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.

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.

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.

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.

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?