[Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 6

[Dan Lusthaus]

>The fact is that they now refer to
> themselves as ethnically Uighur and it is this identification in addition
> to their religion that forms the basis of the resistance movement in
> Western China. It is not simply the fact that they are Muslims. They view
> themselves as part of an ethnic identity (whether historically accurate or
> not) seeking self-determination.

Because the Cribs and Bloods self-identify by those labels does not make 
those labels "ethnic." The issue has been what does the term "ethnic" refer 
to.

Chinese Uighurs are Sunni Muslim Turks -- ethnically. That they've 
appropriated a label devised by Soviet ethnologists in order to lend 
credence to political ambitions -- to pretend they are striving for a 
"nationalism" that lacks any historical nation, composed of a variety of 
different groups whose shared "identity" is linguistic and religious, 
doesn't make that invention an "ethnicity," unless ethnicity is a 
meaningless term that any group, such as Cribs and Bloods, can claim at the 
drop of a hat.

"Determining their own identity" by carving out a piece of China for 
themselves is not a simple matter. What gives them a right to peel off 
Chinese territory for themselves? Do the Chinese have the same right to 
create a collective identity and the pursuit of their own destiny, even if 
it conflicts with the Uighurs'? Then neither does the inverse have a clear 
and nonproblematic claim to the same. How does one settle conflicting 
claims? He who complains loudest? Historical precedence? Relentlessness? 
Political maneuvering? Oppression? Terrorism? Mythmaking for international 
support? All of the above? (and more?)

None of this an "ethnic" makes.

>instead they emphasise what
> they perceive as their collective ethnic identity and desire to determine
> their own destiny.
>
> Your discussion regarding the appellation "Hindu" was apropos nothing.

Flew over your head. Too bad.

Dan