Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

[GrahamB]

Thanks Tom - given that this is RSF I'm quite surprised nonbody has replied yet to inform you that there really is nothing to worry about and Inner Monogolia is all fine and dandy, you must have imaged the whole thing.

[Peacedog]

As I've pointed out before, long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent.

While the Uighurs are completely screwed, as no body wants them and even the Turks have turned their back on them, the Mongolians living in the PRC can at least escape to Mongolia proper and the Tibetans have been always had both Mongolia and India as possible escape routes.

At this point, barring the short term collapse of the PRC, which I personally find unlikely, the only real choice of these ethnic groups is to run.

No one on a worldwide stage cares enough to do anything and the intentions of the Han majority within the PRC are clear.

It sucks, but this is how ethnic cleansing works and how the Han have survived as long as they have as a distinct culture. I don't see the people in charge of the PRC changing their mind and I don't see anyone getting in the way either.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Tom, thanks for sharing Graham's post here. As you say, it's important for its own sake in addition to contributing to the broader issue of the contemporary PRC's drive for cultural hegemony.

As I've pointed out before, long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent.

While the Uighurs are completely screwed, as no body wants them and even the Turks have turned their back on them, the Mongolians living in the PRC can at least escape to Mongolia proper and the Tibetans have been always had both Mongolia and India as possible escape routes.

At this point, barring the short term collapse of the PRC, which I personally find unlikely, the only real choice of these ethnic groups is to run.

No one on a worldwide stage cares enough to do anything and the intentions of the Han majority within the PRC are clear.

It sucks, but this is how ethnic cleansing works and how the Han have survived as long as they have as a distinct culture. I don't see the people in charge of the PRC changing their mind and I don't see anyone getting in the way either.

A subcontinent can't have a goal.

The region we now think of as China has been ruled in part or entirety by non-Han peoples for half of recorded history. Not only are there dozens of diverse ethnic and cultural groups contained under the umbrella of Han identity, the notion of Han peoples has changed over time and your conception of it is in line with that of the CCP but not that of the past. In fact, you are simply pushing President Xi Jinping's artificially constructed ideological tool--I'm sure he would be grateful.

Perhaps the best way to combat this attempt as homogenization would be to point out its ahistorical nature and embrace the cultural diversity that is the reality of "China's" long and varied history. It seems that this is what some groups are already doing.

[Daniel-san]

[Peacedog]

The reality is this is how tribes become nations and how nations maintain their position and expand over time. It is how the French became the French from a thousand little tribes, how the English became Great Britain, how the Russians became the Russians, etc.

Some societies take a slower approach of gradual conversion such as the Islamics in north Africa, others just kill the opposing side off as in the Tutsis vs the Hutus in Rwanda, other fight it out vis a vis the European settlers in North America and exile a tiny group of survivors to reservations as in the USA. At the end of the day, one cultural narrative is in charge and generally makes up the majority ethnic group although not always as in the case of Hussein era Iraq.

The ethnicity of the group in charge gradually changes as they assimilate different groups, but the cultural operating system largely remains the same. Unless that group is in turn conquered by someone else. It's why Alexander was a blondie and modern Greeks have a more Mediterranean appearance. But they're all Greeks. None of them are Spartans either.

A hundred years from now, barring something very odd happening, both the Tibetans and the Uyghurs will be historical footnotes in long forgotten books and Mongolians will survive as a separate group as long as an independent Mongolia exists. Five hundred years from now only obscure historical researchers will know anything about the first two groups and a thousand years from now they will be utterly forgotten. As has happened in countless groups of humanity over the last 80-200k years in which homo sapiens have existed.

The process of this happening is sad and lots of people die. But it is inevitable as gravity and the sun rising. It is a phenomena I have seen play out countless times over a 20 plus year career largely spent trying to keep the savages from killing each other off and exporting their idiotic problems elsewhere.

Ultimately, you can have multi-ethnic, you just can't have multicultural, because eventually people just disagree about too many things to get along with one another and they fight it out to determine who is in charge. The fact that it can take an extended period of time, as in thousands of years in some cases, based upon parity in strength between groups or a lack of resources, does not make multicultural anything work over time. It just indicates an ultimate victor has not been determined. The fall of the pagans in Western Europe and their replacement by Christianity wholesale is instructive.

The fact that the Han have not always been in the leading position during the last couple of thousand years does not change the fact that they are now as far as mainland China is concerned. They have the money, they have the weapons and they have the desire to fully subjugate and assimilate these groups. And I see nothing on the horizon that will change that.

Arguing otherwise is nothing more than yelling at a hurricane at this point. All you are going to do is lose your voice and get tired.

[Steve James]

His argument in the video was about the construction of Han as a "race," and that it was adopted from European (British) racialists. So, the first thing to get out of the way is that Han is just a word, not a race and not a culture.

The argument about tribes becoming nations and then expanding is fundamentally flawed in that empires never have a single culture. They have a center of power, and a dominant group. But, a British Empire with China, India, and Egypt was definitely multicultural. There was always the fear that people stationed in the colonies would "go native."

Historically, tribes that expand also absorb. The Germans, Gauls, Franks, and Britons were Romans, but had their own cultures. In fact, the Romans tended to combine their cultures with that of those they conquered. That goes so far as to adopting a foreign religion and giving up its traditional gods. Rome is a good example because all the Romance language peoples still speak their distinctive form of Latin. (Then again, the Basques and Galicians still have their own languages and cultures.

Anyway, I found it interesting that the presenter in the video didn't mention that "white" identity (as a race) is just as made up (with sources coming from many different cultures) as Han identity. The major difference being that in the Han version or delusion they are all literally descended from the Yellow Emperor. Well, I guess it's sorta like claiming descent from Abraham. However, USAmericans are definitely NOT descended from the Father of the nation, nor does this nation belong to any tribe.

[Overlord]

Thanks Tom.

[Franklin]

As I've pointed out before, long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent.

...........

A subcontinent can't have a goal.

....

maybe my level of education is lacking...
I don't really have the academic credentials like others...

but saying "the goal in the chinese subcontinent"

is not anthropomorphizing the land mass itself as having goals....

or did i miss something...

or are you saying the rulers of a subcontinent can't have goals
or perhaps that china in and of itself is not a subcontinent- therefore the goals of china are not the goals of the subcontinent....

[Bao]

Text to one of the pictures:

"Mongolians protest against China’s plan to introduce Mandarin-only classes at schools in the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia"

Read it correctly. It doesn't say that all classes will be in Mandarin only, but that there will be classes held in Mandarin-only. They will still have classes on their own language. China want to standardise the schools and education level across whole China. This means more classes in Mandarin only, Yes. But no one wants to take away the Mongolians their language.

In most Western countries in the World that I know about, most of the education in all schools are held in one main language. Minorities across the world have the same situation, they might speak their own language at home, but they still have to study and go to school using the main language in their country. Here the Sami use Swedish language books to study Swedish, English, Math, History and many other subjects. The Sami are not complaining, they still keep their language, their traditions and culture. So China is not allowed to do exactly the same as most countries in the West does? To keep a certain standard of education across the whole country? (Oh, sorry, yeah I know. The US doesn't. Here the standard depends on where you live and what color the people in the neighbourhood has.)

In China there are 55 minorities. Most of them have their own languages and culture. They are all bi-lingual and speak their own dialects or languages at home. They all study their own cultures and languages from small age in school or even in Kindergarten. There's no sign of any Han-isation going on anywhere in China. But as soon some kind of change happens in the system, everyone here assumes that it must be something bad because the Chinese government is bad. Whatever happens in China, people look at it through glasses of racial mistrust.

And yes, there were demonstrations in Inner Mongolia. Good for them. Do you really believe that if there was a genocide going on in the close neighbourhood that people would even dare to speak up?

[GrahamB]

Text to one of the pictures:

"Mongolians protest against China’s plan to introduce Mandarin-only classes at schools in the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia"

Read it correctly. It doesn't say that all classes will be in Mandarin only, but that there will be classes held in Mandarin-only. They will still have classes on their own language. China want to standardise the schools and education level across whole China. This means more classes in Mandarin only, Yes. But no one wants to take away the Mongolians their language.
...
And yes, there were demonstrations in Inner Mongolia. Good for them. Do you really believe that if there was a genocide going on in the close neighbourhood that people would even dare to speak up?

For somebody who places so much stock in the extact grammar of the first part of this (which I think you're reading wrongly).... to then not understand the difference between "genocide" and "cultural genocide" is, quite frankly, stunning.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

As I've pointed out before, long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent.

...........

A subcontinent can't have a goal.

....

maybe my level of education is lacking...
I don't really have the academic credentials like others...

but saying "the goal in the chinese subcontinent"

is not anthropomorphizing the land mass itself as having goals....

or did i miss something...

or are you saying the rulers of a subcontinent can't have goals
or perhaps that china in and of itself is not a subcontinent- therefore the goals of china are not the goals of the subcontinent....

Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?

[Steve James]

So China is not allowed to do exactly the same as most countries in the West does? To keep a certain standard of education across the whole country? (Oh, sorry, yeah I know. The US doesn't. Here the standard depends on where you live and what color the people in the neighbourhood has.)

That's a good point. The US has had a history of cultural extermination --up to making it illegal for Native peoples to speak their own languages --or simply wear eagle feathers or traditional ornaments at school graduations. Way back, they called it "civilizing" the savages. It continued well into the 20th century.

However, "English only" didn't even work in British Canada. In fact, in the Britain Isles, there has been a resurgence of cultural heritage and languages (Welsh, Gaelic, etc), and the Scots have their own thing. What English has (somewhat) is a standard written language.
So, I understand the point about the need in China for a common written language. However, isn't that the case already?

I actually agree with having a national educational curriculum. I even agree that people need to learn the standard language in order to be employable. It's no different here in the states. Well, except there are so many people who are actively against academic education yet demand English-only. I believe that instituting culture as a policy can be ruthless --and more akin to the goals of South African apartheid.

Anyway, here's the important aspect from my perspective.

n China there are 55 minorities. Most of them have their own languages and culture. They are all bi-lingual and speak their own dialects or languages at home....
Do you really believe that if there was a genocide going on in the close neighbourhood that people would even dare to speak up?

The problem is that you're speaking for them. And, the fact that some are complaining doesn't mean that it's not happening. I didn't read that they were claiming genocide. I thought it was about attempts to erase their cultures.

[Franklin]

Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?

re-
"Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass."

huh i really don't understand this...

i thought he was referencing - people in the region having those goal...

as in
if the people who control that region (or a majority of that region) have certain goals in which they are carrying out
then wouldn't we say
the goals in that region seem to be...

i really don't understand the nuance that you are trying to convey

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?

re-
"Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass."

huh i really don't understand this...

i thought he was referencing - people in the region having those goal...

as in
if the people who control that region (or a majority of that region) have certain goals in which they are carrying out
then wouldn't we say
the goals in that region seem to be...

i really don't understand the nuance that you are trying to convey

It's not nuance, it's English grammar. I do appreciate that not everyone is a native speaker. If one wants to say, "people in the region hav[e] those goal[s]," one should write that. It has a different meaning. It seems like you are the one injecting nuance into what was written. I already explained why it matters and how it ties into the underlying argument being made.

[Franklin]

Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?

re-
"Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass."

huh i really don't understand this...

i thought he was referencing - people in the region having those goal...

as in
if the people who control that region (or a majority of that region) have certain goals in which they are carrying out
then wouldn't we say
the goals in that region seem to be...

i really don't understand the nuance that you are trying to convey

It's not nuance, it's English grammar. I do appreciate that not everyone is a native speaker. If one wants to say, "people in the region hav[e] those goal[s]," one should write that. It has a different meaning. It seems like you are the one injecting nuance into what was written. I already explained why it matters and how it ties into the underlying argument being made.

my understanding of the english language would be that if you wanted to anthropomorphize the landmass

the correct way to write that would be:

"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal of the Chinese subcontinent."

when he wrote:
"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent."

my understanding is that -- in the Chinese subcontinent
would indicate the location the action was taking place in

but like I said -- I am not an expert...

this is very interesting, learning something new about english today


can you give me any examples- where the subject of a sentence/statement
is written -- "In XXXXX"
where XXXXX would be the one preforming the action (of the verb)

I can't think of any...


thanks
Franklin