One thing I'd like to add is for anybody interested in this sort of thing to do your research before you speak(Not referring to any particular person here). My problem is that a lot of people wear freedom like some sort of badge against evil intentions. It's this sort of dismissing brick-wall attitude that separates people.
Free Tibet is probably the biggest example of this, it's not simply "Chinese government oppressing the natives" like people always try to make it out to be. Trying to get people to join your side with twisted truths or even straight-up lies doesn't get you anywhere, it just makes your opposition even more determined to take you down. Given Tibet's history, I find it pretty silly that people treat it as though the Chinese somehow made things worse than they used to be- the worst you can say is that Chinese ownership in Tibet is similar to what the US is doing with Iraq- except with much greater success.
Really, Tibet's just a fucking mess- it's a real headache of a situation and I can't think of any easy solutions to it.
As far as Taiwan goes, their whole government system is screwed up. It really is a corrupt system, and one look at any political debate on a Taiwan news station shows that instantly. The politicians there act with no dignity whatsoever, except maybe President Ma Ying-jeou, who really fills most people watching him with nothing but anger because despite his aim to act like someone that is clean of corruption, he doesn't DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. You get CSB out of office, and this is really the best you can do?
Oh yeah, going back to the no-dignity comment, tell me if any other country has their politicians accusing stupid things like homosexuality and legitimate money-grubbing (A paradox of course, which is the exact problem because Taiwan's system sucks) as legitimate arguments.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, and I believe for him to be one of the few people in recent Chinese history to have a powerful ideal of happiness in life for the people. Given this, I firmly believe that if given the choice, he would certainly choose current-day PRC over the ROC. ROC's actions are constantly there to encourage conflict between people.
I don't really have much to say about Xin Jiang though, since I haven't read as much about this incident yet.
EDIT: Having read some material, and having watched both English and Chinese news stations, I'll try to give some things I've learned.
Despite my bias against the Chinese government, I bring this up because last year someone else said that the Tibetans were exaggerating their plight, because neither the Uighurs nor the other ethnic minorities took any such violent action.
Yeah, that is certainly a very incorrect statement. Racial tensions will always exist in any country, and the Uighurs have always had many tensions with the Han Chinese, much like how the many races of the United States have tensions with each other. The difference is that it has never been such a jaw-dropping outbreak of violence over them, and this sort of violence is certainly not the norm in Xing Jiang obviously, or there'd be no news to report.
Is Han nationalism too strong, and is governmental preference too biased? Signs point to yes.
Signs point to yes if you're talking about government preference for the minorities. I'm not saying what the Chinese government does is all right and good, but they do allow many benefits to minorities in their territories, both the Uighurs and the Tibetians, including but not limited to the lack of enforcement of the one-child policy, among other things, like guaranteeing spots in schools (no different than what the US does for say, Native Americans, really). As a note, the same treatment is done towards natives in Taiwan.
But this isn't about the Han Chinese. It's about everybody else. What is the international community's responsibility here? Do we simply let things go, or do we say something?
If we say anything, it's to this woman
who we allow to live under our noses who incites violence in an area of the country that is normally peaceful. I doubt you think that all the Uighurs are unsatisfied with their treatment- there's plenty of Uighurs I've seen on television that say what all of us should be saying, why is there such an unnecessary outbreak of violence? This isn't even attacking some responsible party, this is attacking innocent people, and somehow it's the Han Chinese's fault that they have people pissed off that they have dead men, women and children on their hands?
Not to say responding to violence with violence is a good thing, which is why this whole curfew thing was put into place. It's no different than the US's response to 9/11 was. Overboard? Probably. But can you really say they're doing what is wrong here? My problem with a lot of Western media is that they have to nitpick every decision the ROC has done to try to stop the bloodshed- that should be the first priority here, to stop violence.
Colonisation, exploitation, loss of cultural identity, and strong opinions about Han nationalism: What's really going on?
I ask you to clarify these things with more specific examples please. What exactly do you mean by colonization? You mean the fact that Han Chinese are occupying a territory that have for hundred of years (Since Qing dynasty, because China owned it during the Han dynasty but lost a couple hundred years later and then got it back), and somehow now
it's become a problem? As a note, the Uighurs arn't even the real "natives" of the area if you want to get down to it- the Uighurs were originally from Mongolia, if I'm not mistaken.
The real natives of the Xin Jiang area were melted into the Han Chinese a long time ago.
Er, actually, the real natives make up approximately 7% of the population there. Both the Han Chinese and the Uighur have some degree of melting with these actual natives over hundreds of years, but they still are three very distinct groups. If you want to make an argument, it's no more the "Uighur's land" than it is the "Han Chinese's land", which is a key difference between this place and Tibet. I often hear people make the argument that the Tibetans deserve their own homeland (Still a flawed argument, but the point is that even this one isn't valid here), but the Uighur arn't native to the Xin Jiang area at all- they're the majority, but only by like, 3-4%. You can just as easily make the argument that this is the Han Chinese's land because they were there earlier than the Uighur were.
Exploitation- like I said, need you to clarify because I'm not too sure what you mean here.
I'm not sure how you can claim their losing their cultural identity so much as the fact that they're being a melting pot and somehow they now have a problem with it. There's nothing stopping anyone from going and learning about their own culture if they wanted to, unless part of that culture involves talking about inciting conflict
, which is a big problem. You don't see any African Americans going back to Africa to learn about their culture having no problem with someone implying that an ancient tradition of keeping slaves is a good thing, because it's not, which is why these things have changed over the years. You see plenty of cultures here at the US saying that they're losing much of their cultural identity in the name of political correctness, except they don't start killing people over it.
And Han nationalism, well, I can't deny that Han Chinese often have a very stubborn blind dedication to their own nation, much like, say, every other nation in the damn world. It's just as irritating seeing it anywhere else in the world. =P