Do you support Xinjiang independence in China?

[Blanquist]

Thoughts?

[China studen]

Xinjiang is an inalienable territory of China!
Xinjiang People's solidarity with the people of all nationalities in the Chairman Mao era!
However, since the 1978 revisionist restoration, resurgence of terrorists. Tibet is also the same.

[Blake's Baby]

Who cares? Incipient nationalism and a new Central Asian republic of Xinjiangistan, or part of existing Chinese imperialist state... neither option is in the interests of the working class in Xinjiang or the rest of China.

On the whole though, mainly because there's less chance of war that way, I oppose the break-up of China much as I oppose the break-up of most states. The idea of doing away with all states doesn't just mean turning them into smaller ones.

The workers in Xinjiang should be uniting with their brethren and sistren in the rest of China to overthrow their corrupt government, not line up behind some local bourgeoises who want to 'go it alone'.

[Blanquist]

Xinjiang is an inalienable territory of China!
Xinjiang People's solidarity with the people of all nationalities in the Chairman Mao era!
However, since the 1978 revisionist restoration, resurgence of terrorists. Tibet is also the same.


Who cares? Incipient nationalism and a new Central Asian republic of Xinjiangistan, or part of existing Chinese imperialist state... neither option is in the interests of the working class in Xinjiang or the rest of China.

On the whole though, mainly because there's less chance of war that way, I oppose the break-up of China much as I oppose the break-up of most states. The idea of doing away with all states doesn't just mean turning them into smaller ones.

The workers in Xinjiang should be uniting with their brethren and sistren in the rest of China to overthrow their corrupt government, not line up behind some local bourgeoises who want to 'go it alone'.

Yeah, that's fun to say but it ignores the reality.

People from Xinjiang are treated like absolute shyt in China. 95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves.

Do you people have any idea whats it's like to be born into such a trap? Being non-Chinese but forced to learn the language and follow the customs of a people who hate you, follow the rules of a state that thinks you're less than human?

Things aren't as simple as commenting from a laptop half-world away.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

People from Xinjiang are treated like absolute shyt in China. 95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves.

Do you people have any idea whats it's like to be born into such a trap? Being non-Chinese but forced to learn the language and follow the customs of a people who hate you, follow the rules of a state that thinks you're less than human?


The reality of Chinese racism and other problems would not cease at the creation of yet another pointless state. It's even likely that education in Mandarin would continue in this new independent capitalist state because of the importance for the business communities exchanges and such, and the Chinese government would stop all of the aide it gives to the area. The situation would perhaps thus even worsen, at best remain essentially the same. These sort of problems can never be solved by nationalist independence movements.

[Blanquist]

The reality of Chinese racism and other problems would not cease at the creation of yet another pointless state. It's even likely that education in Mandarin would continue in this new independent capitalist state because of the importance for the business communities exchanges and such, and the Chinese government would stop all of the aide it gives to the area. The situation would perhaps thus even worsen, at best remain essentially the same. These sort of problems can never be solved by nationalist independence movements.

1. With a relatively small population and incredible natural wealth, Xinjiang doesn't need Chinese aid.

2. Mandarin education would probably cease to a minimum. Replaced by English, Turkish, and Russian.

It doesn't solve all the problems but it is a positive step.

Saying things can't get better and will at bet stay the same, so would you have opposed anti-colonialism? Do you think Britain should still be boss in India and Africa?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Saying things can't get better and will at bet stay the same, so would you have opposed anti-colonialism? Do you think Britain should still be boss in India and Africa?

I'm saying there shouldn't be any Britain or India or any nation/state whatsoever; that aside, the situation with direct colonialism does differ from the situation as regards China. I do not think the situation would improve whatsoever, and I am principally opposed to any divisions of any countries as distractions from meaningful struggles.

[Crux]

Yes, I support the right to national independence but I reckognize there are dangers and ethnic clashes or an independent Xinjiang under a bourgeoisie regime is not step forward for the working class and the poor in Xinjiang.
Here is chinawroker.info's article's from 2009 during the riots and state crackdown:

Xinjiang: Brutal policing triggers deadly riot (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/787/)

Monday, 6 July 2009. (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/787/)

China’s media controls and the ‘July 5 incident’ in Xinjiang (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/794/)

Thursday, 23 July 2009. (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/794/)

Violence returns to Xinjiang (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/836/)

Monday, 7 September 2009. (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/836/)

China: At least 43 Uighurs have disappeared following crackdown (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/867/)

Thursday, 22 October 2009. (http://www.chinaworker.info/en/content/news/867/)

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, that's fun to say but it ignores the reality.

People from Xinjiang are treated like absolute shyt in China. 95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves.

Do you people have any idea whats it's like to be born into such a trap? Being non-Chinese but forced to learn the language and follow the customs of a people who hate you, follow the rules of a state that thinks you're less than human?

Things aren't as simple as commenting from a laptop half-world away.

No shit Sherlock.

I'm not aware that anyone's arguing that things are hunky-dory in Xinjiang.

But the question is, what should communists be doing about it - supporting the local bourgeoisie in a nationalist endevour, or supporting cross-cultural links between workers fron different communities against both the Chinese state and any attempts to set up a new natioanlist republic? If you're a communist, you know the answer to that one. If you're a nationalist however, then you can fuck off, because this is 'RevLeft', the forum for revolutionary leftists, not 'BorNat', the forum for bourgeois nationalists.

[Crux]

No shit Sherlock.

I'm not aware that anyone's arguing that things are hunky-dory in Xinjiang.

But the question is, what should communists be doing about it - supporting the local bourgeoisie in a nationalist endevour, or supporting cross-cultural links between workers fron different communities against both the Chinese state and any attempts to set up a new natioanlist republic? If you're a communist, you know the answer to that one. If you're a nationalist however, then you can fuck off, because this is 'RevLeft', the forum for revolutionary leftists, not 'BorNat', the forum for bourgeois nationalists.
China Studen might.

Supporting the right to self-determination and being a bourgeosie nationalist are not one and the same thing. Take down the hostility a notch, comrade.

[Blake's Baby]

Depends on your theoretical pespective, comrade.

Some of us think Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', which is where Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists get their position on 'national self-determination' from, is total shit and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism. We're Luxemburgists as far as the national question goes - the call for 'the right of nations to self-determination' is a capitulation to bourgeois politics and one of the main reasons we regard Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists as the left wing of capitalism and not part of the communist movement.

[Crux]

Depends on your theoretical pespective, comrade.

Some of us think Stalin's pamphlet 'On the National Question', which is where Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists get their position on 'national self-determination' from, is total shit and a betrayal of proletarian internationalism. We're Luxemburgists as far as the national question goes - the call for 'the right of nations to self-determination' is a capitulation to bourgeois politics and one of the main reasons we regard Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists as the left wing of capitalism and not part of the communist movement.
And while I disagree with Luxemburg on her position on national liberation I don't regard her as ultra-left. And neither did she regard lenin, Trotsky and the bosheviks as "not part of the communist movement". But whatever. I get my position on National Liberation from James Connolly. And Marx, Engels and Lenin.

[Blake's Baby]

And while I disagree with Luxemburg on her position on national liberation I don't regard her as ultra-left...

And neither do I. But she certainly influenced the Left Communists strongly.


And neither did she regard lenin, Trotsky and the bosheviks as "not part of the communist movement"...

True enough. But this isn't 1918 any more. Lenin and Trotsky were wrong, but their mistakes were understandable, given that they were operating in a totally new environment. But history has demonstrated that the 'national self-determination' principle is untenable. A mistake in 1918, if repeated in 2012 with the lessons of history before us, stops being an error and starts to resemble a crime against the working class.


...
But whatever. I get my position on National Liberation from James Connolly. And Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Connolly's position was that the flag made no difference. One bourgeois gang was the same as another. Marx and Engels had the position that the progressive faction of the bourgeoisie should be supported, not the reactionary faction. When they supported Polish independence, it was from feudal Russia. I'm not aware China is feudal. I thought it was capitalist. So it's hard to see that the local bourgeoisie in Xinjiang is more progressive than the Chinese bourgeoisie as a whole.

Of course, that analysis rather relies on ignoring Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky from 1906-1921; Luxemburg argued that the completeion of the world market, at least in outline, in the early 20th century, meant that the era of the 'progressive' bourgeoisie was over and capitalism had become a reactionary social structure (as feudalism had been when Marx supported revolts against its empires) - this was confirmed by WWI. Lenin and especially Trotsky were clear on this in the Communist International - the 20th century was 'the era of wars and revolutions' when the only task of the working class was to overthrow capitalism not to support different factions of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is not progressive anywhere - Peking, Xinjiang, or anywhere else. That's why, after 100 years of historical evidence that supporting different factions of the bourgeoisie is not in the interests of the working class, continuing to do so puts you outside of the scope of working class politics.

[Crux]

And neither do I. But she certainly influenced the Left Communists strongly.



True enough. But this isn't 1918 any more. Lenin and Trotsky were wrong, but their mistakes were understandable, given that they were operating in a totally new environment. But history has demonstrated that the 'national self-determination' principle is untenable. A mistake in 1918, if repeated in 2012 with the lessons of history before us, stops being an error and starts to resemble a crime against the working class.



Connolly's position was that the flag made no difference. One bourgeois gang was the same as another. Marx and Engels had the position that the progressive faction of the bourgeoisie should be supported, not the reactionary faction. When they supported Polish independence, it was from feudal Russia. I'm not aware China is feudal. I thought it was capitalist. So it's hard to see that the local bourgeoisie in Xinjiang is more progressive than the Chinese bourgeoisie as a whole.

Of course, that analysis rather relies on ignoring Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky from 1906-1921; Luxemburg argued that the completeion of the world market, at least in outline, in the early 20th century, meant that the era of the 'progressive' bourgeoisie was over and capitalism had become a reactionary social structure (as feudalism had been when Marx supported revolts against its empires) - this was confirmed by WWI. Lenin and especially Trotsky were clear on this in the Communist International - the 20th century was 'the era of wars and revolutions' when the only task of the working class was to overthrow capitalism not to support different factions of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is not progressive anywhere - Peking, Xinjiang, or anywhere else. That's why, after 100 years of historical evidence that supporting different factions of the bourgeoisie is not in the interests of the working class, continuing to do so puts you outside of the scope of working class politics.
And neither am I arguing there is a progressive bourgeosie. Either I've been unclear or you are strawmanning. National independence under capitalism is like any other reform, democratic or otherwise, ultimatly futile, unless it is a part of the struggle against capitalism and for the organization of the working class.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is true that national self-determination does not bring anybody closer to communism, but condemning it as some kind of universally reactionary position is too simple. It does not understand the material conditions which cause national liberation movements to arise.

The "Left" position on this at least is consistent however, unlike those Marxist-Leninists who support national self determination everywhere except in states they like, like China.



The workers in Xinjiang should be uniting with their brethren and sistren in the rest of China to overthrow their corrupt government, not line up behind some local bourgeoises who want to 'go it alone'.

This is easier said than done. It isn't exactly easy for a minority with represents like 2% of the population of the country in total to lead the ethnic majority towards this, especially after the State has invested large amounts of money convincing the rest of the Chinese people that there is no problem in that part of the country. The Tibetans face the same issue. National liberation is preferred by the masses because it is the path of least resistance to attain their immediate ends.

Ultimately national liberation is somewhat irrelevant really to the overthrow of Capitalism. It is impossible to say whether national liberation or the lack thereof in a particular case makes ultimate economic revolution easier or more difficult, it probably depends case by case, but we can never know until after the revolution. So one Capitalist state ... two capitalist states ... three capitalist states ... if the people in Xinjiang don't gain independence they are still in a Capitalist society so really there is no reason to oppose or support national liberation if that is the only way of judging it. Communism will see the negation of all state differences ultimately, and that would be equally true of one big state like "China" and a group of smaller states.


Connolly's position was that the flag made no difference. One bourgeois gang was the same as another. Marx and Engels had the position that the progressive faction of the bourgeoisie should be supported, not the reactionary faction. When they supported Polish independence, it was from feudal Russia. I'm not aware China is feudal. I thought it was capitalist. So it's hard to see that the local bourgeoisie in Xinjiang is more progressive than the Chinese bourgeoisie as a whole.China is Capitalist, but Capitalism is not monolithic, nor is there some absolute distinction between feudalism and capitalism ... the move between the two is much more gradual. Capitalism is merely the exploitation of alienated labor by the people who own the means of production. There can be a variety of levels of systemic violence built into the various Capitalist systems in the world, and national liberation movements exist as a response to those types of systemic violence. A good example of this are the issues regarding Kurdish independence. Turkey represses the language which most Kurds speak growing up. Even if a Kurdish state is still Capitalist, the fact that it gives Kurdish workers more space to live and work in their own language and not be forced to adopt an alien tongue by a prejudiced majority population. A situation where Turkish and Kurdish workers united to overthrow their bosses and then unite with the workers of the world would be awesome, but it's a little unfair to expect the Kurds to wait for that to happen or try to organize a majority population which sees them as troublesome rural tribespeople.

I think all of the criticisms of national liberation movements that point out the inability of them to bring the next mode of economic production are fair, but that is not a reason to rule out national liberation altogether. It is a perfectly rational response within the Capitalist system by a people who do not see socialist revolution as a practical or attainable alternative within their means. Naturally, this tends to be a view adopted by minority populations in the periphery, who do not trust the majority of the population to support more radical demands or even begin to understand what they as a minority have been suffering.

[Ocean Seal]

No shit Sherlock.

I'm not aware that anyone's arguing that things are hunky-dory in Xinjiang.

But the question is, what should communists be doing about it - supporting the local bourgeoisie in a nationalist endevour, or supporting cross-cultural links between workers fron different communities against both the Chinese state and any attempts to set up a new natioanlist republic? If you're a communist, you know the answer to that one. If you're a nationalist however, then you can fuck off, because this is 'RevLeft', the forum for revolutionary leftists, not 'BorNat', the forum for bourgeois nationalists.
I'm no nationalist, but I understand the need for national determination in many instances. Resorting to emotional appeals or screaming proletarian internationlism doesn't change the situation that we are in most of the time.

[Nox]

"progessive nationalism" is a fucking huge contradiction

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm no nationalist, but I understand the need for national determination in many instances.

Proletarian determination is completely contrary to national determination.

[Omsk]

unlike those Marxist-Leninists who support national self determination everywhere except in states they like, like China.




No real Marxist-Leninist would "support" China.

The right-of nations for self-determination is a basic right,and it's quite simple also,just as the idea was proposed by and accepted so many years ago.But it's still universal and timeless. The important thing in the question of self-determination and national-liberation is the fact that while we as ML's must support the struggle of the oppressed country against the oppressor country,we must support the oppressed proletarians in their struggle against the oppressing states which controlls the countries under oppression as colonies,in line with their imperialist agenda.

But it is important to note that consistent and true ML's won't support the movement which seeks to give privilege to the country which is under oppression,after liberating it from the foreign oppressor,only to put itself,the national bourgeoisie into power,but the one which seeks to unite the working men of both the oppressor and the oppressed state,in proletarian solidarity and as a part of the proletarian global movement in line with the other principles that define our view on the national-question.That is why a progressive movement based on the Leninist idea,a "Vanguard of the oppressed nation" is required to make the national-liberation complete,in order to do so,this movement must not wander into nationalism and chauvinism.

[Lorenzo]

We need to go beyond philosophical speculations about the legitimity of self-determination and get real.
Xinjiang people are sistematically abused by the authoritarian Chinese government and this independence could grant a slightest degree of autonomy to the Uyghurs/Kirghiz/Chinese muslims.
But the radical Islamist ideology of majority of the movement makes me worry about the whole deal: religious groups-led insurrections don't end well. Of course I would oppose the birth a theocratic regime, but I would support a secular autonomous state.

[gorillafuck]

Supporting the right to self-determination and being a bourgeosie nationalist are not one and the same thing. Take down the hostility a notch, comrade.in this case though, it clearly is.

not to mention that as far as actual politics goes, this would definitely cause an increase of CIA activity in the area considering that Xinjiang independence would never be able to happen without foreign support, and it's obvious who's available to supply that sort of support.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Proletarian determination is completely contrary to national determination.

This might be the case but national sovereignty is also contrary to "proletarian determination" as you put it, and usually the movements of national determination are merely responsive to chauvinism from a national majority. It's not like national liberation movements emerge in a vacuum. Maybe it is not a movement which builds socialism, but it's designed to address immediate issues which do actually effect communities. Now, as a socialist, it's good to point out that these movements do nothing to end the structural issues which led to these problems in the first place, but that doesn't mean we can't empathize with and try to understand the conditions of people who do support such movements.


No real Marxist-Leninist would "support" China.


There are many who take "One-State China" for granted, I'm sure you don't because you understand that the state of China is not something which is valuable in of itself but many "Leninists" seem to.



The right-of nations for self-determination is a basic right,and it's quite simple also,just as the idea was proposed by and accepted so many years ago.But it's still universal and timeless. The important thing in the question of self-determination and national-liberation is the fact that while we as ML's must support the struggle of the oppressed country against the oppressor country,we must support the oppressed proletarians in their struggle against the oppressing states which controlls the countries under oppression as colonies,in line with their imperialist agenda.
Universal, timeless rights are an awesome idea, but you'll find such abstract concepts never match up to material reality. This goes back to the materialism which Marx tried to introduce to the studies of philosophy, history and sociology/economics. For one thing, nations are not timeless, universal entities but man-made social institutions which did not always exist, so how could a right exist timelessly when the institution which supposedly has these rights only existed for a few centuries? The nation-state as we think of it was not always the way in which human societies organized themselves. One goal of International Socialism is to help break down the barriers between these nations, as they are institutions which do not serve the interests of the workers.



But it is important to note that consistent and true ML's won't support the movement which seeks to give privilege to the country which is under oppression,after liberating it from the foreign oppressor,only to put itself,the national bourgeoisie into power,but the one which seeks to unite the working men of both the oppressor and the oppressed state,in proletarian solidarity and as a part of the proletarian global movement in line with the other principles that define our view on the national-question.That is why a progressive movement based on the Leninist idea,a "Vanguard of the oppressed nation" is required to make the national-liberation complete,in order to do so,this movement must not wander into nationalism and chauvinism.No national liberation movements can really attain this goal however, for the same reason that the USSR could not sustain itself without internationalizing the revolution. It's difficult for small countries of limited resources to provide all the needs of the citizens without exchange and commerce, which unfortunately necessitates continued interaction within the Capitalist system.

[Blake's Baby]

And neither am I arguing there is a progressive bourgeosie. Either I've been unclear or you are strawmanning. National independence under capitalism is like any other reform, democratic or otherwise, ultimatly futile, unless it is a part of the struggle against capitalism and for the organization of the working class.

OK; I'm not deliberately strawmanning, so I must be failing to appreciate what your argument is.

You say that natioanl independence is futile 'unless it is part of the struggle against capitalism and for the organization of the working class'. Now, I'd argue that it can't be apart of that struggle, given that 1-national struggles pit workers against each other; and 2-national struggles bind workers to 'their own' bourgeoisies.

Revolution means that workers will have to overcome these differences and solidifying cultural differences as different states is a step backwards not a step forwards. It does not promote unity among the working class, it fosters illusions in national solutions and divides workers even more than they are already.

They are against the organization of the working class (because they divide workers) and they are for capitalism (because they align the working class behind the interests of the bourgeoisie). So I really don't understand under what circumstances your 'unless...' functions.

[Homo Songun]

"progessive nationalism" is a fucking huge contradiction

True. All social phenomena are riven with contradictions. Lenin describes how the development of capitalism contradictorily engenders an "awakening of national life and national movements, struggle against all national oppression, creation of national states", but at the same time, an "acceleration of all kinds of intercourse between nations, breakdown of national barriers. creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc." (Critical Remarks on the National Question (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/CRNQ13.html), 1913)

These opposing tendencies end up driving the revolution forward, since under conditions of worldwide capitalism, this unification of peoples can only be forcible and exploitative in nature; but on the other hand, communism (which is, after all, a single world economic system based upon mutual confidence and voluntary agreement!) is impossible so far as oppressions of any kind persist.

What's funny is that the typical western supporter of independence for Xingjiang would never support freedom for Wales or Hawai'i. That is pretty contradictory don't you think?


The "Left" position on this at least is consistent however, unlike those Marxist-Leninists who support national self determination everywhere except in states they like, like China.


That is not the Marxist-Leninist position, which has nothing to do with states per se, nor is it particularly inconsistent. Rather it is simply that "support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it." Self-determination is seen not as an abstract, juridical question but as part of the proletarian movement as a whole. "The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected." (The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SD16.html), 1916)

Call that Machiavellian if you wish, but not inconsistent.

[Yazman]

Yeah, that's fun to say but it ignores the reality.

People from Xinjiang are treated like absolute shyt in China. 95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves.

Do you people have any idea whats it's like to be born into such a trap? Being non-Chinese but forced to learn the language and follow the customs of a people who hate you, follow the rules of a state that thinks you're less than human?

Things aren't as simple as commenting from a laptop half-world away.

95% of all chinese? non-chinese? I'm not sure if you're just doing that deliberately or if you really are ignorant of the demographic and cultural makeup of China. China is a pretty diverse country.

I think when you say "chinese" you're just referring to Han people, who really are ~90-91% of the population ethnically, but it does sound absurd to equate them with "being Chinese", as if the other minorities somehow aren't chinese. what about the other (substantial) minorities? Manchu people, Hui people, Zhuang people? Are they not chinese? It's almost like saying native americans aren't Americans, or something. Almost like saying that in order to be "truly American" one must be Anglo-American.

Also it's worth mentioning that uyghurs don't even represent a majority in Xinjiang o_O What about han people, or mongol people, etc who were born in Xinjiang? There are substantial Kazakh and Hui populations there too. Actually, while there has been Han migration to Xinjiang, that has been happening for thousands of years. One could make a convincing argument that have just as much of a right to be there as the Uyghurs.

Let's make it clear, that's who you're really talking about when you say "people from Xinjiang". You're talking about Uyghur separatists, not people from Xinjiang collectively.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That is not the Marxist-Leninist position, which has nothing to do with states per se, nor is it particularly inconsistent. Rather it is simply that "support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it." Self-determination is seen not as an abstract, juridical question but as part of the proletarian movement as a whole. "The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected." (The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SD16.html), 1916)

Call that Machiavellian if you wish, but not inconsistent.

I was not speaking of Leninists in general, so much as the subgroup which treat China like an anti-Imperialist regime which should have sacrosanct borders and not as a Capitalist superstate with legitimately unhappy ethnic minorities. You make a good point about Lenin's actual position on national liberation, although I don't really see how one could easily rationally apply such a principle in China. As China is willingly embracing international Capitalism and the Imperialist world order, and does so more by the year, it's kind of hard to say with certainty that independence for Xinjiang would serve the interests of Imperialism more than, say, independence for Finland during the Russian Revolution, or Ireland from Britain. Even so the people who take this kind of perspective anyways, such as the Chinese State amongst others, don't actually employ the argument you're referring to as much (or at least they do so only in a totally hamfisted way) and instead argue things about how China is "historically one nation". 800 year old Imperial-era claims are what China uses to defend its occupation of its frontier, including both Turkestan and Tibet. That is more what I was talking about.

I can see the comparison to Machiavelli-an instrumentalist view of national liberation-but many Leninists seem to apply it arrogantly with a greater sense of certainty than they should in our complex world. And they seem to dilute it with all sorts of anti-Materialist claptrap like the inherent, historical unity of a particular nation-State. If they are not inconsistent, then perhaps they are at least naive Leninists ... I don't claim to be an expert in Leninism though.


I think when you say "chinese" you're just referring to Han people, who really are ~90-91% of the population ethnically, but it does sound absurd to equate them with "being Chinese", as if the other minorities somehow aren't chinese. what about the other (substantial) minorities? Manchu people, Hui people, Zhuang people? Are they not chinese? It's almost like saying native americans aren't Americans, or something. Almost like saying that in order to be "truly American" one must be Anglo-American.

You are correct to call him on considering non-Han to be non-Chinese. Any one of China's many minorities has as much right to call themselves "Chinese" as any Han. However "Chinese", like all national indicators, are completely historically contingent though. The other minorities are "Chinese" only insofar as they consider themselves a part of the Chinese nation. Often times, ethnic minorities feel like they are not "Really" a part of the nation state precisely because they are excluded by the majority. This is where Black Nationalism came from-they felt that if they were real Americans, they should be treated as such, but weren't. Thus, the minority came to adopt a different national identity due to the chauvinism of the majority. Thus it was the actions of the majority in repressing the minority that initially acts to alienate the minority from the national identity. I think the same situation is emerging in places like China, where the arrogance and remoteness of the central government combined with the ethnic chauvinism of the majority of the population ends up acting to drive people in the periphery away.



Also it's worth mentioning that uyghurs don't even represent a majority in Xinjiang o_O What about han people, or mongol people, etc who were born in Xinjiang? There are substantial Kazakh and Hui populations there too. Actually, while there has been Han migration to Xinjiang, that has been happening for thousands of years. One could make a convincing argument that have just as much of a right to be there as the Uyghurs.
This is true, they are not the only ethnic group there, but there is an interesting issue of language rights in here. Chinese immigration has skyrocketed and many of the job opportunities are not in Turkish but in Mandarin. Thus the native population actually has worse job opportunities because they speak the language which has been spoken there for many more generations. These other groups have as much a right to be there abstractly, but the failure of the Chinese state to encourage people to learn the language of ethnic minorities or for the State to ensure that there are sufficient job offerings in that language is itself a bigger problem than the ethnic separatists. The ethnic separatists, for one thing, probably would not have as much influence if the Turkish people did not feel like they have been impoverished and ignored by Beijing.

Presumably national self-determination can only come from a plebiscite anyhow, so if the other minorities and the Han population disagree with independence their voices were heard.

[China studen]

Yeah, that's fun to say but it ignores the reality.

People from Xinjiang are treated like absolute shyt in China. 95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves.

Do you people have any idea whats it's like to be born into such a trap? Being non-Chinese but forced to learn the language and follow the customs of a people who hate you, follow the rules of a state that thinks you're less than human?

Things aren't as simple as commenting from a laptop half-world away.

Idiot. Not understand the Chinese do not spread rumors!
Who told you "95% of all Chinese will openly say that people from Xinjiang are all cheats and thieves"?
I live far away from the Xinjiang province, the southernmost province of mainland China. My house downstairs there are Uighur noodle shop. A large number of guests every day to go, and never had any discrimination. My friends have never complained about the Uighur.

The language issue is not an issue. Qin Shi Huang era has advocated the use of the same text, the same unit of measurement ...
The people of the same country there is no uniform text, will hinder the interaction of members of society.
The Chinese Ministry of Education also provides for the National Middle School to learn English! This is not the British colonial Chinese people (including the Uighur)?
You are an imperialist brainwashing idiot. Your imaginary comes from your ignorance.

[Sendo]

The language issue is not an issue. Qin Shi Huang era has advocated the use of the same text, the same unit of measurement ...
The people of the same country there is no uniform text, will hinder the interaction of members of society.
The Chinese Ministry of Education also provides for the National Middle School to learn English! This is not the British colonial Chinese people (including the Uighur)?
You are an imperialist brainwashing idiot. Your imaginary comes from your ignorance.

I support the standardization of language and measurement all the way, brother (still waiting for global metrification!)

It's totally feasible to have a national dialect that is standardized and to let people use local languages for their communities.

Beijingers do it all the time! I like how people just accept that Beijing accent does not equal Standard Mandarin. It's better than other places where people from London or Paris or Seoul simply claim to speak standard as a birthright. If Beijing people can speak like pirates in day-to-day life (-er...-er......-er....-ar) and write in standard, what's the problem?

I've never understood this petty linguistic nationalism. I'm sad to see France stamp out Catalan, which is a beautiful language in danger of harming standard French, yet refusing to learn French, or refusing to learn English in Ireland doesn't help any causes.

If people are so damn passionate about their unique cultures, then speak two languages. Whenever people refuse to, they just end up creating a barrier between other members of their nation. It also leads to bastardization of one's own language. I speak Korean but don't feel the need to speak a garbled half-English with random Korean nouns. It's people who can't speak Korean at all who end up clumsily importing words into English. Likewise, it's only the Koreans who speak English poorly who end up importing unnecessary words. In an insecure attempt to look cosmopolitan they say "shoo-joo" (shoes) instead of 신발.

Bad Nationalists just want to keep their people isolated and weak. The Irish Republican movement has a history of English language education supporters. you'll also notice that the IRAs (plural) have always been more concerned with everything else more than the Irish language. On the other hand, we have British chauvinists who still oppose full metrification and love the monarchy because that's what's going to help keep Britain strong and self-sufficient and unique.

Some food for thought. What if English were not de facto made the language of the internet, if all of us only communicated on Germano-Austrian boards or only on anglo-American message boards?

[China studen]

I support the standardization of language and measurement all the way, brother (still waiting for global metrification!)

It's totally feasible to have a national dialect that is standardized and to let people use local languages for their communities.

Beijingers do it all the time! I like how people just accept that Beijing accent does not equal Standard Mandarin. It's better than other places where people from London or Paris or Seoul simply claim to speak standard as a birthright. If Beijing people can speak like pirates in day-to-day life (-er...-er......-er....-ar) and write in standard, what's the problem?

I've never understood this petty linguistic nationalism. I'm sad to see France stamp out Catalan, which is a beautiful language in danger of harming standard French, yet refusing to learn French, or refusing to learn English in Ireland doesn't help any causes.

If people are so damn passionate about their unique cultures, then speak two languages. Whenever people refuse to, they just end up creating a barrier between other members of their nation. It also leads to bastardization of one's own language. I speak Korean but don't feel the need to speak a garbled half-English with random Korean nouns. It's people who can't speak Korean at all who end up clumsily importing words into English. Likewise, it's only the Koreans who speak English poorly who end up importing unnecessary words. In an insecure attempt to look cosmopolitan they say "shoo-joo" (shoes) instead of 신발.

Bad Nationalists just want to keep their people isolated and weak. The Irish Republican movement has a history of English language education supporters. you'll also notice that the IRAs (plural) have always been more concerned with everything else more than the Irish language. On the other hand, we have British chauvinists who still oppose full metrification and love the monarchy because that's what's going to help keep Britain strong and self-sufficient and unique.

Some food for thought. What if English were not de facto made the language of the internet, if all of us only communicated on Germano-Austrian boards or only on anglo-American message boards?

안녕하세요!You are the South Koreans? I am now ready to learn Korean. I intend to go to South Korea to learn and experience the struggle of the streets there.