinese, and their perceived threat to "Uighur culture" or the imagined taking of jobs from Uighurs in Xinjiang. In this sense it would be comparable to Whites in the south-western US rioting because of Immigration from Central America and attacking, beating, and killing Immigrants.

[Dimentio]

So immigration = colonialism.

Now I'm a fucking colonist because I live in Canada?


Xinjiang has always been and remains to this day a multi-ethnic land. Hans, Tubos (proto-Tibetans), Turks, Mongols, Kazakhs, Hui and various other ethnicities call it home, most of them are there long before the Uyghurs are there.

EVERYONE has the right to live and work there, regardless of his/her ethnicity.

Justifying a racist massacre (comparing the murderers with the Black Panthers) because you don't like Han immigrants is out-right reactionary and racist. You've cross the line.

Immigration is when you move into a place to find a life there or is fleeing from persecution somewhere.

Colonialism is when you move into a place supported by guns and a government in order to take what the native population has and press it out into the periphery of society.

Another example would be a Jew who immigrates to for example Argentina. He is most likely aquiring Argentinian citizenship, paying taxes to Argentina, learning Spanish and is not at all behaving, nor has the capability to behave in a discriminating manner against Argentinians.

But a Jew from Ukraine or Moldova or America who comes to the West Bank in Palestine, to live in a settlement on illegally acquired occupied territory, and is supported by the military industrial complex of Israel is not conforming into the same category.

The first example is an immigrant, the other a colonist.

[Dimentio]

It's odd that anyone could mistake these race riots as a proletarian uprising, much less support them. As others have pointed out these were attacks on Han working class Immigrants simply for being Han Chinese, and their perceived threat to "Uighur culture" or the imagined taking of jobs from Uighurs in Xinjiang. In this sense it would be comparable to Whites in the south-western US rioting because of Immigration from Central America and attacking, beating, and killing Immigrants.

Rather, it would be equivalent of Native Americans raiding American towns in the wild west during the late 19th century, killing some Americans and similar.

The Mexican immigrants moving into southern USA want to provide for themselves and their families. They are certainly not followed by the Mexican Army and Airforce, and most of them are not treating the majority population badly (although they are very badly treated by the native population).

The Chinese government relocating people into Xinjiang wants to forcefully change the ethnic makeup of the province in order to stop any future potential secession. It is a state policy of China to move people from the ethnic majority westward using incentives like laxer birthrate regulations and lower taxes.

If any European state would have done the same today (for example Britain moving in Englishmen to northern Ireland), it would have been considered blatant racism and even crypto-fascist.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Chinese government relocating people into Xinjiang wants to forcefully change the ethnic makeup of the province in order to stop any future potential secession. It is a state policy of China to move people from the ethnic majority westward using incentives like laxer birthrate regulations and lower taxes.Nice chauvinist conspiracy theory, but both Tibetans and Uighur people were actually exempt from the one-child policy until 1988 and are today allowed to have significantly more children than Han couples, with the exact number depending on which part of Xinjiang Uighur people inhabit (source (http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1778457) - "[Beijing] has, for instance, exempted them [ethnic minorities] from the one-child policy most Han suffer under", also see this (http://www.china.com.cn/2008lianghui/2008-03/10/content_12197005.htm)) leading to the size of these minorities as a percentage of the Chinese population and the regions they inhabit increasing over time in spite of migration from other areas (source (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/344.html)). If the Chinese government were intent on destroying all movements for secession - which in any case do not command popular support amongst either ethnic group and have historically functioned as a way of allowing imperialist powers to challenge China's growing power - then they would not allow this exemption, and they would also not allow Tibetans to be taught in their native language, as well as all the other forms of evidence that undermine your assertions. The reality is that the Chinese government has encouraged migration, which does not specifically appeal to Han Chinese, because areas in the western regions of China are underpopulated, but contain valuable resources, which can be better exploited as the population increases. Demographic policies of this kind are used throughout the world by governments but it is only in China that they are cited by chauvinists such as yourself as "evidence" of deeply-rooted racial oppression.

[Dimentio]

Nice chauvinist conspiracy theory, but both Tibetans and Uighur people are actually exempt from the one-child policy (source (http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1778457) - "[Beijing] has, for instance, exempted them [ethnic minorities] from the one-child policy most Han suffer under") which has led to the size of these minorities as a percentage of the Chinese population and the regions they inhabit increasing over time in spite of migration from other areas. If the Chinese government were intent on destroying all movements for secession - which in any case do not command popular support amongst either ethnic group and have historically functioned as a way of allowing imperialist powers to challenge China's growing power - then they would not allow this exemption, and they would also not allow Tibetans to be taught in their native language, as well as all the other forms of evidence that undermine your assertions. The reality is that the Chinese government has encouraged migration, which does not specifically appeal to Han Chinese, because areas in the western regions of China are underpopulated, but contain valuable resources, which can be better exploited as the population increases. Demographic policies of this kind are used throughout the world by governments but it is only in China that they are cited by chauvinists such as yourself as "evidence" of deeply-rooted racial oppression.

If I am such a blatant racist and chauvinist as you imply, then by all mean, why not ban me? Or is it simply like that, that you are simply taking up Godwinesque arguments from your ass in order to appear as the "higher man"?

The Beijing government certainly would not like Tibetans and Uighurs to die out, whom else would entertain Chinese tourists travelling to the internal regions of the country?

But that they are exempted from the one-child policy do not matter much as Han settling there also are, and there is a source of unlimited potential migrationists amongst the large unemployed proletariat caused by the laissez faire policies of the PRC.

It is of course not the fault of the Han settlers who search for a better life there from the almost lethal conditions of the Chinese labour market, but it is certainly the Chinese government which is responsible for the current issues in Xinjiang and Tibet.

But, to cut the crap. If I am a racist, then why not ban me?

We ban racists here.

[Crux]

Xinjiang: Brutal policing triggers deadly riot

Mon, 6 Jul 2009.
140 killed and 800 injured in worst ethnic clashes for decades in China’s Muslim-majority region

Vincent Kolo, chinaworker.info

A peaceful sit-down protest in the capital city Ürümqi by around 300 Uighurs, the Turkic-speaking minority that is the dominant population group in Xinjiang, was transformed by trigger-happy police into perhaps the most serious ethnic clashes seen in decades. Xinjiang, known as East Turkestan to many Uighurs, has seen ethnic tensions rise as a result of Chinese state repression that went into overdrive after “9/11” and the global “war on terror”, discrimination of non-Chinese speakers, and a yawning wealth gap that puts the indigenous population at the bottom.

The anger boiled over on Sunday 5 July as hundreds of riot police waded into what had been a peaceful protest by Uighurs, mostly youth. Xinhua News Agency report that around 1,000 Uighurs rioted, overturning police barriers, attacking bystanders and smashing vehicles. Witnesses quoted in Western media said that up to 3,000 rioters faced around 1,000 police and paramilitary police. Chinese media gave the figure of at least 140 people killed and 816 injured, warning that the death toll could rise. These reports state that 261 motor vehicles and around 200 shops were attacked or burned.

“The casualty toll, if confirmed, would make this the deadliest outbreak of violence in China in many years,” writes the New York Times. Already, this represents the most serious outbreak of violence in Xinjiang since 1997 and threatens to eclipse the horrific death toll in Tibetan areas last year. A total clampdown is now in force in Ürümqi with martial law declared and telephone and internet services cut. Dozens of casualties, from both Han and Uighur communities, have been taken to city hospitals.

China Central Television (CCTV) showed footage of Uighur protesters attacking and kicking people on the ground. Other people sat dazed with blood pouring down their faces. As with the rioting in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, in March 2008, such images will inflame anti-Uighur sentiment among sections of the Han Chinese who make up 92 percent of China’s population. Indeed, this is the intention of China’s ruling elite, who undoubtedly want to seize upon events in Ürümqi to create a welcome popular diversion from the deepening economic crisis and growing discontent that threatens to spoil the ruling ‘communist’ party’s celebration of 60 years in power this October. Typically, the central thrust of official propaganda is that the violence in Xinjiang was fomented from outside by exile groups - the message being that all Chinese should unite behind “their” government to protest against “foreign interference”.

No one should be fooled by this ‘spin’ on the events in Xinjiang. Reports at this stage are fragmentary, but the peaceful character of the initial protest in Ürümqi seems clear. Associated Press report that: “Accounts differed over what happened next in Xinjiang’s capital of Ürümqi, but the violence seemed to have started when a crowd of protesters – who started out peaceful – refused to disperse.” An American eyewitness was quoted by this agency saying that police pushed the protesters back with tear gas, fire hoses and batons, and protesters replied by knocking over police barriers and smashing bus windows. “Every time the police showed some force, the people would jump the barriers and get back on the street. It was like a cat-and-mouse sort of game,” he told AP.

Racist clash at Guangdong factory

The protest was held to demand answers from officialdom over an incident in Guangdong, southern China, on 26 June. A horrendous communal (ethnic) clash between Han Chinese and Uighur migrant workers at a toy factory in the city of Shaoguan resulted in two Uighurs being killed (although there are reports the number could be higher) and 118 injured from both ethnic groups. The incident was started by a Han Chinese worker who had lost his job at Early Light, a private company, that until recently employed over 50,000 workers in southern China. Rather than blaming the boss – Hong Kong’s ‘toy billionaire’ Francis Choi – this worker vented his anger on the 600 Uighur workers brought to the province as cheap labour (even cheaper than Han). This worker, who has since been arrested, circulated a false story on the internet claiming six Uighur men had raped two Han women at the factory. Gangs of Han workers attacked the Uighur dormitories with knives and metal bars and the Uighurs defended themselves with the same means – a bloodbath ensued.

This incident is highly symptomatic of processes in China, as tensions reach breaking point over unemployment (at a post-1949 record), pay cuts (200m migrants have been pitched into a new ‘race to the bottom’ competing for fewer and fewer factory jobs) and official corruption that penetrates almost every sphere of human activity. With all protest channels closed down and workers’ self-organisation outlawed, anger against the state is rising but so too is racism, crime, drug abuse, suicide, and other expressions of hopelessness. As a footnote on the Shaoguan incident, Choi, the billionaire toymaker, is officially worth US$1 billion and boasts a mansion with over 30 sports cars in its car park. The minimum wage set by Shaoguan’s government, which is the norm for most migrant workers, is just 500 yuan a month (approximately US$73). Such are the extremes of the ‘two Chinas’ today: A migrant worker would have to work for 261 years, not spending one fen (cent) of his wage, in order to buy one of Mr Choi’s Ferraris; yet such abysmally low wages are being fought over sometimes with tragic and bloody consequences.

The outbreak of street fighting in Ürümqi represents a ‘feedback loop’ from the clashes in Guangdong. Reports have circulated that police also took part in attacking the Uighur workers in Shaoguan, that several Uighurs despite being victims were among those arrested, and rumours that the mobile phones of Uighurs in Shaoguan had been confiscated to prevent them speaking out. Angered by these reports, and suspicious of another official cover up, a crowd of Uighurs went to the streets of Ürümqi to demand answers and protest against what is obvious discriminatory treatment. State racism

The Shaoguan incident, widely reported on the internet and even in official media, has undoubtedly aroused deep indignation among Uighurs who have seen millions of Han Chinese move into Xinjiang, dominating the growing private sector (the population of Ürümqi, 2.3m, is now 70% Han Chinese), while Uighurs who move to other parts of China face systemic discrimination and racism, are harassed by police and other authorities, and ostracised as ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘prone to violence’ by some layers of the Han Chinese population. Racist ideas in any society do not arise spontaneously from below, but are implanted and cultivated by rulers to further their own policy interests. So it was with the rise of antisemitism in Europe, and “white supremacist” ideology against Afro-Americans in the U.S. And so it has been for decades in China with official distrust of the Uighur minority and their stubborn adherence to their own language, culture and religion, which in the bureaucratic-mandarin mindset poses a threat to “national interests”.

These prejudices are much in evidence now in the official version of the Ürümqi events. The claim that exiled Uighur spokeswoman Rebiya Kadeer, based in the U.S., is behind the riot cannot be taken seriously. Xinjiang’s Governor Nuer Baikeli has stated that, “After the [Shaoguan] incident, the three forces abroad strived to beat this up and seized it as an opportunity to attack us, inciting street protests.”

This claim is no more plausible than the claims the Dalai Lama orchestrated the rioting in Tibet last year, at a time when he was pleading to be allowed to attend the Beijing Olympics, the target of an attempted boycott campaign by his own supporters. Similarly when Han Chinese and other groups of workers stage strikes and street protests, the regime routinely points to the “black hands” of radical intellectuals, human rights activists, leftists, or falun gong practitioners, who they allege must be behind such actions - as if workers are too stupid to struggle on their own account!

In Xinjiang, while support for independence runs deep among Uighurs and other minorities, this is not yet a universal trend, and in this particular case it does not seem to have been the motor force of the protests. Eyewitnesses report that some Uighur protesters carried the Chinese flag. This is quite logical given that the aim of their action was to secure basic rights and assurances for Uighurs working elsewhere in China, but also in the hope the flag would offer some protection against repression and precisely the sort of propaganda against “separatism” that is now raining down. Having spread from Guangdong to Xinjiang, there is now a very real danger of racist revenge attacks on Uighurs in other parts of China, aggravated by chauvinistic government propaganda to justify the crackdown.
Police fired shots

From what are still sketchy eyewitness accounts it seems the security forces, after issuing several warnings to clear the area, atacked the demonstrators with gas and reportedly also cattle-prods, thus transforming a peaceful if angry protest into the worst violence in more than a decade. Even without a full picture of events (which may never emerge) this scenario seems very plausible. Several witnesses reported hearing gunfire in the evening of 5 July, by which time the riot was in full swing. Why would a several hour-long sit-down protest suddenly and without provocation go on a rampage, especially in a city where Uighurs are the minority, and where police numbers are overwhelming? As the Times (UK) points out: “Ürümqi has for years been one of the most well-controlled cities in Xinjiang because of the high and rapidly growing population of Han and the large presence of security forces.”

Are the security forces capable of turning one of the “most well-controlled cities” into a bloodbath? To answer this question we only need to look at their record elsewhere in China, where heavy-handed policing is a well-known major cause of unrest and rioting. We can point to the Weng’an incident (Guizhou province) one year ago as an example, and the Shishou incident (Hubei province) last month as another. There are too many other examples to list here.

The ruling party’s influential Outlook News Weekly commented as recently as its 15 June issue: “Party officials must pay close attention to mass incidents without making mountains out of molehills and seeing them as colossal ‘political incidents.’ Treating these incidents as anti-government actions and subsequently suppressing them with strong force would be the precise method of exacerbating problems, and would have the direct result of aggravating the opposition between officials and civilians.”

This is not the first time central government organs have urged a sensitive approach, fearing that local protests can easily spin out of control because as the same article explains, “social contradictions have already formed certain foundations of society and the masses, creating a powder keg ready to explode at the first hint of a flame...” Yet despite these wiser counsels, so contradictory and unstable is the Octopus of the Chinese state that while the head may urge caution, its tentacles proceed to do the exact opposite, clinging to what they understand best: brute force. This seems to have been the trigger for the latest eruption in Xinjiang.
Socialism and working class unity

A riot by its very nature is a blind and destructive action, an act of desperation. It is not a method for achieving conscious political demands; it does not follow a democratically agreed structure (which is outlawed and therefore very difficult in China), and in conditions like those in Xinjiang this can easily boil over into attacks on innocent civilians targeted for their ethnicity. Socialists in no way support or advocate rioting as a means of political struggle, but neither do we join the chorus – led by the Chinese dictatorship – that puts the blame upon the Uighur protesters for this turn of events. The responsibility for what happened lies with the Beijing regime and its security forces, whose zero tolerance towards public protests and any form of independent action and thought is creating social explosions all over China. This is exactly as socialists warned. One year ago, we warned on chinaworker.info: “Beneath this surface ‘calm’, however, Xinjiang remains a time bomb...” [The national question in Xinjiang, chinaworker.info, 15 January 2008]

Socialists are completely opposed to the Chinese regime’s policies in Xinjiang and the repression now underway in Ürümqi. The Chinese state acts in Xinjiang in the same way it acts over incidents of unrest elsewhere: to defend the interests of the moneyed elite and the untrammeled rule of the current dictatorship. An independent non-government enquiry should be established to look into the events of 5 July and 26 June, including representatives of the Uighur community chosen by themselves. Working class unity over religious and ethnic lines represents the only way out of this crisis. Full democratic rights, including an end to linguistic and ethnic discrimination at school and work, and the right of self-determination for national minorities, are an indispensable part of this struggle. Building a new socialist labour movement, based upon the bedrock of independent trade unions that organise all workers regardless of nationality, sex, religious beliefs, and hukou status, is the urgent task of our time.




For a Socialist Xinjiang and a Socialist China

[I]From the book ‘China - Sweatshop of the World’ by Vincent Kolo and Chen Lizhi (available from chinaworker.info). This is an excerpt from the chapter on Xinjiang:

At this stage, it is not certain that a majority of Uighurs want outright independence. Despite the extremely lop-sided effects of today’s economic growth, it is clear that Xinjiang benefits from economic integration with the rest of China, and there is an understandable fear even among Uighurs that an independent state of East Turkestan could suffer lost jobs and investments. However, if the majority opted for independence, socialists would support this, but with the slogan of an “independent democratic socialist East Turkestan”, explaining that the grip of the Beijing regime (and the capitalist elites in Central Asia who also oppose independence), can only be broken by a successful socialist revolution on an all-China and all-Asia basis.

Only by linking their struggle, in other words, with a mass revolutionary movement of the working class in China and internationally, with the aim of ending capitalism and despotism, can the national oppression of the Uighur people be overcome. On the basis of a democratic workers’ and poor peasants’ government, the people of Xinjiang/East Turkestan would be free to decide what their relationship should be with the Chinese state, whether independence (with democratic guarantees including the right to autonomy or separation for the Han majority regions), or for genuine autonomy within a unified state. This would include the possibility of a wider socialist federation – on a democratic and voluntary basis – of China, Central Asia and Russia, opening boundless possibilities for the development of the massive economic potential of Eurasia.

On the basis of capitalism and imperialism, the national conflict in Xinjiang and the wider region is insoluble. This is why Marxists refuse to give any support to the existing nationalist parties and groupings – secular or religious – none of which put forward an alternative to capitalism and therefore, regardless of their stated aims, stand not for the abolition of oppression and poverty, but only for changing the national-state forms of this oppression. But we are completely opposed to the suppression of nationalist or religious organisations by the Chinese state and support their right to operate legally, just as we call for full democratic rights: freedom of political activity, freedom of worship, right of assembly, a free press etc. We defend the national and cultural rights of Uighurs and other minorities, including the right to use their own language in dealing with the state, equal status for minority languages in the school system and an end to all forms of discrimination in respect of jobs, housing and public services.

The working class in Xinjiang, and elsewhere, must organise independently of all capitalist political formations. To liberate itself it must forge links with the workers of other nations and other provinces of China. The Han Chinese working class must also embrace the struggle against national and religious oppression in Xinjiang as its own struggle. Xinjiang has become a training ground for the latest techniques in state repression and ‘anti-terrorism’ that will be used against all those who stand up to the dictatorial CCP regime: striking workers, anti-pollution activists, pro-democracy activists and socialists. Only by building a united working class movement, within which members of the oppressed national minorities will play a crucial role, can capitalism, authoritarianism and national oppression be consigned to the history books.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Beijing government certainly would not like Tibetans and Uighurs to die out, whom else would entertain Chinese tourists travelling to the internal regions of the country?This is the second time in this thread that you've made a sweeping assertion without any evidence. In your last post you asserted that the Chinese government wants to diminish the relative size of these minorities so as to avert secession and enhance the interests of the Han population. I then pointed out that the Chinese government has actually chosen to offer these minorities greater freedom than Han Chinese in terms of how many children they are allowed to have under the government's strict birth control policies, as well as numerous provisions for cultural autonomy. This is relevant because if the government was really intent on doing what they say then they would have no reason to implement such a policy, especially in light of the fact that minorities would have no way of putting pressure on the government if the exemption was suddenly withdrawn, or never introduced in the first place, due to the undemocratic nature of the Chinese political system. The exemption is significant in that it has allowed the Uighur population to maintain a high rate of growth, as is evident from the following statement, published as part of this (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/344.html) article, and attributed to the author Yuan Xin:

"Relatively rapid population growth - The ethnic Uighur population now increases at an annual rate of 2.41 percent. Minority population growth accounts for three-quarters of the population growth of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region"

For this reason, your assertion that the exemption "does not matter much" is invalid. To cut a long story short, you have no evidence to support a conspiracy theory that paints the Chinese state as effectively a state that is orientated primarily towards the interests of the Han population, along the same lines as the Israeli state. Your second assertion - that the exemption can be explained away as a desire to maintain minorities for tourism purposes - also lacks evidence and is also logically flawed, as the same end could be pursued simply by applying the one-child policy. As noted in my previous post, your arguments are chauvinist, because they characterize Chinese policy as racist even when the same demographic policies are pursued in other states.


that you are simply taking up Godwinesque arguments from your ass in order to appear as the "higher man"?I hope you'll forgive me for not knowing what "Godwinesque argument" is, or not understanding what you mean by "the higher man", unless by "the higher man" you mean someone who uses logic and evidence in their arguments instead of resorting to chauvinist conspiracy theories.

[Agrippa]

What an absurd comparison. You yet again fail to understand the difference between immigration and colonialism.

You simply fail to recognize that there are those less politically and economically privileged than yourself.


Han immigrants are mostly workers and small merchants who settle in large cities such as Urumqi

So fucking what? most Zionist immigrants are now impoverished Russians and East-Europeans, both Jewish and Goyish. Most European immigrants to the south and mid-atlantic coast of what is now the US were either utterly impoverished Scots-Irish farmers, vagabonds, proles, etc. fleeing famine and other symptoms of brutal English occupation of Celtic lands, or Southern Germans of radical Anabaptist descent fleeing political and religious persecution. They were still settlers, though.

They're "settling in Urumqi" because they're gentrifying it. That's what "settling in a city" is usually called, when the people settling are wealthier than the original residents.


and do not drive away or kill off people of any ethnicity, nor do they occupy any substantial amount of arable land.

Sorry, my friend, the facts speak for themselves (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/11/752047/-The-root-cause-of-unrest-in-Muslim-China). I know plenty of white people who like to pretend that their ancestors didn't "drive off or kill" the Indians either. How many Uyghurs do you think have been killed by PRC police, and Han racist lynch-mobs? Are you really that blind, or is your head just stuck in the sand like an ostrich?


"Xinjiang" was the name first used by Qing rulers who saw themselves as recovering territory held by China during Han & Tang dynasty. There is no racist undertone in the word.

There's no racist undertone in using the name the feudal Han Chinese imperialists gave another ethnic group's territory that they they felt they had the right to conquer, because previous feudal Han Chinese imperialists had conquered it centuries earlier? Are you high? :lol:


"Uyghuristan" was never formally used. Xinjiang separatists call it East Turkestan

It's called both. But nice try there trying to nail me with mindless PC when I'm the only one defending an ethnic group you are claiming are "racists" for resisting imperialism.


You don't have to, if you, you know, read a book or two about it.

The only books you seem to read are PRC textbooks. Now that you live in Canada, are you getting indoctrinated into Anglophone chauvinism as well? Learning about how those cannibal redskins and cheese-eating surrender monkeys should be thankful for white English rule? :laugh:




Haha, now you're going back to shit from the 9th century to prove your point? You Sino-Zionist, you. Just like how the Ashkenazim deserve to colonize Palestine because their ancestors lived there back in the Old Testament days! :laugh::laugh:

[quote]Later on, Qianlong, the Qing ruler of China, settle Uyghurs all over Xinjiang, making them the dominant ethnicity after the destruction of Dzungar Mongol empire which ruled over modern day Xinjiang.

So what? That just makes their situation all the more identical to, say, blacks in the US, Canada, and Latin America, or French-Canadians. Do you think that new Africans don't have the right to rebel against the US because they aren't the original inhabitants either?

I'm sure some Indians kicked some other Indians off their land in the 9th century. I guess it's OK for whitey to colonize and kill them all. :laugh:


The Uyghur dominance in the area was reinforced by various campaigns of ethnic cleansing against the Hans, (and to a lesser degree, the Hui) the last of which occurred in 1944.

I don't know about these "ethnic clensings" - whites in the US South sometimes claim that Reconstruction was an ethnic clensing of white people. Settlers always fabricate history to alievate their guilt. I'm certainly not gonig to take your word on it, you'll need to give me a book reccomendation.

In the mean time, admit it, that was a past regime. The new regime has a specific policy of settling and gentrifying Uyghuristan for economic development, and doing so by giving the Han immigrants certain priviliges. (Such as the priviliges I get as a West-European in the US - police like me more, I earn slightly more, I'm less likely to be uneployed, I'm more likely to get a lease, etc.)


I have always criticized CCP's ethnic and economic policies in Xinjiang. Do NOT mistaken me for being supportive of their policies.

It's pretty hard not to make that mistake when you "criticize" something and then turn around and mock and slander anyone who actually does something about it.


Unlike you, I have lived with Uyghurs and know specifically what their grievances are, and it's not as simple as you think. Oppression comes in various forms, and not all of them visible, especially to foreign eyes.

Of course. White Americans are oppressed too. Poor Appalachian Whites are some of the most oppressed and marginalized people, in terms of both economic poverty, and socio-ethnic chauvinism, being at the forefront of suffering from ecological devistation etc. You think the Jews who immigrate to Palestine aren't oppressed? They're Jews!! Russian and East-European Jews are totally fucked. Why do you think they want to immigrate to Palestine so badly? And the Russian Goyim too, they're almost as bad off as the Jews....


But that is no reason to support indiscriminate, racially motivated violence against other workers.

But as I'm pointing out, it's not indescriminate, because they're settlers. And it started out as a peaceful, workplace demonstration. In all likelihood the Han provoked them. (In fact, the most believable story is that the Han police fired on the crowd, in which case it doesn't matter who was killed, the Uyghers were pushed, and they pushed back. The Han should have rioted with them against the police, not fought them. The only reason this was a "massacre" was because the Han were such bigots, they wanted to help the cops keep the Uyghurs down, rather than joining them in a worker's struggle against oppressive police.


Only ONE cop died in the fucking massacre

I really fucking doubt that.


whereas more than 180 bystanders died either because they were Han or that they did not approve of racial hatred.

Or because they sided with the cops.


They did not go after the cops

Again, I really fucking doubt that. Do you have sources for these claims other than Chinese newspapers? If the Uyghurs were just motivated by blind, irrational hatred of Han, they would have attacked the police as well, since most of the police are Han. However, they were specifically mad at the police because the police fired into their crowd, and because everyone hates the police and attacks them in riot-type situations.

I really just think you're totally uncredible.


Nor did they swarm government buildings.

Again, do you have proof of this claim? I'm sure if there were any government buildings around, they would have been the most immediate, obvious, and desirable target for the Uyghurs.


Instead, they went for the Han neighborhood, beating up and killing everyone who looked Han;

Well, when white people started building houses on Indian territory, the Indians got in the habbit of rollng up poison ivy into balls, lighting the balls on fire, chucking them down the chimney, and putting large plates over the chimney so the houses would fill up with poison ivy-smoke. Needless to say, having poison ivy in your lungs is incredibly painful, and anyone who was allergic, including kids, would have died.

Are any children confirmed dead from the rioting in Turkestan?


and set off a series of explosions in a shopping mall, which killing 60 civilians.

I haven't heard about this. Citation? Or is this just hearsay?

It sounds like 9/11 truther BS. Where would they have gotten the explosives? You sure they just weren't throwing molotov cocktails in the mall? That's going to happen during the revolution here as well, the people inside the malls should have been elated, they should have join them.


If that's what your version of proletariat revolution looks like, I want no part of it.

Oh, OK, I'll sign you up for the perfectly, unmessy, clean, always 100% morally pure proletarian revolution. Because if someone's proletarian, that automtically means they are morally righteous and will behave in such a way. :laugh:


Their goal here was not to struggle against the government. They dispersed and fled whenever cops arrived.

So because some of the protestors behaved in a slightly cowardly manner, it was wrong for them to riot? How well would you do in a riot?

Anyway, I'm sure plenty of cops were attacks. The cops have definitely retaliated.


Their intention was to create ethnic hatred and balkanize Xinjiang.

Yeah, white bigots, both Leftist and Rightist, say that in the US about the Panthers, the United Slaves, MOVE, etc.


Yeah, that's the way of going at it.

If the workers don't rebel, kill them all!!!

I'm not advocating attacking random Han, but given what we know of the events, I think the Uyghurs were provoked, and colonized, ethnically subjugated people have resorted to more guresome ways of pushing back in the past, especially while under the influence of mob mentality. You really need to be more understanding, and recognize the disperportionate role the Han played in forcing the Uyghurs into this situation. But you refuse to because you obviously love the Chinese empire too much.



Oh, so all the Han immigrants are filthy rich capitalists who exploit Uyghurs? Yeah, they are like Jews, they must be loaded!

So that's your stereotypical view of Han Chinese immigrants in general?
:cursing:

See, you're responding to this with such emotion and defensiveness. This is exactly how I first responded when I was an adolescent and I learned about male privilige. I was defensive, I refused to accept what was being told, I lashed out, I called the person telling me this names, I refused to believe that the government gives men priviliges that women don't have, I said the person was unfairly stereotyping men, etc.

But then I grew up and realized that I had a penis, and that in this global patriarchal society, that made me priviliged. You need to accept the fact that in Turkestan, being Han makes you priviliged. Obviously in the US and Canada, you are an "ethnic minority" and therefore a second-class citizen, but in Turkestan you would have it much better off than the Uyghurs, Turks, Kazakhs, etc.

I'm not stereotyping anyone. "Most Europeans who settled in the Americas behaved like settlers" is not a stereotype, it's a historical fact.


Nowadays, few capitalists are as expressive of their racist assumptions as you are.

Again, just like the white Americans who are called on their privilige, you're reverting to accusations of "reverse racism". :rolleyes: Grow up, please.

[Agrippa]

It's odd that anyone could mistake these race riots as a proletarian uprising, much less support them.

"race riots" are proletarian uprisings, because in China, just like in the US, "race" is a manifestation of class, always has been.


As others have pointed out these were attacks on Han working class Immigrants simply for being Han ChineseThe same thing happened during the LA riots, but the LA riots were also outbursts of spontaneous proletarian rage, totally appropriate given the context, which could easily have been channeled into more constructive, international revolutionary activity. I'm sure plenty of Han used the chaos of the riots to attack police, land-owners, stores, automobiles, becuase they're frustrated with industrial capitalism as well. I'm sure the Han who acted like racist assholes and provoked the Uyghurs were the ones most likely to get killed by the Uyghurs.

This is so fucking ridiculous. What if Irish Catholic factory-workers were holding a demonstration, and they got attacked by cops and, racist Loyalist orange banner pigs, and decided to attack the cops and racist pigs? Would that have been a "race riot" in your mind? No, because the Irish are good ethnic seperatists, not like the Uyghurs. Because the Irish are fighting Yankee capitalism, not Chinese socialism. Except what's the fucking difference?


and their perceived threat to "Uighur culture" or the imagined taking of jobs from Uighurs in Xinjiang. Yep, just like the "imagined" disperportionately high unemployment rate among blacks when compared to whites. You are swine.


In this sense it would be comparable to Whites in the south-western US rioting because of Immigration from Central America and attacking, beating, and killing Immigrants.Because the Central American immigrants are wealthier than the whites, have higher employment rates, have lower homelessness rates, have better apartments, make up the majority of the police force, have lower police brutality and arrest rates, (for obvious reasons) have smaller prison populations, etc.:rolleyes:

Please stop acting like you know what you're talking about, when you really don't know shit. Good day.

[Agrippa]

Nice chauvinist conspiracy theory, but both Tibetans and Uighur people were actually exempt from the one-child policy until 1988 and are today allowed to have significantly more children than Han couples, with the exact number depending on which part of Xinjiang Uighur people inhabit

Wow, so fucking what?

In the US, blacks, American Indians, and Latinos get all sorts of superficial benefits that whites are not entitled to, such as affirmative action. Does that mean that anyone who talks about white privilege is a "chauvinist conspiracy theorist"?

Guess what, birthrates among blacks, Latinos, and American Indians in the US are all higher than that of whites. Exact same fucking situation as in China

Are you really unfamiliar with the PRC's experiments with eugenics and population control in Tibet and Turkestan?


If the Chinese government were intent on destroying all movements for secession - which in any case do not command popular support amongst either ethnic group and have historically

The vast majority of Uyghurs do not want to be subjected by a Western puppet state any more than the PRC, it's true. They still want to destroy the PRC, however, and rightfully so.


functioned as a way of allowing imperialist powers to challenge China's growing power

Should read "rival imperialist powers".


then they would not allow this exemption, and they would also not allow Tibetans to be taught in their native language

The US imperialists now allow American Indians to be taught their native language. The Spanish imperialists now allow Basques to be taught their native language. The Turkish imperialists now allow Kurds and Armenians to be taught their native language. The list goes on.

The reason all these ethnic groups have more freedoms than they used to is because they fought for them. The Tibetans are no exception. Giving oppressed and marginalized ethnic groups recognitions and concessions, especially incredibly superficial ones, actually improves the stability of an imperialist state such as the PRC.


as well as all the other forms of evidence that undermine your assertions.

You haven't provided evidence for anything. Exemption from "one-child policies" and rights to practice language are pretty frivolous compared to issues of police violence, imprisonment, unemployment, homelessness, gentrification, etc.

Black and American Indian children get taught in public school about the beauty of Malian mosques, and about how to make dream-catchers out of yarn and pop-sickle sticks. Are they not also colonized and subjugated by a racist system? Of course they are, it's just a neo-colonial, politically correct, "representative" racism.


The reality is that the Chinese government has encouraged migration, which does not specifically appeal to Han Chinese

No, but the majority of the migrants are Han.


because areas in the western regions of China are underpopulated

So? Did the indigenous people decide the land was "underpopulated"? Did they get lonely or something? Or did the Chinese capitalists decide that? Considering the Earth's problem right now is human overpopulation, I really can't take what you're saying seriously on any level.


but contain valuable resources, which can be better exploited as the population increases.

Haha, a Trot calling for the exploitation of resources. A classic moment of wonderful honesty! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Demographic policies of this kind are used throughout the world by governments but it is only in China that they are cited by chauvinists such as yourself as "evidence" of deeply-rooted racial oppression.

No, I feel the same sort of deeply-rooted racial oppression exists in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Liberia, the US, Australia, Latin America, South Africa, East Timor, Corsica, do you want me to go on? But thanks for assuming, Trotskyite imperialist!

A racist, ethnic imperialist Trotskyite? Who would have ever guessed? ;)

[Lynx]

Ye reap what ye sow.
Chinese government policy has contributed to these riots and other disturbances. No doubt they will use this as yet another pretext for brutal repression that will result in many more deaths.

[Wanted Man]

I'm not advocating attacking random Han, but given what we know of the events, I think the Uyghurs were provoked, and colonized, ethnically subjugated people have resorted to more guresome ways of pushing back in the past, especially while under the influence of mob mentality. You really need to be more understanding, and recognize the disperportionate role the Han played in forcing the Uyghurs into this situation. But you refuse to because you obviously love the Chinese empire too much.
Oh boy, I'm lovin' this stuff. I'll let you all in on another secret: the Srebrenica massacre was a proletarian uprising too!

In 1961, <50% of the Srebrenica population were muslims. In 1991, >75%! All those poor people in the surrounding villages were just seeing their city being colonised. Who cares that these muslims were poor, so were Jews in Israel, and of course the Jews are also dirty filthy settlers. :rolleyes: So why mock and slander anyone who actually does something about it??? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, you seem to have a huge obsession with race. The really good "blood and soil" stuff, too. Fuck off from Revleft please.

[khad]

Oh boy, I'm lovin' this stuff. I'll let you all in on another secret: the Srebrenica massacre was a proletarian uprising too!

In 1961, <50% of the Srebrenica population were muslims. In 1991, >75%! All those poor people in the surrounding villages were just seeing their city being colonised. Who cares that these muslims were poor, so were Jews in Israel, and of course the Jews are also dirty filthy settlers. :rolleyes: So why mock and slander anyone who actually does something about it??? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, you seem to have a huge obsession with race. The really good "blood and soil" stuff, too. Fuck off from Revleft please.
No, Srebrenica was a Chinese conspiracy. Everyone knows that the Serbs were merely agents of the global Sinic illuminati.

[Agrippa]

Oh boy, I'm lovin' this stuff. I'll let you all in on another secret: the Srebrenica massacre was a proletarian uprising too!

In 1961, <50% of the Srebrenica population were muslims. In 1991, >75%! All those poor people in the surrounding villages were just seeing their city being colonised. Who cares that these muslims were poor, so were Jews in Israel, and of course the Jews are also dirty filthy settlers. :rolleyes: So why mock and slander anyone who actually does something about it??? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, you seem to have a huge obsession with race. The really good "blood and soil" stuff, too. Fuck off from Revleft please.

Ah yes, anyone with actual anti-imperialist politics is a " blood and soil" racist. :rolleyes:

I guess you're also mad at Obama and Sotamayor for "playing the race card", huh? ;) After all, why can't they just be colorblind?:crying:

[Dimentio]

Oh boy, I'm lovin' this stuff. I'll let you all in on another secret: the Srebrenica massacre was a proletarian uprising too!

In 1961, <50% of the Srebrenica population were muslims. In 1991, >75%! All those poor people in the surrounding villages were just seeing their city being colonised. Who cares that these muslims were poor, so were Jews in Israel, and of course the Jews are also dirty filthy settlers. :rolleyes: So why mock and slander anyone who actually does something about it??? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, you seem to have a huge obsession with race. The really good "blood and soil" stuff, too. Fuck off from Revleft please.

You are smarter than jumping on the BK bandwagon. As soon as one of his darlings either implodes or does something really nasty, it will be the end of his story as some sort of anti-imperialist conscience for this community.

In Srebrenica, it was more like one collapsing power (Yugoslavia) wanting to inflict damage on ethnic groups which were perceived as wanting independence or greater autonomy and used military stooges (the Republika Srpska) to attacks muslim communities and kill several thousand men and boys.

An equivalent would be if the PRC armed citizen mobs of Han Chinese to do rampage upon the population.

I find it spooky of how you guys are relativising genocide and making associations between the victims of one ethnically motivated repression campaign and the perpetrators of another.

The muslim militant groups in Bosnia and Kosova did also commit some war crimes against Serb civilians. But for all neutral observers, it stand clear that the two main villains were the Serbian and Croatian governments which assisted and created stooges in order to rape Bosnia.

The Uyghurs do not have the support of any government, neither that of the PRC or that of any foreign country. They have no large organisations, no parallell government and they do not control their territory.

As Agrippa has stated, this is an equivalent to the L.A Riots.

[Wanted Man]

Ah yes, anyone with actual anti-imperialist politics is a " blood and soil" racist. :rolleyes:

I guess you're also mad at Obama and Sotamayor for "playing the race card", huh? ;) After all, why can't they just be colorblind?:crying:
Actually, Obama recently said that African nations "need to get their acts together". So what you're accusing me of should probably be aimed at Obama himself. People who avoided illusions in Obama consistently saw this coming, while those who fixated on his skin colour failed to do so.

Serpent, who is relativating genocide? You and Agrippa are even condoning it as acceptable in some circumstances. Anything can be justified with your logic, complete with all its racist undertones, canards, fallacies, etc., including Srebrenica.

State involvement, how about CIA support for the "Uyghur movement" led by a disgruntled businesswoman who's having a shot at being the new Dalai Lama? Or is there some kind of limit where state involvement is decisive? Or does it just depend on which nationalism you support (Srebrenica deniers deny the genocide, but justify it at the same time, Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust, but also suggest that the Jews had it coming, etc.)?

Edit: I'm not on the "BK bandwagon", whatever that is. He's just the most vocal, and most of his arguments are from a pretty rigid perspective and unique interpretation of the SWP's party line. It's convenient to group people together, but that's not the case at all here. I don't think Agrippa is on your bandwagon, or vice versa, either, because you obviously have different perspectives. The logic in this case, however, is the same and should be opposed.

[Agrippa]

Actually, Obama recently said that African nations "need to get their acts together".

What does that have to do with race, really?

And that's a completely different point. I'm not defending Obama. But you're treating anyone who talks about race or thinks race is an important contradiction in capitalist society as a "racist" and a "blood and soil nationalist", even though I specifically said that as an anarchist I support everyone's right to freedom of movement. If I was a racist, I wouldn't want Han and Uyghurs having kids. As it is, I don't even care if Han move to Uyghuristan. However, I do care when workers act against their class-interests, as the Han workers in East Turkestan are currently doing, as the white workers who sided with the cops in attacking black and brown youth-rioters in Paris were doing as well....


Serpent, who is relativating genocide? You and Agrippa are even condoning it as acceptable in some circumstances.If you want to think of the LA riots as an act of black and brown "genocide" against whites and yellows, sure. Or the riots in Paris as a "genocide" of the French perperatrated by Muslim immigrants.

I personally said that Uyghurs indescriminately attacking Hans is wrong. But there's clearly much more to this incident than that.


Anything can be justified with your logic, complete with all its racist undertones, canards, fallacies, etc., including Srebrenica.You can distort my logic and alter my position to justify anything, yes.


State involvement, how about CIA support for the "Uyghur movement"Which is exaggerated and overblown by pro-PRC conspiracy theorists.

The Soviets wanted blacks in the US to win too, for obvious reasons. I guess the Civil Rights struggle during the 50s and 60s was "racist" and "imperialist" too....

I mean back in those days, there were lots of riots where blacks just indiscriminately attacked white people as well. I guess that's "genocide" too.


led by a disgruntled businesswoman who's having a shot at being the new Dalai Lama?I'm pretty sure I already called that woman a bourgeois toad, or somthing to that effect, in this very threat. If I haven't, than I say it again, she's a bourgeois toad.

Also, I think I've made my opinion of the Dalai Lama well-known (http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php?searchid=1421630). He doesn't represent the Tibetan people any more than Kadeer represents the Uyghurs. Also no more than Mao Tsetung represented the Han, Ho Chi Minh represented the Vietnamese, or Newton and Cleaver (after they went off the deep-end, of course) represented Africans living in America.

[Dimentio]

Actually, Obama recently said that African nations "need to get their acts together". So what you're accusing me of should probably be aimed at Obama himself. People who avoided illusions in Obama consistently saw this coming, while those who fixated on his skin colour failed to do so.

Serpent, who is relativating genocide? You and Agrippa are even condoning it as acceptable in some circumstances. Anything can be justified with your logic, complete with all its racist undertones, canards, fallacies, etc., including Srebrenica.

State involvement, how about CIA support for the "Uyghur movement" led by a disgruntled businesswoman who's having a shot at being the new Dalai Lama? Or is there some kind of limit where state involvement is decisive? Or does it just depend on which nationalism you support (Srebrenica deniers deny the genocide, but justify it at the same time, Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust, but also suggest that the Jews had it coming, etc.)?

Edit: I'm not on the "BK bandwagon", whatever that is. He's just the most vocal, and most of his arguments are from a pretty rigid perspective and unique interpretation of the SWP's party line. It's convenient to group people together, but that's not the case at all here. I don't think Agrippa is on your bandwagon, or vice versa, either, because you obviously have different perspectives. The logic in this case, however, is the same and should be opposed.

No matter if the CIA is trying to weaken a US competitor, that does not excuse the systematic colonisation of a defenseless region undertaken by the Beijing government. No matter if the Gestapo was supporting an Uyghur independence movement, it would be illegitimate to repress the native Uyghur population and quash all opposition when it turns angry.

The Nazi Party in the 1920's supported the anti-imperialist Moroccan leader Abd-el-Krim against the French, on the basis of a perceived "same situation coin" aimed against France. That does not make Abd-el-Krim any less of a liberation hero against the French.

I do not know about this businesswoman, but these protests do not seem to be organised by some sort of cabal, but spontaneously erupting due to a history of discrimination.

I do not condone violence against Han Chinese workers or farmers in that region, but I certainly condone resistance against the PRC colonialism project.

[The Author]

No matter if the CIA is trying to weaken a US competitor, that does not excuse the systematic colonisation of a defenseless region undertaken by the Beijing government.

This is just as baseless a claim as the ones about how the Russians in the U.S.S.R. were supposedly colonizing the other republics and non-Russian regions and "Russifying" them. They were only immigrant workers, just like the Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet. Yet now, after the collapse, we have a situation- especially in the Baltics and Ukraine- where the Russians are a persecuted minority with the local governments encouraging racism because of claims of "colonization by Great Russian chauvinists." Is this what we are to expect in Xinjiang and Tibet, the same thing? Encouraging racist attacks from one ethnic group against another on alleged charges of "colonialism" over internationalism?

[Dimentio]

This is just as baseless a claim as the ones about how the Russians in the U.S.S.R. were supposedly colonizing the other republics and non-Russian regions and "Russifying" them. They were only immigrant workers, just like the Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet. Yet now, after the collapse, we have a situation- especially in the Baltics and Ukraine- where the Russians are a persecuted minority with the local governments encouraging racism because of claims of "colonization by Great Russian chauvinists." Is this what we are to expect in Xinjiang and Tibet, the same thing? Encouraging racist attacks from one ethnic group against another on alleged charges of "colonialism" over internationalism?

Not at all. Even if the PRC was to collapse, there is no way that Xinjiang and Tibet would become independent, as both their native populations are too weakened to be able to put up a resistance movement able to form governments. I do neither believe it would be good for them to become independent.

But certainly, the Beijing government should stop with creating a privilegied class of Han Chinese in non-Han Chinese areas. And with all respect, the PRC of today is not the USSR. While I think the USSR certainly was a state-capitalist colossus of a state serving the interests of a swollen bureaucracy, it was less blatantly ethnocrentric than PRC of today.

PRC is not even state capitalist. It is an emerging capitalist great power no more socialist than the USA around year 1890.

[The Author]

But certainly, the Beijing government should stop with creating a privilegied class of Han Chinese in non-Han Chinese areas.

You missed my point. There is no policy by the Chinese government to settle Han Chinese in non-Han regions as a colonialist tactic. This is merely a slur campaign by anti-Chinese critics to launch racial attacks against Han Chinese people. I mentioned the U.S.S.R. because that is exactly the excuse bourgeois nationalists used and continue to use to justify racial attacks against Russians on alleged charges of "colonialism" when in both cases, we saw workers merely immigrating from one region to another.

[Dimentio]

You missed my point. There is no policy by the Chinese government to settle Han Chinese in non-Han regions as a colonialist tactic. This is merely a slur campaign by anti-Chinese critics to launch racial attacks against Han Chinese people. I mentioned the U.S.S.R. because that is exactly the excuse bourgeois nationalists used and continue to use to justify racial attacks against Russians on alleged charges of "colonialism" when in both cases, we saw workers merely immigrating from one region to another.

There is a campaign launched by Hu Jintao called "Going west". It means on the positive side that infrastructure and social services in the western regions will be built, and on the more negative side that people living in the eastern regions are encouraged to migrate west through social and economic incentives. There is a clear strategic goal of creating divisions beneficial to Beijing in the western regions.

[Lynx]

China is not an egalitarian society and the PRC is making no effort at promoting one. Their policies are aimed at consolidating their control over the country. Their policies may not be overtly racist, so what? They are likely to result in the same level of injustice and violence.

[Revy]

A lot seems to have happened about this. Turkey just called the situation "genocide" against Uyghurs which is soooooooooo ironic.

The Wall Street Journal published Rebiya Kadeer's opinion piece called "The Real Uighur Story (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124698273174806523.html)", which claims that the death toll is in fact Uyghurs who were killed for having a peaceful protest.

The Christian Science Monitor, stayed true to its name and jumped into religious bigotry....with "Where's the Muslim Outrage? (http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/07/13/unrest-in-xinjiang-wheres-the-muslim-outrage/)".

[Agrippa]

This is just as baseless a claim as the ones about how the Russians in the U.S.S.R. were supposedly colonizing the other republics and non-Russian regions and "Russifying" them. They were only immigrant workers, just like the Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet. Yet now, after the collapse, we have a situation- especially in the Baltics and Ukraine- where the Russians are a persecuted minority with the local governments encouraging racism because of claims of "colonization by Great Russian chauvinists."


You missed my point. There is no policy by the Chinese government to settle Han Chinese in non-Han regions as a colonialist tactic. This is merely a slur campaign by anti-Chinese critics to launch racial attacks against Han Chinese people

Oh boy. This forum might as well be full of Holocaust deniers.....

[BobKKKindle$]

Wow, so fucking what?The context of that argument was Serpent's assertion that the Chinese government is operating a policy based on a desire to eradicate minority populations. I pointed out that he had put forward no evidence to support that theory and also drew his attention to evidence that contradicts his assertion in the form of policies that achieve the exact opposite of what Serpent thinks the Chinese government is trying to do - namely the right of Uighur couples to have more children than Han couples. Of course this does not mean that the Uighur people do not encounter official discrimination, but unless the Chinese government is entirely incompetent, it suggests that eradication is not a policy aim. If you agree with Serpent that the Chinese government really does want to eradicate minorities (the "eugenics" you referred to) then please put forward evidence supporting this allegation. Once again, the comparison with the situation of Native Americans is superficial, because the Uighur people have not suffered a historic genocide resulting from the expansion of a settler population.


Should read "rival imperialist powers".This is another debate in itself but, using the Marxist theory of imperialism as a starting point, the PRC is not part of the imperialist bloc, because its primary form of economic activity is the assembly of components that have been produced in other countries to make finished goods, which are then transported and sold elsewhere, indicating that the PRC is in a position of structural dependency that it has not yet been able to overcome, despite rising domestic income. In addition, the export of capital compared to the export of commodities is low, whilst the PRC is still a key destination for capital from other countries, giving rise to a dynamic of exploitation whereby there is a continuous flow of surplus value away from China and towards the countries in which investing enterprises are based. In this respect, China is the same as other oppressed nations, despite its military strength, and high rates of economic growth.


The Tibetans are no exception.Interestingly, Tibetan youths also rebelled against the "traditional culture" which so many people in developed countries adore during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and in this respect they were no different from youth and workers in other parts of China, who also rejected reactionary customs, such as the dominant role of religion in social and cultural life, and the subjugation of women. In addition, Parenti's account of the history of Tibet in the post-war era (source (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html)) records that when Tibet was fully integrated into China in 1959, after a period of relative autonomy, during which the aristocracy was actually subsidized by the central government in Beijing, the collectivization of land and execution of landlords was embraced by the peasantry. You fail to acknowledge that, as in Xinjiang, separatism has always been a project of traditional elites in league with imperialism, directly oppossed to the interests of the working population.


No, but the majority of the migrants are Han.Yes, because Han Chinese account for 92% of the national population.


So? Did the indigenous people decide the land was "underpopulated"? Xinjiang is underpopulated in that the current level of personpower is not sufficient to take full advantage of all of the natural resources that the area contains, and so an increase in the population will yield an increase in GDP/Capita - that's the definition of what underpopulation is. Xinjiang has historically been one of the most sparsely populated areas in China due to its remote location and harsh climatic conditions, and, as a Marxist, I do regard the exploitation of resources as progressive, because I acknowledge that socialism can only be made viable by the development of the productive forces, i.e. man's ability to control and benefit from the environment. Whether the world is overpopulated or not is, again, a debate in itself, but I've never been presented with any strong evidence to support that point of view.

In short, Aggripa, your line of argument is based on a set of bad comparisons, between the situation in China and historic cases of ethnic genocide, and between this event and the L.A. riots. The fact of the matter is that this event was a pogrom carried out against the Han population (as well as the Hui, who haven't yet been mentioned in this thread - are you going to say that they are also part of the grand Han conspiracy to wipe out or oppress the rest of the Chinese population? They actually encounter religious discrimination such as not being allowed to wear the Hijab or build mosques but I find it unlikely that this group would lend support to a riot that has involved violence and intimidation being directed against them) as a reactionary and spontaneous response to official discrimination, which will serve only to create divisions between Han and Uighur workers (and yes, the majority of Han migrants are workers) and should be not regarded as progressive in any whatsoever.

[Agrippa]

The context of that argument was Serpent's assertion that the Chinese government is operating a policy based on a desire to eradicate minority populations.

And the context of my response, (which, to repeat, and to quote Metallica, was "so what? so fucking what?") is the original definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) of the word genocide. According to this definition, "operating a policy based on a desire to eradicate minority populations" is only one of four types of genocide. The US is currently not engaged in any "policy based on a desire to eradicate minority populations", yet the US is still genocidal in many important ways.


If you agree with Serpent that the Chinese government really does want to eradicate minorities (the "eugenics" you referred to) then please put forward evidence supporting this allegation.

The PRC had eugenics policies in the past, against both Turks/Uyghurs and Tibeto-Burmans, but they were abandoned for the same reason that American Indian erradication policies were abandoned in the US - because it's not cost-effective, it's a waste of resources, (the resources used to exterminate the population, and more, importantly, the resource of the labor-power of the population itself) it just creates more animosity and instability, etc.

As I have mentioned before, Chicano, American Indian, and New African populations are sky-rockettingin the US, especially in comparison to Euro-American populations which are in decline. This is a good thing in the minds of the neo-colonial, 21st century bourgeoisie, because it means more human labor-power, and a smaller percentage of the population that has grown up to feel entitled to certain social and economic priviliges. (At this point, "white privilige" is not cost-effective and is trying to be phased out, but it needs to be done gradually to avoid angering whites who are not exactly eager to give their privilige up)

The PRC is no different. Less Uyghurs means less workers. And giving Tibetans and Uyghurs something minor, and insignificant (like exempting them from childbirth laws) is one of those things racist, imperialist states love to do, because it serves as ideological propaganda (As you yourself are demonstrating by using it as an argument) and it curbs social alienation and indignation among ethnic minority populations. But the basic ethnic dynamics have not changed, especially in regards to police discrimination, prison rates, unemployment, wage discrepencies, etc.

And no, I'm not going to "put forward evidence" for something that is a very basic historical claim that you only deny out of personal bigotry and ideological bias. Do some research on your own.


Once again, the comparison with the situation of Native Americans is superficial, because the Uighur people have not suffered a historic genocide resulting from the expansion of a settler population.

This is a tactic used frequently by bourgeois sycophants. For example, Jewish supremacists enjoy using it to defend liberal democratic states such as the US and Israel by comparing them to fascist states such as Nazi Germany. And now you're using it to defend the "socialist" PRC.

Thankfully, no one has made you the boss of what is or isn't genocide. Millions of Tibetans and Uyghurs died as a consequence of 20th century Chinese colonialism. That you have failed to research the subject and learn this very basic historical fact only speaks to your ignorance, not any other facet of the subject.


This is another debate in itself but, using the Marxist theory of imperialism as a starting point, the PRC is not part of the imperialist bloc, because its primary form of economic activity is the assembly of components that have been produced in other countries to make finished goods, which are then transported and sold elsewhere, indicating that the PRC is in a position of structural dependency that it has not yet been able to overcome, despite rising domestic income.

That's asinine. You could say the same thing about the US or any other capitalist state. Re-read Lenin and Luxemburg's essays on imperialism plz


Interestingly, Tibetan youths also rebelled against the "traditional culture" which so many people in developed countries adore during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and in this respect they were no different from youth and workers in other parts of China, who also rejected reactionary customs, such as the dominant role of religion in social and cultural life

Your understanding of history is very confused, to say the least.


and the subjugation of women.

Technocratic post-modern capitalism (of which the PRC is an excellent example) is more oppressive to women.


the collectivization of land and execution of landlords was embraced by the peasantry.

This is false, but even if it was true, it would be irrelevant. Ronald Reagan's presidency was embraced by many segments of the American proletariat, but that doesn't make Ronald Reagan progressive


You fail to acknowledge that, as in Xinjiang, separatism has always been a project of traditional elites in league with imperialism, directly oppossed to the interests of the working population.

I am not advocating "seperatism" in the bourgeois, capitalist, neo-colonial sense. Regardless, what you're saying is a bold-faced lie.


Yes, because Han Chinese account for 92% of the national population.

So? The majority of Americans are white....


Xinjiang is underpopulated in that the current level of personpower is not sufficient to take full advantage of all of the natural resources that the area contains, and so an increase in the population will yield an increase in GDP/Capita

Spoken like a true capitalist.


as a Marxist, I do regard the exploitation of resources as progressive, because I acknowledge that socialism can only be made viable by the development of the productive forces, i.e. man's ability to control and benefit from the environment.

Exactly, your "socialism" is one of the most advanced forms of capitalist exploitation, but that's an argument for another day and place...


Whether the world is overpopulated or not is, again, a debate in itself, but I've never been presented with any strong evidence to support that point of view.

I think what you mean to say is that you ignore evidence to support that point of view. A subtle difference, but an important one.


as well as the Hui, who haven't yet been mentioned in this thread

To my knowlege, no Hui were injured in the riots, but even if they were, so what? Pretty of impoverished, ethnically oppressed East Asian immigants sided with the establishment during the LA Riots. You're really just making my argument for me! :D


which will serve only to create divisions between Han and Uighur workers

Trotskyites and "left-communists" say that about everything though.