Such are the spoils of war!
AllanF wrote:grzegorz wrote:AllanF wrote:Regardless of which political side you sit on i don't think anyone can justify mob violence!
No one is justifying mob violence. What I am saying is that riots are the result of repression.
I concur and now the problem is what happens when the army etc leave? What will Urumqi be like then for those left to pick up the pieces?
Some three-quarters of the victims of the violence in China's western Xinjiang region were ethnic Han Chinese, the official death toll shows.
Of 184 people known to have died, 137 were Han Chinese, 46 were from the indigenous Uighur community and one was an ethnic Hui, local officials said.
Beijing flooded the regional capital Urumqi with security forces to stem the violence which erupted last Sunday.
Correspondents say some Uighurs believe their own death toll was much higher.
"I've heard that more than 100 Uighurs have died but nobody wants to talk about it in public," one Uighur man in Urumqi who did not want to give his name told the Associated Press news agency.
Uighurs living in exile outside China have also disputed the Chinese figures. Rebiya Kadeer, the US-based head of the World Uighur Congress, said she believed about 500 people had died.
According to the Chinese death toll released by state media, 26 of the 137 Han Chinese victims were female, while all but one of the 45 Uighurs killed were male.
The single death recorded in the Hui community, which is similar to the Uighurs ethnically and religiously, was that of a male.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8146069.stm
Wuyizidi wrote:If experiences of past unrests are any guide (eg. Tibet before Olympics), a year from now the Chinese government would have crushed the riot. And most people on the outside who are shouting now would have largely forgotten about the Uighurs. Because a lot of people are doing this not so much because they really care about Uighurs specifically, but that in general they don't like/feel anxious about China (for perfectly legitimate reasons), and this latest incident just reinforces those perceptions and feelings.
I remember being so angry about this one small group of people in NYC (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magaz ... ics-t.html) who were trying to make trouble for China right before the Olympics. I wasn't mad because I think their cause is not just. But that they explicit stated they will fold their organization after the Olympics is over. Their rationale is the media spotlight would be over by then (although the sufferings of the people they were supposed to help won't). It makes me wonder if they are truly committed to better the lives of other people, or just want to get credit for themselves for appearing conscientious.
Anyway this is one of my pet peeves: people who supposedly care about a worthy cause, but end up really hurting it (eg. Mia Farrow's much derided attempt at hunger strike http://boingboing.net/2009/05/04/mia-fa ... -days.html) because a) their very limited capabilities, b) they are doing it more for themselves. They hurt it because over time the general public starts to associate the cause with people who they don't take seriously. Toward that end I really wish and Richard Gere and Sharon Stone would shut up about Tibet. When the big earthquake happened in Sichuan, Sharon Stone said that the death of 200,000 residents was karmic payback for China's oppression of Tibetans. I guess her knowledge of Tibetans is limited to her celebrity seminars with the Dalai Lama, because she didn't even know something like 1/3 of residents of Sichuan province are Tibetans.
/rant
Steve James wrote:I think you're right that this is selective sympathy and often just an opportunity to promote personal political views. But, that's separate from the real events that are or aren't happening. Just because Gere or Stone are for it doesn't mean it's not legitimate or that others shouldn't be concerned. Yes, it is selfish of them, because they get plenty of free publicity. Otoh, it may also be true that their publicity raises the attention of others.
On the other hand when Stone makes such balls out ignorant comments it does nothing except damage the cause.
Steve James wrote:On the other hand when Stone makes such balls out ignorant comments it does nothing except damage the cause.
That's if one depends on Sharon Stone to determine if a cause is just. It's true that some people will turn away from a cause because of the spokesperson; but if that's the reason, it's doubtful that they'd help anyway. It's just as selfish, or self-centered, as doing it for publicity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests