Peacedog wrote: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 wrote:Peacedog wrote: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.
....
Bao wrote: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?
Franklin wrote:Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Peacedog wrote: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....
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.)
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?
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
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?
Franklin wrote:Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
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 wrote:Franklin wrote:Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests