Some of you may have noticed about a week ago an article in the New York Times by correspondent Edward Wong titled, “The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn’t Care to Listen To,” about the famous preserved corpse uncovered in the Tarim Basin and dubbed the “Loulan Beauty.” So the Loulan Beauty looks European and this doesn’t jive well with the continual and enthusiastic insistence on behalf of the Chinese government that Xinjiang has always been a part of Chinese territory. Like almost all the articles written about Xinjiang in mainstream media outlets there was nothing strikingly new about the content and the article itself relied mostly on the “wow” factor one usually can get from telling your average Joe how weird Xinjiang is. Michael over at The Opposite End of China made a great post recently on the eye-rolling factor of the article and we just let the article slip by all together here at The New Dominion.
However, while those of us who have gone a little beyond the surface here in Xinjiang may just roll our eyes and sigh at Wong’s cliche observations, it of course is inevitable that legions of Chinese who lay their eyes on the article would get their feelings hurt and begin the nationalistic backlash. Spearheading the effort is the Global Times, a simmering, sensationalist tabloid that has a reputation for being sentimental and patriotic. Their article titled “American Media Dares to Use Loulan Beauty to Cast Doubt on Chinese Sovereignty” was too much to not write about.
The American newspaper “The New York Times” recently had the gall to publish an article absurdly using the “Loulan Beauty” to speculate that Xinjiang is not a part of the territory of China. That article states that since the “Loulan Beauty’s” appearance is evidence of her not being Chinese and also since her arrival to modern-day Xinjiang vastly predated emissary Zhang Qian’s arrival to the Western Regions, this constitutes proof that Xinjiang is not part of the territory of China.
The article is a short one. It gets right to the point by incredulously stating the NYT article’s goal of proving via the Loulan Beauty that Xinjiang is not a part of the territory of China, then picks a few choice quotes from the original article to display to the disgust of the Chinese readers. Finally, the author brings in two experts, a historian and the head of the Central Asia Research Institute in Xinjiang, to deal the killing blows to Wong’s thesis. The head of the institute, Pan Zhipang, observes that solid control over Xinjiang by a Chinese government was established in Xinjiang as early as 60 B.C. and Zhang Qian was only a part of that effort – a thousands year old mummy is irrelevant to that historical establishment. Historian Zhang Wei invokes international law, remarking that China’s continuous and effective rule over Xinjiang today fits in with the agreed upon definition of sovereignty and renders the origins of a 3800 year old mummy irrelevant. If thousands year old claims rather than effective governance defines sovereignty, the Global Times writer snarkily quips, then Americans should give America back to the Indians. And thus the article ends.
After supping on this delightful buffet of sarcasm and righteous indignation for a little bit I found myself choking and gagging on one little chicken bone – namely, nowhere in the article does Edward Wong argue that Xinjiang is not a part of the territory of China.
Sure, Wong’s article undeniably is soaked in a skeptical tone aimed at the current Chinese government, but while Wong makes a number of arguments, Xinjiang not being a part of China is clearly not one of them. For example, the title of the Times article – “a story that China doesn’t want to hear.” China obviously means the Chinese government, but is the story “Xinjiang is not a part of China?” Not quite.
An exhibit on the first floor of the museum here gives the government’s unambiguous take on the history of this border region: “Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of the territory of China,” says one prominent sign.
But walk upstairs to the second floor, and the ancient corpses on display seem to tell a different story.
So as we begin reading Wong’s article, he’s trying to get us to cast doubt on the statement, “Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of the territory of China.” Here’s where things get a little messy – when we’re looking at the predicate “has been” the tense implies a kind of permanence and uninterruptedness, whereas the Global Times author starts of by quoting this quote of a translation of a quote (yeesh), writing in Chinese, 新疆是中国领土不可分割的一部分, in which the subtlety of the tense “has been” gets sucked into Chinese grammar as the verb 是 which will inevitably be interpreted by native language readers as “China is an inalienable part of the territory of China.”
For a moment let’s ignore the stupidity of a sentence that was conceived in Mandarin, turned into a standardized policy statement, translated into English to be placed on a museum sign, was seen by a Chinese-American reporter, was quoted in an American newspaper, and then was seen by a Chinese reporter who took the phrase and translated it back into Chinese. Ha ha.
The difference between calling doubt upon “has been an inalienable part” and calling doubt upon “is an inalienable part” is pretty huge. The first one questions a long, unbroken claim of authority that snakes deep into the past without a clear end. The second one questions a sovereign nation’s right to rule its own territory today. When we acknowledge this difference we actually can find some common ground between Wong and the indignant expert interviewed in the Global Times article.
“As early as 60 B.C., China’s Western Han government had already established a protectorate in Xinjiang, the highest level administrative structure established by the Han dynasty in the Western Regions.” says Pan, “That China had established a local government there is proof that Xinjiang has since ancient times been a part of China’s territory.” Basically Pan is blasting what he is told Wong is claiming about the Loulan beauty by astutely pointing out that indeed there is a beginning boundary to Chinese rule over Xinjiang -the establishment of a protectorate there during the Han dynasty – and what happened before then is irrelevant to Chinese rule today. In this sense, Pan and Wong can both agree – imagining Chinese sovereignty into the 2nd millennium BC would be kind of absurd.
However, it’s not Chinese sovereignty that Wong is questioning, and that makes the Global Times’ impassioned criticism a big, smelly red herring, completely irrelevant. Instead what Wong is questioning is the more subtle idea that a “Chinese identity” could be projected beyond the first Han protectorate, far beyond 1st century BC; that regardless of the presence or absence of Han Chinese control in the region, the individuals were Chinese at heart – not “China” the ethnic Han cultural body, but “China” the multiethnic nation-state. This idea is insidious in its own way, because it depicts a people predating Chinese rule who nonetheless were clamoring in their hearts to be members of the great minzu family, an desire which was fulfilled when the Han dynasty came in the 1st century BC – an Eastern twist to the “heathens need Jesus” rationale that provided the spiritual and social impetus for colonization by European nations.
Does this idea exist in the Chinese leadership? I think it does. We can look back to Pan’s own words. While on one hand he quite correctly, in my opinion, stresses the difference between the concepts of “ethnicity” and “country,” right afterwards he strangely goes on to say, “Westerners often conceive China only to be composed of Han Chinese, but in reality China is an integrated, multiethnic country, and even though the “Loulan Beauty” is not Han, she still may be Chinese” [Emphasis mine]. Furthermore, one of the central writing points of Wong’s article is the befuddling insecurity on behalf of Chinese scientists preventing them from allowing genetic analysis by international scholars of the Loulan Beauty and other Xinjiang mummies. Beyond that, anyone who has visited the Autonomous Regional Museum and Urumqi can tell you much of it is a grand exercise in insecurity, with constant reminders in multiple languages to museum-goers that Xinjiang, no matter from what angle you’re looking at it, is a part of China and don’t even bother to question that axiom in front of all this overwhelming historical evidence.
If there’s no disputing that territorial integrity and sovereignty is all about who is effectively administering a region at a given time, why is there this shroud of paranoia and insecurity around the Loulan Beauty? Why are scientists so protective about her genetic makeup, and why do Chinese social scholars have to qualify their statements about her with “She still may be Chinese?” It’s because the issue runs deeper than sovereignty. As an unelected government, the CCP and even the autonomous regional government are obsessed with rationales, and justifiably so. Without the stamp of popular approval bestowed by elections, the CCP instead has to convince its modern-day subjects that it knows what’s good for them anyways and is providing that – for example, the unending stream of rhetoric about stability and economic prosperity, which, to be fair, in many cases, is not untrue. Ethnic regions that are historically less “Han” but are part of the PRC play a special role in this self-justification. If the titular minorities of these autonomous regions not only desire benevolent Han rule, but also are entitled to it with their long history as “proto-Chinese” peoples, then the non-elected government of, say, Xinjiang, is legitimate, even if real power lies mostly with the party organs consisting primarily of appointed Han Chinese.
As a private individual with a strong interest in Xinjiang, I do not have any objections to the PRC’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over Xinjiang. It’s a fact, just as historian Zhang Wei observes. What I do object to, however, is the sustained educational drive (including things like the Regional Museum in Urumqi) to to depict pre-Han dynasty peoples of Xinjiang as somehow belonging to the multiethnic “Chinese” identity. In addition to displaying the traditional insecurity of the Communist Party and being pretty unnecessary in light of international conventions regarding sovereignty, I consider this stubborn belief contributing to the “you were made for this and you asked for this” narrative that places the “big brother Han” on far higher ground than the other, ostensibly equal minorities of China. Wong is a journalist. His interest in the novelty of Xinjiang, Uyghurs, and the Loulan Beauty is strictly business and he’s writing for a broad audience, and so his article doesn’t delve deeply into the challenges the Loulan Beauty present to the idea of a pan-ethnic primordial Chinese identity. That, however, is still what he’s doing – not suggesting Xinjiang is entitled to become its own nation because a 3800 year old mummy looks European.
What really needs to be acknowledged by all sides is that when something is almost four millenia distant from the present, modern day concepts such as ethnic identity or national identity are completely irrelevant. Professor Pan, as far as the article went, gets close to this understanding – but not close enough. To turn the Global Times reporter’s misguided sarcasm on its head, claiming that the Loulan Beauty could retroactively be considered a member of the multiethnic Chinese nation state is as illogical as claiming the pueblo Indians of the 10th century were dyed in the wool red white and blue members of the United States of America melting pot eight centuries before the USA even existed. The Loulan Beauty beauty isn’t “Chinese” because “Chinese” didn’t exist back then, nor, it must be said, is she Uyghur. She should be nothing more than a representative of prehistoric life in Xinjiang that can be appreciated by the young, the old, Han, Uyghur, and foreigner – without any devaluing political baggage.
***
If you can read Chinese, I also recommend you peruse the comments section to the Global Times article for a nice sampling of typical angry youth (愤青) rage. Lots of amusing yet red herring remarks on giving Alaska back to Russia and America back to the Indians. If there are any intelligent comments that do more than just illustrate angry youth contempt it may merit a future post.
***
Full translation of the Global Times Article below:
Global Times Special Correspondent Shang Bin
The American newspaper “The New York Times” recently had the gall to publish an article absurdly using the “Loulan Beauty” to speculate that Xinjiang is not a part of the territory of China. That article states that since the “Loulan Beauty’s” appearance is evidence of her not being Chinese and also since her arrival to modern-day Xinjiang vastly predated emissary Zhang Qian’s arrival to the Western Regions, this constitutes proof that Xinjiang is not part of the territory of China.
The “Loulan Beauty” the article mentions refers to a preserved body unearthed in the Lop Nur region of Xinjiang, China, discovered by Chinese archaeologist Mu Shunying in 1980. At approximately 3800 years old, it is the oldest body uncovered in Xinjiang to date.
The article, published on November 18 in the New York Times, is titled “The Dead Tell a Tale China Doesn’t Care to Listen To.” The author notes the Chinese government’s assertion that “Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of the territory of China.” “However, the corpses seem to tell a different story.” He writes that from the appearance of the “Loulan Beauty” one can determine that “she does not look like what one thinks of is Chinese,” and that “the very first people to settle the area came from the west — down from the steppes of Central Asia and even farther afield — and not from the fertile plains and river valleys of the Chinese interior.”
The author also mentions that Chinese officials, when offering proof that Xinjiang is a part of Chinese territory, often mention Zhang Qian’s mission to the Western Regions, “but the mummies show, though, that humans entered the region thousands of years earlier, and almost certainly from the west.” The author says that the “Loulan Beauty” is 3800 years old, and that the time of Zhang Qian’s mission to the Wesern Reigions was during the Western Han dynasty, in the second century B.C.
The head of the Central Asia Research Institute at the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences, Pan Zhiping accepted an interview with a Global Times correspondent and said regarding this fallacy that the article has made a “conceptual error.” The concepts of “ethnicity” and “country”, he argues, are two completely different concepts. Westerners often conceive China only to be composed of Han Chinese, but in reality China is an integrated, multiethnic country, and even though the “Loulan Beauty” is not Han, she still may be Chinese. Furthermore, as early as 60 B.C., China’s Western Han government had already established a protectorate in Xinjiang, the highest level administrative structure established by the Han dynasty in the Western Regions. That China had established a local government there is proof that Xinjiang has since ancient times been a part of China’s territory; Zhang Qian served only as an emissary to the Western Regions, and his activities there are not considered the conclusive evidence that Xinjiang belongs to Chinese territory.
Historian Zhang Wei told a Global Times correspondent that what is determined by the history of territorial claims and what is determined by the present reality are also completely different concepts. According to international legal conventions, what determines a place’s status as “territory” is a nation carrying out continuous and effective management of that place. The Western Han central government established a protectorate in the Western Regions in 60 BC, and for over 2000 years since that time the Chinese central government has basically maintained continuous and effective control over the Xinjiang reason. Zhang Wei states that the article’s comparison of the 3800 year old corpse of the Loulan Beauty with the Chinese government’s over 2000 years of continuous effective rule over Xinjiang is completely lacking in logic. Should the argument of the article be implemented, then American should be returned to the Native Americans.
Comments 35
Wasn’t it Edward Wong who recently wrote in a New York Times article that Taiwan was, in so many words, an essential piece of China? He’s hardly a rapid anti-China western reporter. He had phrased in a recent story about Chen Shui-bian that the effort to split Taiwan from China had actually failed and the result was a continuing dispute over occupied Taiwan.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 2:51 am ¶So, are you recommending the slogan to be changed to “Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of the territory that eventually has come to be known as China”?
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 3:52 am ¶Interesting reflection.Lots of incisive points.
Nevertheless, I am very curious why you would put youself into two meaningless poles: a obviously badly conceived argument by Edward Wong(even for a newspaper article), and angry youth arguments (Global Times Counted in). Maybe the CCP mindset have some commonalities with the crap-talkings of the angry youth, but I think it would be better if you pull youself out of this affray and point you attack against CCP specifically. And this might exactly be the problem of your overall argumentation: you never expecilictly point out the deep fallacy of the ethnicity=statehood-right formula, though you mentioned you personally don’t object that fact that XingJiang is not part of China.
And this brings us to you defense of Edward Wong:
(You said)”Wong is a journalist. His interest in the novelty of Xinjiang, Uyghurs, and the Loulan Beauty is strictly business and he’s writing for a broad audience, and so his article doesn’t delve deeply into the challenges the Loulan Beauty present to the idea of a pan-ethnic primordial Chinese identity. That, however, is still what he’s doing – not suggesting Xinjiang is entitled to become its own nation because a 3800 year old mummy looks European.”
I don’t see why “that is still what he’s doing”. With the context of secessional contentions accompanied by intermittent unrest, what Wong had in mind when he wrote that sentence most probably would be a cunny hint on the state sovereignty issue, rather than an issue you have ‘thoughtfully’ developed, namely identity issue. Considering that ‘business’ nature of the nespaper, what would Wong want his readers think on his article? To delve into the deep meditation of complicated identity-nationhood question, or just grab another easily-got evidence that China as a state should be dissolved so as to ‘liberate’ those conquered ‘identities’? The answer cannot be more evident.
I don’t mean identites have nothing to do with nationhood. If identites issue grows big enough, it would ultimately challenges the legimitacy and sustainability of the current nationhood. But you have to specifiy out exactly the nature of this polemic and what you stand on this issue, something I think you havn’t done enough through your past posts, rather ungraciously, to be honest. To be more precise, the question is: what’s your ultimate question: Chinse democracy for the whole country with its full meaning for liberty and rights for all, regardless of ethnicity and origin; or a resurrection of the Ughur identity which you think is not yet secure enough.
It might be a bit too much to ask you as a foreigner to defend a “United China” which hopefully would become democratic and free in the future. But as you are looking into Chinese issues, as Ughurs have been, are, and will ever be living together with other ethnicities, you might want to count my feeling into you future thinking: I am a Han Chinese, I have friends living in Xingjiang from different ethnicities, and I have relatives who are also minorities, I don’t think theier ancesters are ‘historically’ Chinese, as I myself might be a so-called ‘minority’ descendance considering the extreme complexity of Chinse ‘ethnical’ history. But I know we have one thing in common: we want to continue living together peacefully, and hopefully democratically. I would fight for the liberies for all individualities of all ethnicities; but I would also fight for the unitiy of the country. If the latter point is too hard to understand, consider Lincoln and the American civil war. And I believe I am not alone in China. Only unfortunately some people stupidly and somewhat deliberately decorate themselves as insane ‘angry youth’. And worse enough, the government is no less disapointing.
All in all, my major point is, sovereignty issue is almost completely irrelevant for democracy-freedom issue. If you are talking about the latter, you are obliged to make yourself clear on the former. Otherwise, you have to ask yourself: why China should be disintegrated so as to ‘liberate’ people while other nations could still stay as a nation and, because of that, they could sustain peace within a certain territory and thus build compelling powers on this planet, something what the western powers are exactly doing, if you are honest enough about the nature of NATO and US military presence around the world.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 4:38 am ¶Oh, wgj. You’re great. I’m saying there shouldn’t be any god damn slogan. A museum is supposed to be a museum, not a propaganda machine, and as Zhang correctly points out, Chinese control over Xinjiang is a solid reality (far more so than, for example, Pakistan’s control over the NWFP) and so meets the criteria for sovereignty as designated by international conventions. Sure, there may be a separatist problem with the Uyghurs but a stupid slogan muttered by Communist party officials or slapped on every other wall in a museum is not addressing that issue at all. It’s partially aimed at Westerners, because officials are all scared that the West would love nothing more to see China collapse into a heap of disarray (see Nur Bekri’s speech) but in reality these dumb slogans are put up by government and party officials for themselves so they’re reminded constantly about how justified their power is (and by proxy whatever measures they decide to take). The fear is ultimately stupid because ruthless [tongue in cheek]China-bashing haters[/tongue in cheek] like myself and even a certain spiritual leader of a certain Chinese autonomous region are actually acknowledging Chinese sovereignty in these areas and instead are asking for fairer treatment of the titular minorities, but apparently tabloids and officials can’t see the difference between the two and go “red herring galore” with their “Xinjiang/Tibet has been, is, and always will be a part of China” nonsense. What the hell is this directed at? Westerners? Westerners are not trying to foment rebellion, seriously. Muslim extremists? They’re not listening to that b.s. These slogans are just tissue papers for weeping leaders who feel victimized by criticism and really know what’s best.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 8:28 am ¶To Demin: “But I know we have one thing in common: we want to continue living together peacefully, and hopefully democratically.”
Well, that may be the problem, that not everyone does want to live together (at least not under the actual setup; Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongolians, Taiwanese all have strong objections to this, and others like Yunnan too, as one friend from there has many objections to what he considers exploitation of the periphery by Beijing). Also not everyone wants to live democratically, as long as the CCP considers itself the only possible ruler of the Chinese nation and all its nationalities endowed with the “divine han right” (inherited from the Son of Heaven) to rule it (China) and them (all minorities). The times that non-Han were in government (Yuan or Qing) they were considers outsiders and foreigners, and the Han Chinese were embarrassed for this alien domination, as it its shown by the non-collaboration standpoint of some intellectuals, the feeling of treason of those who collaborated with the alien regimes. Many “non-compliant” intellectuals were simply wiped-out.
A recent example… “The Manchus, well aware of their status as foreign conquerors and outnumbered about a hundred to one by Han Chinese, feared social disorder of any sort and were hypersensitive to racial issues. As a result, they made a conscious effort to suppress works that seemed to have an anti-Manchu flavor and coerced the Han Chinese literati into changing their literary stile. As Yi Tsung-k’uei observes, “because of this stem censorship [the Han Chinese literati] would deeply conceal their intent, subtly conveying them by means of ghost or fox-spirit stories or sophisticated allegories” (see Nanxiu Qian, Spirit and Self in Medieval China).
If you change Manchu into CCP and Han into Ethnic minorities, you do have a text that seems written ad hoc to today’s china minorities-Han central government issues.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 9:09 am ¶Much ado about nothing.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 10:08 am ¶Is this what I get for questioning your commitment to the blog? A long-ass article blowing mine out of the water? Oh, it’s on!
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 10:53 am ¶“and even a certain spiritual leader of a certain Chinese autonomous region are actually acknowledging Chinese sovereignty in these areas and instead are asking for fairer treatment of the titular minorities”
His Holiness’s bargain plan is, I’m afraid, is much, much, much, bigger than that. Either we are living in a parallel world, or you are evil.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 11:37 am ¶your defense for Wong is not tenable. whatever you say, just throw a question to a common westerner: what do you get from Wong’s article? they definitely will tell you that the suggestion Xinjiang was not part of China and is supressively “controlled” by China is what Mr. Wong wants to convey.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶@Mike: Thanks for reading the article anyways :)
@Richard: I’m going to have to disagree with you partially. The article takes issue with “the government’s unambiguous take in the history of the border region” and builds its argument on questioning the slogan Xinjiang has been a part of China placed strategically next to thousands year old mummies. Furthermore, the content of the article itself has little to do with the way Xinjiang is “controlled” today and is mostly about government officials and scientists’ unwillingness to delve deeper into and be more open about Xinjiang’s heterogeneous past. This article discusses the distant past, the CCP’s version of the distant past, and the challenges to the distant past posed by the mummies. It does not discuss current Xinjiang politics, policies, government, or leaders beyond mentioning in passing for average readers that there is a nationalist Uyghur movement. Again,the distinction between “is a part of China” and “has been a part of China” is vital. If the Global Times wrote a seething and critical article about North America’s long and glorious indigenous history and about the generally brutal treatment of Native Americans from the arrival of Spanish colonizers to today, I would not interpret that as an attack on American sovereignty on American soil, especially if official American policy was that US territory was “American” before the Europeans arrived and that Native Americans were all proto-Americans just waiting to for the British colonists to come and make them complete.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 3:49 pm ¶@Leo: Me being evil is definitely a possibility but on the other hand I can’t disagree with the idea that I must live on a planet completely different from wherever fenqing and Red Guards 2.0 are living. ;)
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 3:55 pm ¶@Demin:
First of all, on my decision to write about about the “two meaningless poles” of the New York Times and the angry youth. I’m interested in Xinjiang and I’ve been following Xinjiang issues for a little while now and I’ve come to the conclusion that as far as today’s Xinjiang and Xinjiang’s recent history goes, cold, hard, reliable facts are hard to come by. The truth. It’s kind of ironic because actually the closer you come to the present day in Xinjiang studies the harder it is to find out what exactly is going on. The most important impediment to finding out what’s going on Xinjiang is the informational blackout imposed by the government. Independent research is difficult to conduct in Xinjiang. Those who do so often find themselves working furtively (see the NYT article), not able to re-enter China, or toeing the party line even if it goes against the results. What I’ve concluded as an amateur Xinjiang enthusiast is that a lot of the discussion on Xinjiang has to occur on a meta-level, that is, while it may be extremely difficult to talk about the ‘reality on the ground’ so to speak what we can talk about is the way Xinjiang is talked about – if that makes any sense. And so if you delve into this blogs archives you’ll see that often we discuss media coverage and official Chinese portrayals of Xinjiang. I think it’s a significant discussion because Xinjiang to the outside world is such an obscure and tucked away area that their only sources of information are these outlets. Thus the image of Xinjiang – regardless of how close to the truth it is – is what mobilizes non-Xinjiang people and shapes their reactions – from diaspora Uyghur nationalists in Turkey to angry fenqing in Shanghai and everyone in between who cares. If the image is imaginary its repercussions among target populations are indeed real. So that’s why I bother with them – I definitely don’t consider them meaningless.
As for what we think about Wong’s intent with the article is, take a look at the answer I wrote to Richard. Addresses the same point.
And I’m actually quite intrigued that you are challenging me for being unjustifiably vague about my position on Xinjiang. I think such a challenge is quite valid if I am indeed being vague about my own position. But first of all, The New Dominion is a blog. It’s written by two individuals and it will inevitably reflect the personal opinions of those individuals but it was never meant to be something as rigorous as say a Ph.D. thesis where an extremely precise, tightly-knit, and exhaustive personal argument is to be put forward. The idea behind the blog is to provide running commentary on a whole cornucopia of Xinjiang topics and get people to talk about it.
I do have a continually evolving opinion on Xinjiang and I like to consider it to be dynamic rather than static, and that the very act of me writing this blog shapes and reshapes it with new ideas and inputs from other people. Honestly, I think if you read my posts closely (not that they are deserving of close scrutiny in the first place :P) you will see where I stand.
I think that your inability to see my stance on the Xinjiang issue in general has less to do with me being “ungraciously” vague and more to do with my stance not fitting into what you believe are the only existing options. I point to the content of your comment. You offer “Chinese democracy for the whole country” in contrast “a resurrection of Uyghur identity.” Later you talk about “disintegrating the nation” to “liberate” the minorities. Maybe you haven’t seen my stance on the issue because my stance is a resounding “none of the above.”
Maybe one can view the Xinjiang situation with an acknowledgment that Xinjiang is fully controlled and administered by the People’s Republic of China, that Xinjiang’s population today is almost as Han as it is Uyghur, and that changing the status quo would inevitably result in massive unrest and disorder, but also that Xinjiang has a long, long way to go when it comes to providing fairness and autonomy to the indigenous peoples and that the government would do well to stop fooling itself and work constructively and with an openness to criticism to improve the situation. And maybe that’s my take on things.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 4:24 pm ¶@kailing
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 7:02 pm ¶Theoretically speaking, you are confusing a lot of things. I recognize the so-called ‘rights’ to human rights, freedom,and so on, just as you do, I think. But my friend, can you specify to me exactly weather there a ‘right’ to sovereignty as such, just in the same sense as the ‘right’ to things like human rights and freedom? If so, can you tell me why the hell the world is divided by country borders like this and that? Is there a certain law of rights determining that? Why the Africans are ‘entitled’ to living in the area with bad weather and barren field, why the Europeans live in a area with a ‘Fortress Europe’ fending others entering ‘their land’. And why American let people die at their Mexican borders? Should we redrawn the border line or just abolish the borderline so as to confer to everybody equal universal rights? If you can think through that, then we can talk a little bit abut China’s sovereignty issue. And then you might be able to have a clearer, more consistent view about the rights-sovereignty issue.
@kailing
“CCP considers itself the only possible ruler of the Chinese nation and all its nationalities endowed with the “divine han right” (inherited from the Son of Heaven) to rule it (China) and them (all minorities)”
That is a rather laughable comment. Since when the communist party consider itself as the inheritor of the ‘feudal’,'backward’ dynasties? and with a specific ‘divine han right’? where did you hear that?
I know there are some bad things going on concerning ethnicity issues. But my friend, in the whole history of China, have you heard something like ‘segregation’? I heard it exist somewhere else. And I also hear some US presidents swearing in office with “God help me”, when their God is obviously not the same God for all people living in US.
The ghosts of CNN are just hanging everywhere, and they think they are righteous enough and knowledgable enough, especially when it comes to a country with so many dummy, backward people.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 7:25 pm ¶@Porfiriy
“You offer “Chinese democracy for the whole country” in contrast “a resurrection of Uyghur identity.” Later you talk about “disintegrating the nation” to “liberate” the minorities. Maybe you haven’t seen my stance on the issue because my stance is a resounding “none of the above.” ”
What is your stance then? I am just curious about it? ” the government would do well to stop fooling itself and work constructively and with an openness to criticism to improve the situation. And maybe that’s my take on things” To me that fits more or less to my general vision of “Chinese democracy for the whole country”. If you have something different to offer, then could you tell us a little bit about it?
Just purely personal interest. Thanks
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 7:39 pm ¶@Porfiriy:
I don’t understand this bashing of the slogan — yes it is somewhat silly, but no more than any other political slogan. Is “Xinjiang / Tibet is an inalienable part of the territory of China” really that much different from “E pluribus unum”, “In God we trust”, “Live free or die”, or even “Yes, we can”?
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 9:45 pm ¶Gosh, what a war here. Just some quick thoughts: people, debate on issues please, no personal attacks or juvenile tactics such as directing attention to irrelevant topics such as CNN or “dummy Americans.” Besides, if you think you are creative or original enough about dummy Americans, go watch some Daily Shows with Jon Stewart and Colbert Report, or even South Park. They do a way better job in criticizing the Americans and its system than you do. Even CNN does a better job in criticizing the US than any Chinese media in criticizing China. There are only two kinds of countries that no criticism is needed from its own people: a perfect country and a hopeless country. Wonder which one China really is.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 1:08 am ¶@wgj
These are hugely different. All slogans are not created equal. Something like “E pluribus unum” is more comparable to 建构和谐社会, a far more complex, broader political statement that operates in many different shades and is definitely worth exploring. If you want a Western equivalent for “Xinjiang is an inalienable part of the territory of China,” why don’t you try “Alaska is an inalienable part of the territory of the United States” on for size. Oh, wait, nobody says that because it’s stupid, obvious, and pointless, Alaska Independence movements be damned. The United States isn’t hopelessly and needlessly insecure about its sovereignty over Alaska. Or Guam or Puerto Rico for that matter. This really should be the attitude with Xinjiang. Unless there’s some political advantage to hyping up the existence of some enemy (Western Forces? Muslims?) whose goal is to shear Xinjiang off from the motherland. Is there?
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 1:10 am ¶@demin
Regardless of what I think about the future prospects for democracy in the PRC, the fact remains that providing minorities in Xinjiang more autonomy and control over Xinjiang’s political, natural, and cultural resources by no means requires a nationwide cataclysmic shift to democracy. Providing minorities with more self-determination is accomplished by, well, providing minorities with more self-determination, it doesn’t matter if the agency providing that autonomy is the Chinese Communist Party or some democratically elected government or the Queen of England in a wetsuit.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 1:21 am ¶@Ralphie,
Just to clarify, maybe my English is not so good.See, I am a native Chinese. What I mean ‘a country with many dummy backward people,’ I actually mean CHINA, not US, as many people would like to make such a big deal about what some ‘angry youth’ thinks and tend to regulate it as if this is evil intention of Han Chinese.
And with “CNN ghosts”, it’s a dub I invent to point to a mindset, just like “angry youth” or “libertarians”. It is not particularly intended to criticize America, as ‘CNN ghost’ could be a Chinse criticizing America too. Is that clear enough to you?
And where exactly do you find that I don’t welcome criticism of China? I just point out some points which I find problematic in the author’s post. Is that a problem to you?
Besides, you don’t have to remind me that I should feel ashamed about China. I won’t talk about that kind of “ISSUE” with you. Thanks.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 3:18 am ¶@Porfiriy
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 3:29 am ¶Fair enough. If democracy only means election, then I might agree with you. “Providing minorities with more self-determination is accomplished by, well, providing minorities with more self-determination” also counts at my side exactly as being part of the general framework of Chinse democracy.
@Porfiriy:
By your logic, does “In God we trust” display an insecurity regarding America’s religious faith, then?
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 3:59 pm ¶Frozen “Asian” Mummy Found in Alaska.
A mummy, dubbed the “Kodiak Cutie,” was recently discovered by an oil worker drilling in northern Alaska. The mummy is described as bearing uniquely Asian features quite unlike the more European residents of the area. According to Bill Smith, the man who originally discovered the mummy, “That mummy is strange. I mean, most folks up here have brown hair and white skin, you know, ’cause there ain’t much sun. But the Kodiak Cutie, she has dark skin and dark hair, and she’s dressed like a Mongolian or something.”
Although few independent scientists have had access to the Kodiak Cutie, a US government science team has already begun investigating the find. According to the team leader, John Brown, the media has been a little too quick in declaring the Kodiak Cutie to be Asian. “We’ve done DNA testing and found that certain DNA elements of the Kodiak Cutie are shared by modern-day Alaskans, so really, calling her an Asian is not entirely accurate. I think we should really just say, she’s American.”
This sentiment is not shared by Dr. Gansuk Bayar, the head of a Mongolian delegation sent to investigate the find. “We suspect that the Kodiak Cutie may be of Asian descent, possibly one of the original human migrants to North America. She could be related to modern day Inuit or other Native American people, or she could even be part of a group of people that simply vanished, we really don’t know since our access to the mummy has been very limited.”
In a press conference last Tuesday, the American Representative for Alaskan Affairs issued a statement saying, “We strongly object to ongoing Mongolian, Chinese, and Korean media reports questioning the American-ness of the Kodiak Cutie. It is well established that native Alaskans have lived in Alaska for hundreds if not thousands of years. Claims made by so-called scientists that the Kodiak Cutie is somehow of Asian descent are preposterous, and obviously intended to undermine US sovereignty in Alaska. Let me make one thing very clear, Alaska is an inseperable part of the United States, and any attempts to suggest that people of Asian descent lived here at some point in history are simply politically motivated distortions intended to call US sovereignty into question. The Kodiak Cutie is American!”
What does all this mean to the oil worker that discovered the Kodiak Cutie? “Hell, I don’t know what to think. At first, I thought she didn’t look like most Alaskans I know, but scientists say she’s an original American, so I guess that’s what she is. I just wish the damn Mongolians would leave us alone and stop trying to split Alaska away from America. Stupid Mongolians, always trying to undermine us.”
…I don’t know why I wrote that, just trying to imagine someone in the US getting worked up over a mummy. Seriously though, is it so hard to just deal with the fact that “Zhongguo” didn’t always include Xinjiang and maybe some whitish Indo-European people lived there at some point. Really? Is it so hard?
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 4:38 pm ¶Haha, wgj. Given the rather well-known circumstances regarding this phrase’s elevation to “national motto” status, yes, it certainly does. Also, is there a significant, critical, and perfectly legal social movement within the United States population questioning this motto? Why yes, there is. Perhaps you’re also unintentionally underscoring my point because although the phrase “In God We Trust” is a vestigial leftover from the 50s that does nothing more than hang out on the surface of money nowadays, the mentality of the leadership responsible for inaugurating this motto in many ways can be compared to the closed, insidious mindset that toots “Xinjiang is an inalienable part of China” over and over again in the Chinese leadership. Dejavu, I think I’ve mentioned this before in response to your usual attempts at excusing China by pointing to American behavior – it was an unsavory facet of our history often dubbed “McCarthyism” and we actually do learn about it in our schools. Again, if you want “In God we Trust” to be comparable “Xinjiang is an inalienable part of China” we’ll have to wait 50 years and hope by then the latter just an afterthought etched on a few government buildings, and hope that by then a bunch of Uyghurs will have a legal right to protest it as irrelevant to the spirit of the nation.
Looking for a “gotcha!” moment? Hate to disappoint you. Wgj, you always try to drag the US into these discussions but it’s always completely irrelevant, not because these problems don’t exist in the United States but because people have the right to address these issues and do address them there. I don’t have a fenqing or CCP mentality, unfortunately. First of all, most of your comparisons are incredibly irrelevant or inaccurate, and even when they are the tiniest bit relevant I don’t feel the need to scurry and bury the truth giving you the right to point and gleefully shout, “hypocrite.” If you think In God we trust is dumb and has a real negative impact in the lives of American citizens in this day and age, go sign up, there are people out in the open who don’t like it either. This blog isn’t about the separation of church in state in the US. It doesn’t need to be. Lots of people on the job. Where do people who think “Xinjiang has been an inalienable part of China” is stupid sign up? Yeesh.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 6:19 pm ¶Bill you are super awesome.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 7:16 pm ¶Your routine criticism of my — and many other people’s — “habit” of “dragging the US into the discussion” is entirely pointless. You think the rational for those comparisons is to to say “if the US does something, it must be the right thing to do” — but it’s not.
For one, people use examples from the US simply because the average person (especially the average netizen) is more or less familiar with the circumstances there — I could easily cite equivalent examples from Europe, but most people would have no idea what I’m talking about.
More importantly, however, because of the US’ generally accepted role as the “world leader”, any action it takes — and receives little to none international criticism for — should at least be considered something people deem “acceptable in a realistic world”. I hope you agree there is an important difference between “bad but realistically unavoidable (at least for the foreseeable time)” and “bad and actually avoidable” — and that people who focus on the former instead of the latter are ideologues with whom discussion is usually futile.
And since you’ve repudiated my “In god we trust” example — brilliantly, I may add — I want to move on to the next example I’ve mentioned: “Yes, we can”. Is that, in your opinion, not at all an inspirational slogan, but a show of insecurity among America’s progressives? Also, please point out the “significant, critical, and perfectly legal social movement within the United States population questioning this motto”.
Posted 26 Nov 2008 at 11:30 pm ¶First of all, you’ve misstated what I perceive you and others to be doing, not what you have said, but instead “If the US is doing it” or the more common and interesting “If the US has done it 10/15/50/200 years ago” then “leave China alone for doing it.” This is pretty distinct from your statement of things. It’s not that the US doing it, or more frequently, having done it a long time ago, makes it “right”, it just apparently revokes any Westerners’ right to call a wrong thing wrong.
Second, it doesn’t matter whether or not the comparisons or analogies you are making are “familiar” with people, it matters whether or not they are even relevant to the issue at hand. I think your record of commenting across different posts in this blog pretty consistently establishes they most oftentimes aren’t.
Thirdly, this is not a blog about whether or not the United States deserves to be world leader, or whether or not its behavior or action is deserving of criticism, etc., etc., etc. Why does it seem that adopting a critical stance against practices in Xinjiang and greater China is equivalent, in your eyes, to an unconditional approval of everything said and done in or by the United States? Now that you’ve established a pattern of posting on this blog I can state pretty unequivocally that the hardly concealed aim of many of your posts is to expose some sort of hypocrisy in my view of things by pointing out what you at least think are comparable errors or phenomenon in the United States. Usually, they’re not comparable to begin with. Furthermore, the adequate response to these allegations anyways is, “Yeah, that’s how it is, so what, red herring.” This blog is not meant to be a discussion of the United States and its government. If you think my discussion of the CCP is unfair, that’s unfortunate because last time I checked the CCP was the governmental organization in charge of Xinjiang, which happens to be the topic of this blog. My belief about the United States or “E Pluribus Unum” or “In God We Trust” or “Yes We Can” is absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the topic of this post or this blog. Your interest in ferreting out my beliefs on these utterly irrelevant topics seems to be nothing more than an increasingly desperate attempt to get me to say something stupid (which, rest assured, will likely happen but only once the discussion has gone so off field we’re not remotely near Xinjiang anymore). Note that as I have continually addressed your points in the context of the original post your responses have been to absolutely, completely, 100% ignore any refutation I make of what your saying and instead go further astray by asking “Well what about this?” What next? My religious beliefs? If you’re really interested in all that let me make it absolutely clear that I’m open to discussion but find it a waste of space and time on this Xinjiang blog. The best route to take is click the “contact us” button above and you can ask me what my favorite ice cream flavor is for all I care via email.
As for your poignant questioning of the US’ place in the world it’s a criticism that deserves to be put forward and I warmly encourage as a citizen of country that enshrines free speech – but I think it’s best if you do it at one of the millions of other blogs, message boards, whatever, both in the United States, China, and probably every other country in the world, that are actually about that topic or tangentially related to it. But nonetheless I’ll say I’m bemused you bother mentioning here because just recently there was a lot of discussion among news outlets and global citizens alike about a report released by a US intelligence organization stating unequivocally that US global dominance is weakening.
As for Obama’s slogan, again, entirely irrelevant. More irrelevant than “In God we Trust,” which was more irrelevant than “E Pluribus Unum.” I bothered to address the previous two allegations above but you failed both times to either offer a counter-argument or to solidify how any of this was still related to Xinjiang after what I had to say. Already I can see you’re already trying to make “Yes we can” into something owned by “America’s progressives” and not by the vast array of people who voted Obama into the presidency and see “Yes we can” as a rallying call for a broken nation. Whether “Yes we can” is progressive propaganda or a resonant slogan which speaks to the current times, I’d like to see you discuss how either could possibly be relevant to “Xinjiang is an inalienable part of the territory of China” in the way I have discussed it. Furthermore, if you’re going to define “Yes we can” so narrowly that it only belongs to and represents America’s “progressives” then I can pretty easily and just as narrowly respond that the significant, critical, and perfectly legal social movement questioning it is anyone who voted for McCain. Right?
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 2:05 am ¶Wgj, regarding what seems to be an increasingly clear-cut personality quirk on your part to trawl the internet for any possible occasion to prove how smarter you are than everybody, I think this is a nice illustrative case that takes the cake. Oh, it wasn’t that the English was too small, it was that you were so overeager at what you thought was an opportunity to call someone an idiot that you didn’t bother to look carefully! And we’re using a Xinjiang blog to talk about how American progressives are insecure now?
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶Porfiry, yu rock!
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 2:58 pm ¶Well, now I’ve lost you totally. Isn’t any and every comparison more or less irrelevant to the original topic? Are you attacking the general concept of using comparisons in an argument?
Regarding my “personality quirk”: Now that’s something really “irrelevant” to the discussion at hand, and I’m truly surprise you would suddenly turn to personal attacks — or is it just your way of subtlety telling me you want me to stay off this blog?
Anyway, since you’ve raised the issue, here is my response. Yes, I’m always eager to point out other people’s mistakes (or what I consider to be), and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, since disagreement is incomparably more valuable in a discussion than agreement. As for any underlying motivation: I don’t know much about psychology, other than it’s considered practically impossible for anybody to psychoanalyze himself anyway, so all I can say is I don’t see the logic of “proving how smarter I am than everybody” while using a pseudonym nobody knows about — the only one I could be proving it to would be myself, and since I’ve be this overconfident ever since childhood, that proof seems pointless as well.
As to my position toward the “American progressives”, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding: If I were living in the US, I’d be a very active member of that movement. In fact, I’m a big fan of Olbermann, Maddow, Maher, Moulitsas, etc. and agree with them at least 90% of the time.
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 3:02 pm ¶@Porfiriy
I think you, and everyone else has the right to say what thinks wrong. And to be honest, most of the time, I think what you are pointing at withregarding issues of XingJiang or China are correct. And I applaud and thank you for that.
Nevertheless, I find I am not completely comfortable with your perspectives.(I certainly do not mean you are obliged to make your readers comfortable). It’s not realy the substantive point that goes wrong. It’s rather the way you put, The way so omnipresent, so universal, and also so western, or so ‘modern’ so to speak.
What do I mean? Let me first start with Loulan. As you may know, Loulan (楼兰）is not a new coined word. It exists for thousands years in Chinese history. It refers to a far-west little ‘state’ which people live in the ‘middle state’ constantly deals with for thousand years. And latter it dissapeared rather mystiously, which evokes all kinds of serious or amateur reseaches to find out why. It also exists since its disappearance in novels, legends,poems,etc..In one word, it is a memory, and for the most part a romatic one, that exists in Chinese people’s consciousness. That’s why the ‘Loulan Beauty’ has evoked such interests in Chinese people. It’s ‘our beauty’ who does not look like ordinary Han people. And we know that. And I doubt if there is anyone, including the one who hanged that slogan, intends to humiliate her or people who looks like her, namely the Ugihurs.
Why would I say that? The whole thing, it seems to me, is not a racial thing. China as an empire has existed for thousand years. And it consists of different peoples with different ethnic origins. And the struggles,conflicts, bu also connections among them far predates the birth of modern states and globalization. And fortunately, during these thousands of years, China has never developed a racism that is supported and instutionalized by the state power deliberately to rule over certain people. Never has a racial segration existed in Chinese history. And this, however, is not because thousand years ago Chinese people has learned and comprehended comcepts like natural law, human rights, or individual freedom. It is what it is. It is supported by the custom and mores. And it is minded by Confucius’s teaching ‘有教无类’(Those who can learn are all people regardless of their origins)
And nowadays, have things changed so much? I don’t think so. The Chinese government did not develop a racism even in the totally insane communist totalitarian era. After its open and reform policy, there is no chance that it would even intend to conceive a policy that is aimed to target the minorities. On the contrary, as far as I know, the minorities enjoy far more civil rights than Han Chinese in many areas: Child policy, education policy,etc..
And again, this is not because the government are deliberately observing the human rights and individual freedom or something. This is the way how things work in China and it is minded by both practical thinking and the mores/customs. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Under this way in which things are worked there are a lot evils, unfairness, injustice going on. And then, we have this talking of human rights, freedom, right to autonomy, etc.. But the problem is, where does these things come from? It is not how Chinese conceive things. These norms and concepts are derived specifically from the western discourse and they are connected with their own historicl problems, mostly their colonial, imperial, and state-supported racism past.
At this point you might think I am local nationalist who does not recognize ‘the universal right’. No I am not. I think these norms and concepts are very useful tools to think about problems in China. But they are defenitely not enough. And especially for China, the conceptual framework of identity-rights often misses the real point, if they are not totally irrelevant. A huge part of the problems in China, including in XingJiang is due to practical reasons, or due to mores, culture, or simply speaking how things works there. Most of the time they are not about prescribing rights, ‘let free’, or ‘bestowing autonomy’, which are totally relevant in western context. The same thing holds true for Islam world, with context Changed.
In other words, to change these things better according some people, you have to change the mind of people their, not just a few ‘despots’ in power. And yet, people come to China, amazed by what they are seeing and immediately go back to shout: look, they are violating human rights! What a terrible thing that is! Yes, it is terrible. We are not barbarian people and we are fully aware of that. And we (certainly I) welcome people from the west talking about how terrible it is and how to improve it. And I and (I believe the future generation of China) would thank people like Porfiriy who takes time to think about the problems in China and ways to solve it. But the condition is, you have to be aware youself what are you talking about, who you are talking to. It’s not physics you are talking about. It’s about people. You can’t just travel along to China, bring the norms you learn in your country and wield it as if it is a ‘God-sent’ magical weapon. It pisses of people like me. And it certainly reminds many people of the western imperial colonial period in which China is a victim. And I would keep an eye on them as long as I see them, no matter whether it is a PhD thesis or an internet blog.
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 6:02 pm ¶Again, more “classic” Wgj. Attacking an argument that does not belong to the other side? Check. Nobody’s saying the use of comparisons is invalid. If you’ve been reading anything I’ve written, you’d know that, but given that you haven’t addressed a single refutation of mine, I guess it’s okay to conclude that you indeed are not reading anything I’ve written. If you did, you’d know that the “logical technique” under fire here is not “comparisons.” It’s “stupid comparisons.” Surely, you’re aware of the difference. The Uyghurs say this cat is beige. The CCP says the cat is coffee colored. You say the cat is bright blue because the table in your room is bright blue and has four legs like the cat. This is a comparison. There is a shared element among the two objects being compared. Nonetheless, it’s a stupid comparison. Just because it’s a comparison, doesn’t make it valid. Comparisons can be demonstrated as invalid. Like pretty much all the comparisons you’ve made at this blog. For the xth time I point out your pretty consistent habit of completely not addressing my refutations of your analogies. Because it’s not about advancing a meaningful discussion. If technique A doesn’t work, just forget it and move on to technique B until the guy you’re arguing with trips up, original topic be damned. Yes We Can!
As for “personal attacks” from my side being “truly irrelevant” – well, I knew you’d bring it up. That’s what your actively searching for, anyways. So I thought about what to say before I pressed the submit button on the last post. Here it is. Sure, I’ll admit it’s irrelevant to the topic. But for the blog itself? It’s relevant. If we can admit there are some types of commenters who are about advancing a discussion, and there are some commenters out for self-aggrandizement, and that it’s best for the flow of discussion not to take the latter seriously – well, if we admit those things then the link was a little public service announcement for the blog. Note: not censor, nor outright ignore. Just not take seriously. I mean, honestly. Look at that Danwei link. It’s awesome and hilarious. The “I am so awesome” going through you mind when you submitted that comment is so tangible, I can touch it. I don’t think that feeling has died down at all during your participation in this community. You kind of admitted in this most recent comment, to boot. Anyways, what’s important to me is both content and motivation, and unfortunately you’re lacking in both departments. If I disagree with someone who is nonetheless trying to get a discussion rolling, that’s totally cool – like Demin and occasionally James. But if someone’s strutting around all, “Oh shiiat, I’m overseas Chinese but I can name liberal commentators in the US, RESPECT!” Huh? I mean seriously, what is this thread of discussion about anymore? Lol.
Posted 27 Nov 2008 at 11:01 pm ¶@Demin
I think we’ve reached a point where simply must respectfully agree to disagree. And I say that because the particular discussion you and I have been having has moved away from the debate of particular details and on to differences in worldviews, which, of course, are changeable but that’s unlikely in a medium like the comments section of a blog post about an article about an article about mummies.
I’m going to have to say right off the bat that I think the sum of the observations you’ve made are a more eloquent than usual expression of a common theme among Chinese engaged in discussion with Westerners, and that theme is “Westerns just don’t and can’t ‘get’ China.” Obviously what you’ve said is far more complex than that. If I’m reading you correctly, what you’re saying is that I’m approaching these Xinjiang issues from a decidedly “Western” standpoint and even the language that I’m using – you say, for example, “human rights,” “freedom,” and “right to autonomy” – is fundamentally flawed and not applicable to a Chinese cultural sphere where a different set of vocabulary and a different set of thinking should be employed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s a summary of what I think you’re saying to me.
First of all, this is definitely a valuable observation. Without any reservation whatsoever I admit I am approaching this from a Western standpoint with Western biases. Frankly, there’s no other way. I’m Western. It’s important to keep this in mind and monitor myself as I produce commentary and observations and do my best to remove assumptions and unfounded biases.
However, I have to strenuously disagree with the idea that China cannot be understood unless you adopt an entirely Chinese worldview, and that there is something inherently wrong with applying Western concepts and vocabulary to Chinese contexts. Perhaps, funnily enough, it’s my Western worldview that leads me to think that way. Nonetheless, some of what I disagree with is part of the “Chinese worldview” itself and so it’s impossible for me to adopt such conventions and criticism them at the same time. Moreover, firmly believe, as a follower of Xinjiang with its “Chinese” Uyghurs and “Chinese” Kazakhs and “Chinese” Russians, that the Chinese worldview is extremely fractured and its a fallacy of sorts to even assume that a solid “Chinese” narrative even exists (or a Western one, for that matter. Obviously). Furthermore, a concept like “autonomy in Xinjiang” is not a fluffy idea floating in outerspace that is simply “Western” or “Not Chinese.” Autonomy or lack thereof is something that has real repercussions in the lives of real people. Regardless of whether or not the concept is Western or Chinese. That’s something all of us should never lose sight of when deeming vocabulary and terms relevant.
Anyways, I believe elements of the “China” phenomenon can be understood by Westerns just as much as Western culture can be understood by the Chinese. The Xinjiang government is extraordinarily prohibitive when it comes to anthropologists studying Uyghurs in Xinjiang. But on the other hand, I would be utterly thrilled if a Chinese anthropologist with a sincere care for, say, the Navajo, came to an American Navajo reservation and wrote a critical expose in Mandarin. I would be thrilled even if the academic was a party hack. The Chinese government gets their panties in wad i.e. their “feelings hurt” when the United States releases critical human rights reports on their country. I, on the other hand, am quite delighted to see the CCP produce its own critical human rights report on the United States and commend the act of criticizing the US. The reaction is hugely different. And hell, even wgj has his right to question…um… US policy…and…um… the slogan of a progressive movement…on a Xinjiang blog. Yeah. Hrm. Anyways, I believe in the exchange of ideas and the ability for people to know things about other people. However, I think the battle to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t occurs during this exchange of ideas – not preemptively with a “Western thought is not applicable to China.” So let the ideas flow and criticize them on their own reasoning, not based on where they come from alone. For example, it is an admirable thing that China releases a report on human rights in the US, it would be a delightful for a Chinese anthropologists to study Indians, and wgj can post all he wants here – however, now that these ideas have been put forward whether or not they have merit is an entirely different story.
I just have to fully, unequivocally, and entirely disagree with your conclusions on racism in China. Racism in China is an enormous problem. You may not believe it, but at least in my eyes this is an inarguable fact, especially as a resident of Xinjiang. In fact, I think one of the biggest, if not the biggest impediment to solving racism in China is the dogged, persistent, and completely sincere belief on the part of most Han Chinese that racism doesn’t exist. After all, if the problem doesn’t exist, how can one solve it? Continuously I hear Han Chinese point to education and family planning policy – exactly the two points you happen to mention – as proof that not only does racism not exist, but that the minorities “have it good.” Unfortunately, racism is way, way, way larger than how many extra points Uyghurs get on the gao kao or how many kids a Uyghur woman can have. If anything, the United States is a prime example of how something like raising test scores for minorities neither solves racism nor constitutes “proof” of an equal society. Come to Xinjiang. Hang out with the minorities. Learn their language. Live with them. Racism exists here. It really does. I’m no historian but as a total amateur I can think of several instances of racism in Chinese history. I’m sure most historians would vehemently disagree with your evaluation that Chinese history has been void of racism.
Also, about “autonomy.” This is not me deploying irrelevant Western terminology to a specifically Chinese context. The name of Xinjiang is 新疆维吾尔自治区. The Chinese are the ones who came up with this concept vis a vis Xinjiang. Not me. I’m just asking the Chinese to do what the actually say they’re supposed to do. Unless, of course, saying one thing but doing the other is also a part of the Chinese worldview. But what’s frustrating for this Westerner is that if the CCP took just half the things in the Chinese constitution and the autonomous region policy seriously I probably wouldn’t have anything to complain about anymore.
Finally, I think it’s completely appropriate and awesome that you mention that Westerners coming in and wielding their Western norms and values in China “pisses you off,” to use your own words. First of all, I think it’s fair to say I’m not a “screaming human rights” Western. That’s not my style. But what’s more important to say is – well, you yourself feel “pissed off” when a bunch of people from a completely foreign cultural sphere come to your place and impose their values and complain about things from their cultural standpoint and don’t give a damn about your culture and the way you think and the way you feel and how different your standpoint is from theirs. Okay. So this is what you feel. Great. Now let me remind you that this is a blog about Xinjiang. And that at the beginning of the 20th century Xinjiang was I think over 90% minorities (mostly Uyghur, of course). And then the Han Chinese started coming in droves with their Marxism and their pork and their Little Red Books and their bingtuan and their oil refineies and… yeah, think about that for a moment.
Anyways, agree to disagree, right? I appreciate your observations. Hope you keep on reading and commenting here.
Posted 28 Nov 2008 at 12:06 am ¶While on the topic of historico-archaeological controversies, this article on the recent discovery of near Turpan along with a 2700 year old Caucasian mummy is too good to pass up. I think we can all hope this one doesn’t get politicized. The possibilities are endless.
Posted 28 Nov 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶the discovery is of the world’s oldest stash of marijuana along with a caucasian mummy. sorry for the bad link.
Posted 28 Nov 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[...] days later this report is posted on ESNW, my favorite blog focused on Greater China affairs. This is a written in China riposte the [...]
[...] the debate rages on about the implications of a 3600 year old Caucasoid mummy in Xinjiang, a team of international [...]
Post a Comment