Chinese members views on Uiger and tibetan independence

[Grigori]

Could somebody bilingual ask the Chinese board how they view Uigher and tibetan separatism and then tell me their answers?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The PRC is very nationalist. the term 'Chinese' generally implies nationality but it is also intentionally confused with ethnicity by the PRC government. For example, even leftists in china will often still have chauvinist/nationalist views because it seems so self evident to them that Tibetans, Taiwanese and Uyghur (plus many more) are actually Chinese.

If you are western, and you try and argue with them about this, don't bother. They will just think you are trying to harm china. Just show them to public opinion polls. For example, few Taiwanese identify as Chinese these days, opinion polls show this, and as such the PRC opinion is obviously Chauvinist.

You have got to ask Tibetans/ Uyghur living in China for their opinions, the Chinese that post here will probably not give you an accurate answer of tibetan/Uyghur opinion.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why don't you solicit white people in North America about the welfare and characteristics of indigenous, mestizo people and descendents of African slaves? That's similar in content to this OP question

[Rusty Shackleford]

Taiwan/Formosa is Chinese.

[Ocean Seal]

Taiwan/Formosa is Chinese.
Yes, I agree. Plus Chinese sectionalism tends to be really reactionary and backwards for the most part. I don't know much about the Uigers though, I hear that they are actually oppressed by China to a greater extent than Tibetans yet Tibetans get all of the attention.

[Tablo]

What even is 'China' or the 'Chinese' people? I've been taking Asian Civilization and there have been numerous dynasties with varying borders and cultures. This is an honest question and I hope someone can answer this as 'Chinese' doesn't seem to be a specific group outside of the current nationality when referring to those in the PRC or some of those in Taiwan.

[Smyg]

Chinese is more of a loose collective label, much similar to say Slavic, in my mind.

[Nox]

What even is 'China' or the 'Chinese' people? I've been taking Asian Civilization and there have been numerous dynasties with varying borders and cultures. This is an honest question and I hope someone can answer this as 'Chinese' doesn't seem to be a specific group outside of the current nationality when referring to those in the PRC or some of those in Taiwan.

Chinese generally refers to the Han people, who make up the extreme majority of the population of China. If someone says 'Chinese' they will almost always be talking about the Han people. There is some significant ethnic difference within China; Mongols, Uyghurs, and Tibetans are Turkic, whereas Han are not. Taiwan is virtually 100% Han, so Taiwanese people are Chinese.

The term China generally means China minus Xinjiang and Tibet (and Inner Mongolia depending on who you talk to). I believe alot of Chinese people see those areas as colonies or 'expansions' of sorts. In all fairness, that's pretty much what they are - sparsely populated places that are being sapped of their natural resources.

I can't give you an answer from a Chinese person, because I'm not Chinese, but I believe that's the general opinion among Chinese people. Tibetans, Uyghurs and some Mongolians certainly don't see themselves as being 'Chinese' or part of 'China', and the Han think the same way about them too.

[rundontwalk]

Mongols, Uyghurs, and Tibetans are Turkic
I know the Uyghurs are Turkic, but are you sure about the other two?

[Nox]

I know the Uyghurs are Turkic, but are you sure about the other two?

Yes, I am 100% certain that Mongols and Tibetans are Turkic.

[rundontwalk]

Yes, I am 100% certain that Mongols and Tibetans are Turkic.
I was just asking, because I'd read that Mongols may be Turkic (similarities in languages and such) but I've never heard of Tibetans being labeled as Turkic before.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Taiwan/Formosa is Chinese.

Not according to Taiwanese opinion polls. They overwhelmingly show support of a strong distinction between Taiwanese and Chinese. look at the information on the Mainland Affairs Council.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes, I agree. Plus Chinese sectionalism tends to be really reactionary and backwards for the most part. I don't know much about the Uigers though, I hear that they are actually oppressed by China to a greater extent than Tibetans yet Tibetans get all of the attention.

Unless you are a Taiwanese person or you live there, I suspect you are not really qualified to agree.

the idea of a "big Chinese family" is reactionary and chauvinist not the movements harmed by this idea.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Chinese generally refers to the Han people, who make up the extreme majority of the population of China. If someone says 'Chinese' they will almost always be talking about the Han people. There is some significant ethnic difference within China; Mongols, Uyghurs, and Tibetans are Turkic, whereas Han are not. Taiwan is virtually 100% Han, so Taiwanese people are Chinese.

The term China generally means China minus Xinjiang and Tibet (and Inner Mongolia depending on who you talk to). I believe alot of Chinese people see those areas as colonies or 'expansions' of sorts. In all fairness, that's pretty much what they are - sparsely populated places that are being sapped of their natural resources.

I can't give you an answer from a Chinese person, because I'm not Chinese, but I believe that's the general opinion among Chinese people. Tibetans, Uyghurs and some Mongolians certainly don't see themselves as being 'Chinese' or part of 'China', and the Han think the same way about them too.

You said that Taiwanese people are 100% han. However, this is a lie. Most people in Taiwan distinguish themselves between aborigine 1-2%, Han Chinese 13%, Hakka and Hoklo Taiwanese 85%.

Also one in four children born in Taiwan today only has one Taiwanese parent. The ethnic complexion of Taiwan is not as simple as the PRC would have you believe.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, I am 100% certain that Mongols and Tibetans are Turkic.

Neither Mongolians nor Tibetans are Turkic people. This map shows the distribution of Turkic languages, which largely coincides with Turkic people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Map-TurkicLanguages.png

See this link for list of Turkic people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What even is 'China' or the 'Chinese' people? I've been taking Asian Civilization and there have been numerous dynasties with varying borders and cultures. This is an honest question and I hope someone can answer this as 'Chinese' doesn't seem to be a specific group outside of the current nationality when referring to those in the PRC or some of those in Taiwan.

Its a collectively shared myth based on territory, language and ethnicity. As with many of these types of ideas, its largely inconsistent and used to justify crimes and belligerent behaviour.

[28350]

I think mongols might be turkic, but I don't think tibetans are

[mrmikhail]

Neither Mongolians nor Tibetans are Turkic people. This map shows the distribution of Turkic languages, which largely coincides with Turkic people.


See this link for list of Turkic people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples

Mongols can be grouped with Turkic on the basis of a wide category of languages called Altaic, but from my understanding there is not a 100% consensus on this group of languages being official, and this is only in a language sense, not an cultural/ethnic.

Tibetans are not Turkic at all, they are....Tibetan, an ethnic group all their own.

[Metacomet]

Genetically I think Tibetans have mixed DNA (like most people) some of it central Asian, some of it east Asian. Seems likely as migration to the area would be nearly impossible from south or north.

Mongols I have no idea.

[danyboy27]

Who care about ethnicity? Societies are not uniforms structures based on national borders.

societies can be formed of 10 individuals with their rites, habits and culture all living in a same place, or 10 000 scattered all over the world.

[Tim Finnegan]

Taiwan is virtually 100% Han, so Taiwanese people are Chinese.
So an American or Australian of overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic ancestry is actually British? http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/huh.gif

I mean, even ignoring the more complicated realities that Bloody Capitalist Sham already identified, this seems like a spurious claim in and of itself.


I was just asking, because I'd read that Mongols may be Turkic (similarities in languages and such) but I've never heard of Tibetans being labeled as Turkic before.
Neither is the case. The relationship between the Mongolic and Turkic peoples is membership of the proposed but far from generally accepted Altaic language group, rather than one being a part of the other, while the Tibetans are a Tibeto-Burman people, the Tibeto-Burman languages being a sub-set of the Sino-Tibetan language family, which in no model that I've ever encountered anything whatsoever to do with the Turkic languages. Nox, I am afraid to say, is entirely mistaken about this.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its complicated. There are no such thing as "races". The Uyghur people are Turkic speaking. They are probably heavily intermixed with the Indo-European Tocharian people. Some Uyghurs look northern or southern European, some are more phenotypically "Central Asian", some look "East Asian".Sinjiang is, in theory a "Uyghur Autonomous Region", in reality the Uyghur people been economically marginalised in their own country. Tension between Han and Uyghur has existed for decades.This has been exacerbated by the PRC's transistion to a form of capitalism.Culturally the two peoples have little in common.

Tibetan is considered part of the "Sino-Tibetan" language family and may be be distantly related to Chinese and Burmese. I am somewhat sceptical of broad language family constructs, although I'm no linguist.Anti-Tibetan racism is very common in China.Whenever any discussion of Tibetans was brought up, the immediate response was usually "they're dirty"

Chinese friends of mine (liberals, not leftists) who are critical of the PRC regime have insisted that "Tibet is historically part of China", while condemning what they see as PRC heavy handedness and cultural destruction of Tibet. This seems to be a very common view, although I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth.

China historically has had influence and varying degrees of control over Tibet.Sometimes Tibet was more integrated into Chinese empires, at other times it wasn't. My view of Marxism of course has little interest in the "historic legitimacy" of any states, feudal or capitalist.

The PRC has done much to develop Tibet but they have also been very destructive.The Dalai Lama is an absurdity for the jet setting rich. I am not a supporter of the "Free Tibet" movement although I am opposed to the PRC role there.