140 slain in riots in China

[Steve James]

And ya didn't even mention the original Native Americans.

[Bob]

Sorry, that is almost a given! But on the other hand, they did get reservations and a monopoly on a number of gambling casinos. Yeah, Tibet's sacred grounds get trampled on but heaven forbid that Native Americans make similar demands with their "Temples" i.e. sacred grounds. Those damn communists---now they are becoming even more like us---good old capitalists! LOL

Developing and having a global mindset is a bitch! LOL

[Bob]

Oh yeah, I forgot, La Raza forgets who the Spaniards took their land from. Historically they have no greater of a claim to the southwestern states than does the United States.

Such are the spoils of war!

[Steve James]

Such are the spoils of war!

Putting it into the context of war is ok, except that the winners always seem to declare the war over and then demand that everything be put into the context of business and law. So, they steal; then they declare it illegal for the victim to take it back. If it were really a case of war, then turn about would be fair play. Rather, the law declares that possession is 9/10ths of the argument, after the theft. Anyway, it's not about war, though wars have been waged against native populations here and elsewhere. But, the actual context is human migration, for food, employment or riches.

[grzegorz]

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?

Well the PRC says that all those involved will receive a death sentence, but somehow I don't think they mean the Han Chinese. Not all the victims were Han by the way and I doubt that we'll ever get the accurate numbers on both sides.

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

So basically a bunch of young Uygher men will be executed and a few years will go by and it'll happen again just like it happened in Tibet a year ago.

Like I said deny people their government, their culture, their country, make them minorities in their own land and force them to speak and learn a foreign language and this is what's going to happen.

[Wuyizidi]

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]

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.

[AllanF]

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

Excellent post Sir!

[AllanF]

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]

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.

[grzegorz]

Yeah like Palin some people just like the spotlight and will say what they have to say to stay in the spotlight, that's the price of living in a free society.

But it's much better than in the PRC where the only opinion you can express in publicly about this situation is, "Those XinJiangRen should be grateful!"

[AllanF]

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.

I was actually talking from the context of opinion in China. Before she made those comments i had several students who were 'open' discussion on the topic of tibet, not independence mind. After the comments they because down right hostile and so any mention had to stop.

[grzegorz]

Two words; culture shock.