[Buddha-l] Xinjiang vs Tibet

[Dan Lusthaus]

> So the suppression is caused by Chinese arrogance, which is
> caused by the events of the late 19th and early 20th century

On the contrary -- and this is well known in Asia and places like Russia
that have their own muslim "minorities" to deal with -- this problem has
been festering in Western China for about 500 years (sorry PC-ers -- you're
going to have to find something other than Western or Japanese Imperialism
to blame for this). These problems began in late Ming and early Qing... at
first the Chinese Emperor tried various reasonable and rational measures to
appease the upheavals, which were caused by new Muslim emigres to places
where other Muslim groups had already resided non-problematically. At first
the Govt. asked the established community to handle the new emigres, but
they eventually replied back that they couldn't control them. The govt.
tried various reasonable forms of appeasement, but the reply was always
increased violence and greater demands, until the Qing Emperor famously
asked: "What do these people want?!" The intensity of the conflict has waxed
and waned over time ever since, but its roots have nothing to do with
Europe, Chinese arrogance, the age of imperialism or other the other pithy
slogans that substitute for actual analysis and thinking.

One must be careful NOT to conflate Tibetan, Uighur and Mongolian conflicts
with PRC, since it gives the false impression that each is a justified
liberation movement fighting a common enemy, for similar reasons and with
similar justifications. Tibet and Mongolia, e.g., both have independent
national histories, and thus identities they can draw on that are
independent -- historically -- from China. Uighur muslims are long-time
interlopers on Chinese territory without an independent national history.
Their independence is religious, and one has only to look at Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Chechniya and the rest of the neighborhood to see what that
means. Hitching the Tibetan case to the Uighur case does a distorting
disservice to both causes. That PRC is the nemesis in both cases does not
mean that PRC actions have been identical in both cases (they haven't,
though rhetorically there have been many similarities, i.e., the Chinese
govt. tends to parade out the same rhetorical slogans in both cases, slogans
not that dissimilar to Ahmadinejad's anti-Western screed tactically -- i.e.,
blame the outsider, which in the Uighur case, may not be the fantasy
Ahmadinejad is spinning these days in Iran). The Han (including women and
children) who were attacked by the Uighur have every right to live there -- 
unlike, arguably, the Han in Tibet.

For a more varied view, see
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/what-should-china-do-about-the-uighurs/

But I agree with Jayarava, this is stretching beyond "Buddhist" relevance,
esp. if one accepts that conflating Tibet with the Uighurs is more an act of
simplemindedness (like conflating Jung and Yogacara), than a helpful
analysis or understanding.

Dan