I think one thing that is worth posing is putting China's reforms in Xinjiang in a wider comparative framework. I wrote my dissertation on Xinjiang and Kashmir and comparative policy from the 50s onwards. It is worth noting that both places, even if they were treated rather roughly by the central government, had little 'extremism' or 'separatist' tendencies until certain economic shifts in the late 80s and early 90s. This ultimately culminated in a sudden jump in separatist violence, which was then met with mass securitization and surveillance, as well as demographic shifts (Han migration spiked in the 90s, and likewise India's recent constitutional changes are to try and encourage largely Hindu populations in northern India to move to Kashmri). This securitization and central government intervention creates a cycle of resentment and backlashes, and I think coupled with subtle but pretty effective policy changes to try and destabilize the foundations of local culture and ideology (interventions in the way imams are trained, language policy, education policy, the presence of pseudo-military contractors like the bingtuan in Xinjiang etc) there is definitely something akin to cultural and demographic transformation happening along the scale of what China did in the southeast in 50s, or India in its northeastern states in the 60s. Whether you want to term this cultural genocide is entirely up to you, I suppose, but to be honest there are comparisons to be made with how other settler states have operated in the past, ie racial prejudice, Otherization, attacking traditional institutions etc.
And of course, need to remember that the US is hardly a shining figure here, considering that China literally took the War on Terror framework from Bush, who in turn classified major Uyghur groups as terrorist organizations in return for China acquiescing to the US having a major military operation right on its doorstep (Afghanistan). Don't believe American propaganda, but I think we should be critical of some of the Han chauvinism that has been being propped up in certain Chinese governmental circles. Mao and Zhou Enlai warned about this all the time, and I think major aspects of the original promises to minorities have been really broken. Ultimately, I have to also ask - Belgium had a shit ton of radicalized Muslims leave the country to go fight for ISIS. If the Belgian government were to suddenly spend all of its time putting Muslims in special schools and training camps, securitizing Muslim suburbs in Brussels, setting up cameras and police checkpoints on major roads in Muslim neighborhoods, etc....Would we not be at least a little appalled? Even if the end result was some level of greater economic development? What about if the US did this to its own problematic minorities (I suppose it does - prison!)? What methods are we really willing to endorse to destroy so-called 'Islamism' - how can we actually destroy something if we don't want to address its root, material causes ie discontent? The old government in China, despite again its pretty heavy-handed policy at times, understood some aspect of this, or certain notioned towards it. I am not sure the same is true today, and it is made worse by the fact that frankly most Han people have some pretty appallingly chauvinistic views towards ethnic minorities as either needing 'civilizing', or a bunch of moochers who live off the government.
I dunno man. Maybe it's just because I am Muslim, and I have grappled a lot with what causes 'extremism' and how to rectify it, but I do not think hardline policies will be all that effective in the end. It will simply provoke a simmering resentment that is almost guaranteed to boil over at some point.
Tfw everything wrong in the world goes back to the world trade organization and the unprecedented pace of economic change that caused to traditional communities and pending economic collapse.
Also broader issues around islamism is a complicated issue on the left given the way the USSR united with the US against growing islamism in the 80s onwards.
Yes and I think that shift on the part of the USSR was a colossal mistake. But moreover, while I agree that the WTO and frankly the post Bretton Woods international trade regime is to blame in the largest sense, we should also hold to account the choices of local and regional policymakers that made a conscious decision to pursue policies that exacerbated the fault lines that said economic regime created. There was another choice in managing minority relations and the corrosive effect that economic change would have on the periphery, and in fact PRC policy makers debated a lot of this in the 80s and 90s before ultimately taking a much harsher line than they had before.
I think one thing that is worth posing is putting China's reforms in Xinjiang in a wider comparative framework. I wrote my dissertation on Xinjiang and Kashmir and comparative policy from the 50s onwards. It is worth noting that both places, even if they were treated rather roughly by the central government, had little 'extremism' or 'separatist' tendencies until certain economic shifts in the late 80s and early 90s. This ultimately culminated in a sudden jump in separatist violence, which was then met with mass securitization and surveillance, as well as demographic shifts (Han migration spiked in the 90s, and likewise India's recent constitutional changes are to try and encourage largely Hindu populations in northern India to move to Kashmri). This securitization and central government intervention creates a cycle of resentment and backlashes, and I think coupled with subtle but pretty effective policy changes to try and destabilize the foundations of local culture and ideology (interventions in the way imams are trained, language policy, education policy, the presence of pseudo-military contractors like the bingtuan in Xinjiang etc) there is definitely something akin to cultural and demographic transformation happening along the scale of what China did in the southeast in 50s, or India in its northeastern states in the 60s. Whether you want to term this cultural genocide is entirely up to you, I suppose, but to be honest there are comparisons to be made with how other settler states have operated in the past, ie racial prejudice, Otherization, attacking traditional institutions etc.
And of course, need to remember that the US is hardly a shining figure here, considering that China literally took the War on Terror framework from Bush, who in turn classified major Uyghur groups as terrorist organizations in return for China acquiescing to the US having a major military operation right on its doorstep (Afghanistan). Don't believe American propaganda, but I think we should be critical of some of the Han chauvinism that has been being propped up in certain Chinese governmental circles. Mao and Zhou Enlai warned about this all the time, and I think major aspects of the original promises to minorities have been really broken. Ultimately, I have to also ask - Belgium had a shit ton of radicalized Muslims leave the country to go fight for ISIS. If the Belgian government were to suddenly spend all of its time putting Muslims in special schools and training camps, securitizing Muslim suburbs in Brussels, setting up cameras and police checkpoints on major roads in Muslim neighborhoods, etc....Would we not be at least a little appalled? Even if the end result was some level of greater economic development? What about if the US did this to its own problematic minorities (I suppose it does - prison!)? What methods are we really willing to endorse to destroy so-called 'Islamism' - how can we actually destroy something if we don't want to address its root, material causes ie discontent? The old government in China, despite again its pretty heavy-handed policy at times, understood some aspect of this, or certain notioned towards it. I am not sure the same is true today, and it is made worse by the fact that frankly most Han people have some pretty appallingly chauvinistic views towards ethnic minorities as either needing 'civilizing', or a bunch of moochers who live off the government.
I dunno man. Maybe it's just because I am Muslim, and I have grappled a lot with what causes 'extremism' and how to rectify it, but I do not think hardline policies will be all that effective in the end. It will simply provoke a simmering resentment that is almost guaranteed to boil over at some point.
Tfw everything wrong in the world goes back to the world trade organization and the unprecedented pace of economic change that caused to traditional communities and pending economic collapse.
Also broader issues around islamism is a complicated issue on the left given the way the USSR united with the US against growing islamism in the 80s onwards.
Yes and I think that shift on the part of the USSR was a colossal mistake. But moreover, while I agree that the WTO and frankly the post Bretton Woods international trade regime is to blame in the largest sense, we should also hold to account the choices of local and regional policymakers that made a conscious decision to pursue policies that exacerbated the fault lines that said economic regime created. There was another choice in managing minority relations and the corrosive effect that economic change would have on the periphery, and in fact PRC policy makers debated a lot of this in the 80s and 90s before ultimately taking a much harsher line than they had before.
deleted by creator