CCP publication calls Tibet policy a template for other ethnic minority regions
tibetanreview.net
tibetanreview.net
Imagine being called a minority in a place you are the majority and have lived for centuries before occupation.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Tibet/People
"The population of the region is almost entirely Tibetan, with Han (Chinese), Hui (Chinese Muslims), Monba, Lhoba, and other minority nationalities. Thus, the majority of the people of Tibet have the same ethnic origin, have traditionally practiced the same religion, and speak the same language."
> Native Americans represent 1.7% of the US population
I think the analogy between (Tibetan people, China) and (native American people, US) makes sense.
Crimea used to be part of Russian Empire and then part of the Russian SSR until it was gifted to Ucranian SSR as a region in 1954. A 65% of the residents are Russians, 16% Ucranians and 12% Crimean Tatars. And most of their population speaks Russian (85%). There were tensions between Russia, Ukraine and Crimea thanks to that transfer (and they haven't disappeared). The annexation was a bad thing economically wise but it was done quite fast and clean.
The Tibet was already under Chinese control since the Qing Dynasty (1720). At that time, Korea was also a vassal state of the Qing Dynasty. The Tibet independence (1911-1950) sadly didn't have any strength (obsolete military, bad and few foreign relations) and they were absorbed by the CCP military. Also, they speak different languages, have different cultures and the Han are still a small minority in the region.
> Imagine being called a minority in a place you are the majority
which implies that only the area of Tibet is being discussed. And
> Tibetan people represent 0.4% of the Chinese population
implies that all of China is being discussed.
So there's a disconnect there. The comment about Native Americans was presumably being read in the context of "Native Americans in the Unites States", which is a context where they are, indeed, a minority.
I expect the original comment about Native Americans was made in the sense of "like how the US treated Native Americans", not "the facts presented (majority, living there for a long time) also apply to the Native Americans". Whereas the reply to that comment was, I assume, made based on the second interpretation.
So not dense or intentional, just a different understanding of what was being said, because of ambiguity.
And, because people like to feel superior and assume everyone interprets everything the same way they do even when ambiguous, the poor responder got a bunch of down votes lumped on them.
From the CCP's perspective, would a similar decline in percentage be desirable?
From our historical view of the US, are the actions that got us here praiseworthy?
Not always inadvertently, perhaps:
https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smal...
Although that article says that "there’s only one clearly documented instance of a colonial attempt to spread smallpox", the fact that there is any "clearly documented instance" of such an attempt is pretty horrific.
Give things 500+ years and Tibetans may be down to 1.7% too.
I'd like to think we've gotten better.
it's a good template for anyone looking to take sovereignty over somebody else's land.
If you're trying to do that, youre already dropping ethics
I'm confused why there's any disagreement here.
Who needs to go back in time? We're literally still abusing them today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_prote...
On the religion front, next to the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism, there's also the older Bön and other, less popular religions like Islam.
In the same way, there's no shortage of people in America condemning police treatment of HK protestors (Repressed people fighting for freedom), who also support police treatment of BLM protestors (Rioters and lowlifes with no real grievances who just want to ruin everything).
That's because most people don't hold political ideology derived from first principles, they just check what their political tribe likes/hates, and follow suit.
Every human being in history is at the tail of a long line of injustices and atrocities. The current way to fix things today is to look at the situation people are in, today, and remediate as necessary. I'm the 4th generation from eastern european serfs, who were treated as livestock or part of the land. It doesn't affect me today in the slightest. I don't deserve reparations.
This isn't an argument against a social safety net or social welfare. It's an argument against crude race-based cash transfers that ignore who is and isn't hindered today by past injustices.
The answer, in the United States, is predominantly "No" from both sides of the political spectrum to the first question, and "Mostly No/No" to the second.
I'd also like to point out that even the Soviet Union/the Russian Federation flirted with reparations for victims of Stalin's repression.
That's why the Mitch Hedberg bit is funny (I used to do drugs... I still do but I used to, too) is humorous. It subverts your expectation that the thing you "used to do" is a thing you no longer do.
The US used to do horrible things to Natives... it still does but it used to, too.
But why? Would you still support this if the punishment cost you your job? Meanwhile, does this disincentivize the CIA from stirring conflict in another region? I think that biggest weakness with American foreign policy is that it's incapable of distinguishing between geopolitical interests and humanitarian interests. As a result, we aren't particularly good at advancing either.
The Black Lives Matter protests of the past year say yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_prote...
We're literally still violating treaties with them.
By was, I presume you mean five years ago, as the US broke the Treaty of Fort Laramie, pepper spraying and sicing guard dogs on natives in Standing Rock in order to build an oil pipeline. The natives testified at the UN human rights council as to what was happening.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_prote...
Yes, the situation with the Native Americans wrt the expansion of European settlement in the Americas is similar.
At the same time, chattel slavery was widespread and common amongst most nations in the world. Should we tolerate a nation today having slavery because it was a thing for us previously?
The best examples of the human condition represent a desire to improve on our mistakes. Because we are imperfect, those with the will to do so must always be striving for improvement.
If we appeal to this erroneous view of history, what will future generations be able say of us under the same logic?
If we subscribe to this flawed logic, which past atrocities are not justified to be repeated today?
And mission accomplished. Almost all the comments in the top 50% of the page right now aren't talking about the topic of the OP, but rather the distraction from it.
We, Europeans, are a cynical crowd.
I would have figured that with the CCP having ~1.5 billion people to choose from, that they could move a few million Han into Tibet (current pop. according to google: 3,648,100).
Even just 1-2 mil could potentially accomplish the CCP's goals?
Even the CCP can't move mountains. Tibet is only good for tourism.
Another page from the playbook: standardize the official script in which you write the spoken language. That has happened multiple times in Chinese history. And American history too.
In the countryside I'm sure it's not like this but it was quite sad.
You can't even blame Han Chinese who move there. They are fed propaganda by the central government and are given financial incentives to move there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_P...
The Yuan dynasty were ruled by the Mongolians. The Mongolians were devout Buddhists and revered the Tibetan Buddhists. The search for reincarnated Tulkas by the Tibetan Buddhists would extend into the Mongolian regions. The imperial family gave a lot of autonomy to Tibet.
The last Imperial dynasty, Qing, was ruled by Manchurians. The Manchurians were a foreign, non-Han ethnic minority, and the imperial family were also devout Buddhists. The Qin emperors gave the Tibetan region autonomy, though they asserted state power by changing the selection process of the lamas back in the late 1800s.
My point is that, even if I disagree with how the CCP is wiping out the Tibetan heritage, this is a outgrowth of centuries of interactions, religion, and politics in that region.
I could also talk about the many ethnic groups in Napal and Himalayan regions, from which the Tibetan Buddhists assimilated many of the shamanic traditions of the region. From those Himalayan shamans perspective, the "lamaists" ganked their traditions and practiced them for the betterment of themselves rather than the betterment of the community. (From the Tibetan Buddhist perspective, those practices were reified within the View of Mahayana, for the betterment of all sentient beings).
Even if this is true, it doesn't make what CCP is doing there right. Change can happen from within without a need of a foreign invading force forcing their own philosophy on these people.
See the current plight of the Native Americans for what I fear will be the template for decades to come with other minorities.
That is mostly a political gesture to rule Tibet under the qing empire.
Do you have a link for this?
I was wrong about the dates. It was late 1700s not late 1800s.
This paper is the one I read. It is a book review: https://academia.edu/resource/work/40611694
The book being reviewed is titled, Forging the Golden Urn: the Qing Empire and the Politics of Reincarnation in Tibet. Max Oidtmann
There's lots of criticism I'd have for Chinese policy, but this terminology isn't one of them. It's very common to use the term "minority" to refer to a group that is a minority at the national level, but could still be a majority in some local level.
This is true in the American context as well (Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Mexicans, etc.)
If someone believes Tibet to still be an occupied country rather than a part of China, it wouldn't be accurate to call Tibetans a minority.
So's Hawaii, but you don't see anyone giving a damn about that.
The Native Americans were sovereign countries for hundreds of years until they were invaded. Their land is currently occupied against their will. If someone believes Native American land to still be an occupied country rather than a part of United States it wouldn't be accurate to call native Americans a minority.
The timing matches too: the Chinese ended Tibetan independence in around 1720, around the same time European settlers conquered Native Americans.
e.g. apartheid is often referred to as "white minority rule" - that is the minority oppressing the majority.
Similarly, this gets a little subjective. It's not clear to me in modern liberal democracies that women are a minority politically, because they do in fact have the ability to set policy equally to men (even if they happen to be less present in the political ranks)
No. If a country annexes a smaller nation, they don’t get to call the invaded population ‘a minority’ just because a stroke of their totalitarian pen made the countries one.
It is true in the American contexts you cite, but you are there you are talking about the same land - not additional grabs.
The hegemon gets to choose the semantics I suppose.
Errrrr like White people in near future US?
And there goes my karma..
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/12/census-da...
Native Hawaiians: Am I a joke to you?
Native Americans: First time?
One trend that was taking place in western China when I last visited was out-migration of Han settlers from Sichuan and other more populous provinces to Xinjiang and other areas which were then dominated by ethnic minorities. This is taking place in Tibet as well:
Han Chinese workers, investors, merchants, teachers and soldiers are pouring into remote Tibet. After the violence that ravaged this region in 2008, China’s aim is to make Tibet wealthier and more Chinese.
Chinese leaders see development, along with an enhanced security presence, as the key to pacifying the Buddhist region. The central government invested $3 billion in the Tibet Autonomous Region last year, a 31 percent increase over 2008. Tibet’s gross domestic product is growing at a 12 percent annual rate, faster than the robust Chinese national average.
> Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf argued in the chapter "Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy" that the Germans needed Lebensraum in the East and described it as a "historic destiny" which would properly nurture the future generations of Germans
> [...] was to be carried out through a rapidly enforced process of Gleichschaltung (synchronization). The ultimate intent of this was to eradicate all traces of national rather than racial consciousness, although their native languages were to remain in existence
> [...] After Germany had acquired her Lebensraum, she now needed to populate these lands according to Nazi ideology and racial principles
Guess who said this? The Chinese official for religious affairs, on his weibo page. They aren't stupid. You don't need guns and executions for extermination of a minority, you can force resettle them across the country until nothing of their culture and little of their gens is left
Here is a few statistics:
> Since 2017, Chinese authorities have used various pretexts to damage or destroy two-thirds of Xinjiang’s mosques; about half of those have been demolished outright
> In 2017, according to official statistics, arrests in Xinjiang accounted for nearly 21 percent of all arrests in China, despite people in Xinjiang making up only 1.5 percent of the total population
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-br...
The fact your attempt to justify the original comment involves citing some stats related to "counter terrorism" brutality and forced "reeducation" in another region which also does not remotely resemble the Nazi approach to conquest of the East tends to underline this point...
[*] Very few countries are as homogenized as PRC with only 8% minorities, of which realistically less than 1% will be subject to heavy sinicization efforts. Diverting disproportionate national resources to integrate restive frontier regions is not prohibitive at PRC scale. This model simply doesn't work for countries with 10/20/30+% minorities that must all be integrated simultaneously. So ironically it will work best in increasingly nativist wealthy countries that rely on managable amounts of immigration.
But I guess we wont see such a report ever.
Edit: The linked report: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/download/TheCPCItsMissionan...
It's a general report on CPC's goals and achievements. Still browsing through it, but there is only one apperance of Tibet in the whole word (!...) doc:
``` Since its 18th National Congress, the CPC has faced challenges such as hegemony and unilateralism. It has seen blatant external interference in China’s internal affairs related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Tibet Autonomous Region, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ```
Yup, classic disinformation method - just assume the conclusion and blame someone else. The reason that othet nations have something to say about it is that CCP is blatantly overstepping their rights in those regions. CCP is an invader, not the rightful ruler. They're starting the same incrementalism over the 9-dashed-line, and even Taiwan.
Just because a nation invades, forcibly relocates, 'reeducates', and culturally overwhelms and erased a people does not make them the legitimate ruler, nor does it make foreign nations working to support the remaining rightful owners "interfering in the internal affairs" (&yes, I see that this also applies to the USA over Native American rights).
What was "interfering in internal affairs of another country" was CCP militarily overrunning Tibet, not the other way around.
I was in physics graduate school in the ‘80s, when there was still activism in support of Tibet. I had a “Free Tibet” poster next to my desk. A graduate student arrived from China. I don’t remember how the conversation started, but I do remember him patiently trying to correct a group of other students, explaining that Tibet was part of China. It was as if someone had claimed that Nebraska was not really part of the US and we needed to support its freedom.
Indoctrination is invisible to the successfully indoctrinated; it becomes reality.
The sad part about it is that it tends to work, and the CCP does have both the malevolence and patience.
And sadly, the rest of the world sees it in their short term interest to do business with that monstrous criminal gang masquerading as a government.
I present this to showcase the rationale behind many pro-China netizens living in China (both ethnic Chinese and non-Chinese).
Note that I could not give detailed references, because I am not a professional political scientists or historian, and I do not keep such records. Hopefully it opens a window for more directed Google search.
> CCP is blatantly overstepping their rights in those regions.
Legally, CCP inherent the rights of KMT, which inherent Qing Dynasty, who has sovereign rights in most conversational lands. The KMT inherentance from Qing, was sealed by certain legal documents following the contemporary international laws and conventions at the time. The KMT to CCP overturn is of course not legally sealed, but in general it's reasonable to assume the transition is legal from an international laws' perspective, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty (note that I did not read this concept deeply, I was just getting 2nd hand information elsewhere, so I could be wrong).
> CCP is an invader, not the rightful ruler.
This would just be treated as "western propaganda".
In CCP's theory framework, CCP is the servant of people (much like US police, and for that we all know how much truth is actually in the deeds). And for the vast majority of people, because CCP controls a significant portion of the national economy, and they can use those resources to provide social well fare to the poorest. So it's reasonable to claim that CCP practiced this ideology, and "CCP as people's servant" is quite well received. I would say it is about as popular as "democracy is good" in US. (Note that I did not claim one is more true than the other, it was just my observation of people's ideas).
So with that framework, the statement intermediately falls apart. (And we can all assume that people don't investigate, they just consume propaganda. I think this statement is universal so far in human history).
> They're starting the same incrementalism over the 9-dashed-line, and even Taiwan.
These are all based on some historical evidences. Which at the time does not very well map into the modern cultural and political concepts. But again, China shaped east Asia's cultural and political heritage for more than 1000 years, you can see that there is some form of legitimacy in the mind of the people at the region.
> Just because a nation invades, forcibly relocates, 'reeducates', and culturally overwhelms and erased a people does not make them the legitimate ruler, nor does it make foreign nations working to support the remaining rightful owners "interfering in the internal affairs" (&yes, I see that this also applies to the USA over Native American rights).
Invasion was labeled liberation. If you look at the economy and production level of Tibet before CCP's invasion, certainly CCP have brought modern production means and built a much better economy in Tibet. As for how much was lost in the process, I don't see much. Tibetan still lives a quite traditional way. They certainly are not bothered by the CCP's presence. As obviously, to maintain CCP's ruling, Tibetan have been treated much better than the mass majority elsewhere. Even their lands were largely left for their own use, because immigrants from inland do not perform farming work, and mostly live in concentrated urban area.
"forcibly relocates", AFAIK, rarely happened. I do know personally some Uygurs in my college where they were treated as "above law and order in the university" because they are minorities (they are usually left unmolested when involved in some fights between youngsters, for example). They never complained to me about relocation. But I have no Tibetan acquaintance. Of course, it could be that CCP have combined good treatment and harsh policy to silence such complaints. But I have not seen such evidence. And you can be sure that the mass majority would have no such evidence either.
"culturally overwhelms", well, that certainly did not happen from what I can see... As I said before, Tibetan and Uygurs, and many other minorities still live their own ways. They certainly are affected. For example, they are like other peasant workers, need to leave their homeland to work in east and south region, and often get to live a different culture. But they are not losing their heritage when they retreat to their own domains. For this I have first-hand experience from my travelling in China.
"erased a people", minorities, like in US, have their population growing faster than Han people. Minorities are not subject to the same harsh one child policy as Han people. For example, I was nearly died if not my mother escaped a forced abortion by fleeing from the city to the rural area in my home town. Such things were never practiced on minorities. Although, officially, CCP never had a forced abortion either, but you can see the acolytes exerting their own cleverness here...
===
The rest of statements are more vague and general statements. It usually were brushed off from the natural inclination towards China's national interests. Everyone, probably except Tibetans and Uygurs, knows that the national security would be in jeopardy if Tibet or Xinjiang becomes independent countries; and the situation also applies to 9-dashed lines and Taiwan.
I think it would be much more in the spirit of HN to make shorter but source-backed statements.
This is the best I can do. And for the most part, I am showing the rationale behind a typical Chinese person might think about the western views, and some of the historical basis. Backed by some form of limited personal experiences. For this purpose, I think despite being hand-waving, the purpose seems well-served.
Edit: Hey guys, read the post, this is literally the first sentence in the post:
``` Let me shed some light on the CCP's propaganda ```
I am showing how the propaganda's effects look like... I am not advancing the argument... Stop arguing with me...
Some of the passages you shared sounds a lot like propaganda. Here are those:
> Invasion was labeled liberation. If you look at the economy and production level of Tibet before CCP's invasion, certainly CCP have brought modern production means and built a much better economy in Tibet.
You're comparing 1950's Tibet to now. Could they have not done well for themselves on their own?
> As for how much was lost in the process, I don't see much. Tibetan still lives a quite traditional way. They certainly are not bothered by the CCP's presence.
This could be 100% false, and you would not know.
> As obviously, to maintain CCP's ruling, Tibetan have been treated much better than the mass majority elsewhere.
China has used violence on the Tibetans. It's not obvious China wants to treat Tibet well.
> Even their lands were largely left for their own use, because immigrants from inland do not perform farming work, and mostly live in concentrated urban area.
Just because Han don't want Tibetan farmland does not mean it belongs to Tibet.
Edit: Thanks for being open minded. I’m glad we can come together and have discussions on topics like these. I will gladly criticize my own government on their injustices.
The don't hold up to the mildest scrutiny, but they seem to suffice for most of the indoctrinated or those who choose to look the other way.
What is particularly galling is to claim that on the basis of some ancient ancestral claim of dynastic emperorship, land X belonged to some supposed ancestors, and was lost for centuries, it is now somehow right to claim it again, as if it was legit to begin with...
anyway, thx for the thoughtful response
HN now is just a conflicting bickering online forum... And most of all, information sharing are no longer appreciated here...
The PCA plot only note two genetic variations. You could easily find similar plot just between northern and southern Han.
"Chinese was suggested to split away from Tibeto-Burman around 6 thousand years ago (kya) based on lexical evidence."
This is consistent with the cliche of Chinese having 5000 years of history if we consider the formation of the Chinese language as a foundation for the nation.
The word people need to learn is “Sinicization”, which describes the programs that implement a slow takeover and indoctrination of an entire people - effectively a cultural genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
Buddhism was wiped, or in your word cultrually-genocided, by Hinduism already in India.
The only reason why India might be anywhere interested in hosting a Buddhism monk is to annoy China, and nothing else.
(of a country or region) having the freedom to govern itself or control its own affairs.
in what way is what West Taiwan is doing, is freedom to govern itself or control its own affairs? they still have the child the West Taiwan state kidnapped, people still live in exile.
Wikipedia
The Cantonese, the Mongol-Northeners, the Koreans, the uighurs and by now the HongKongers. Always remember the backlash though, when the empires power fails and falters. This can reach genocidal levels of backlash against the ex-overlords.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/186810341303200...
Some of the neighboring countries have outright traditions of defending against the neighboring empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Just because this imperialism does not exist in the western left, its none the less just as real.
(This actually happened in Tibet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Panchen_Lama_controversy)
Any investment into Afghanistan as a raw materials resource and/or 棲息地, Chinese Lebensraum, would have an ROI of quite a few decades. I don't see why they would economically rationally do that when the Belt and Road Initiative already will net them far more than "just" Afghanistan.
[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/The-myth-of-Chinese-investme...
China is a superpower. Superpowers have units dedicated to information warfare. Some of these units deal with controlling discourse and sentiment. HN is a fairly prominent public forum within the tech industry. China wants global influence, particular in the technology sector.
It's reasonable to assume they probably have some fairly clever downvote rings here that are well hidden.
The more reasonable explanation is they have an effective domestic propaganda apparatus to shape domestic atttudes and a large diaspora that's well represented in tech. It can take quite some time for those attitudes to mellow.
Add to that Westerners of various stripes that get defensive when foreign imperialism is discussed.
No need for some kind of government run downvote ring.
What I described is pretty much a standard, expected, and elementary capability of any intelligence apparatus in the modern world these days. It doesn't even veer into conspiracy-anything. There's documents that detail precisely how some of these units work, Western or otherwise.
That said, if you're entirely correct, it's admittedly a very sad reality.
I would think they'd focus on places with more reach (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, maybe Reddit) and places were they could have more control (e.g. fake blogs, fake think tanks, websites that peddle conspiracy theories).
The mandate of these units probably dictates they go wherever the discussion happens to be, especially if that discussion runs contrary to the objectives of the unit's host country.
Anecdotally, I've never experienced more rapid, clustered downvotes than in these threads. Certain keywords tend to be magnets for downvotes, regardless of how tame, well-written, or factual the comment is—to a degree that doesn't square with far more controversial opinions expressed in unrelated threads.
It's a rather chilling effect, or at the very least discouraging via way of annoyance.
1. Downvotes shouldn't matter to you.
2. I doubt downvotes matter to the 50 cent parties and disinformation trolls of the world, either, if only because a downvote provides so little payoff.
They typically don't. However, the notion that it could be due to a disingenuous concerted effort makes me feel rather indignant. Downvotes equate to reduced visibility on HN, it's tantamount to a soft silencing. Nobody likes to be unduly silenced.
It's not just me, virtually any comments that criticize a certain regime tend to rapidly sink to the bottom of the thread, and I strongly suspect banality ain't the reason.
>2. I doubt downvotes matter to the 50 cent parties and disinformation trolls of the world, either, if only because a downvote provides so little payoff.
Due to the way HN works, the reduced visibility results in ability to steer the conversation in different directions by expressing preference for friendly or unrelated comments, while inducing volatility in the thread such that it ends up flagged or moved off the main page.
Moreover there's the notion of kinetics. If you take a valid but otherwise true comment and downvote it right after it hits, people are going to pay it less attention. Comments more friendly to whatever objective can then become established as the thread makes its way on to and off of the main page.
In other words, it's pretty low effort and high payoff. The cost is essentially a few dozen accounts above 500 karma, and the reward is you censor or otherwise derail content critical of you on HN. That isn't hard for a government operation.
You could of course still be right. Could be a combination of false equivalency with the U.S. and people thinking stuff like this is conspiracy shit, not knowing any better. All we can do is speculate.
It's reasonable to assume they probably have some fairly clever downvote rings here that are well hidden.
My original comment already said as much, no need to mirror of my original comment in condescending fashion with minor changes, as if it's somehow profound.
The key difference is how the capabilities are used. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's fair to assume the U.S. military isn't going around suppressing speech that criticizes say, the United States' woefully broken system of incarceration.
Nonetheless, interesting person.
It's a lot harder to get a bunch of accounts to 5,000 karma than it is 500. There's enough HN users in that range to still take out the trash, but it'd create major problems for disinformation rings trying to sway the discussion.
"It seems the Chinese Communists finally learned the lesson: what is the oppressive power of secret police, camps and Red Guards destroying ancient monuments, compared to the power of unbridled capitalism to undermine all traditional social relations?"
China still struggles with integrating their minority populations. For the last half century, the CCP has been trying to convert the Cantonese-speaking regions to Mandarin, without much success.
Mao Zedong himself speak Mandarin with a strong accent judging from the recording of the fouding ceremony of PRC
[1] “In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. 15 The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land--or the monastery’s land--without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.16 Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama.”
…
“ The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery.20”
…
“There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off.”
But, of course, this does not mean that a forced annexation and subjugation by china is the only way that reforms could be made, or in fact the best. There are many different ways of modernization, some totalitarian ones and more liberal ones.
I guess it should be clear which are preferable.
But when we look across history and search for desirable models, neither the UK (or any other) colonialism nor modern annexations by totalitarian regimes seem like the best outcome (from an enlightenment/liberal POV).
The idea all culture exist and will all continue to exist as-is is a beautiful, beautiful dream, and also an expensive one. Gentrification is San Francisco is the obviously example of how fragile local cultural groups are in the face of industrial producticity.
Even if it was a better government invading, the potential benefit would be fairly limited. They probably would have moved away from that social structure without interference. Much of the world used to be crappy feudal societies with powerful religions.
I understand the frustrations of trying to represent a minority/contrarian view in a large internet forum. But you can't do it this way. It breaks the site guidelines and it only feeds the cheap and lazy fantasies ("bots, spies, and astroturfers") that internet users indulge in when they see things they don't like on divisive topics.
> single-purpose accounts are not allowed on HN and certainly not for political/national flamewar.
They do it via birth control and family separation so it happening slowly but it is still decreasing the population of non-Han ethnic groups in comparison to the Han ethnic group.
When this was done elsewhere it was declared as the worst form of racism/ethnocide/genocide, but in China it is accepted standard practice.
Imagine in Donald Trump wanted non-whites to be forced on birth control in the US or if Israel wanted its Arab population on birth control -- there would be uproars and rightly so. But somehow China is getting away with this behaviour towards its ethnic minorities.
"an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. "
You don't have to imagine.
https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-ethiopians-coerced-into-bir...
> if Israel wanted its Arab population on birth control
(emphasis mine)
So, for a start the article is about something completely different.
Secondly the article seems pretty open about the fact that the claims are dubious at best.
Thank you for emphasizing the key point.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-01-28/israel-admits-injecti...
And as I already pointed out the article is pretty clear that there isn't actually convincing evidence, especially not against Israel (it seems to be about a possible rogue NGO or something?)
Here's the bit I responded to.
>Imagine in Donald Trump wanted non-whites to be forced on birth control in the US or if Israel wanted its Arab population on birth control -- there would be uproars and rightly so.
I don't think that questions changes much if you replace "Arab" with any other ethnic minority group in Israel. Black Ethiopians are an ethnic minority group in Israel, and they were given birth control against their will by the state of Israel.
>And as I already pointed out the article is pretty clear that there isn't actually convincing evidence, especially not against Israel (it seems to be about a possible rogue NGO or something?)
Israeli officials admitting they did indeed give them birth control isn't strong evidence against Israel? What about the source below?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-ethiopians-fool...
There seems to be a very obvious bias in your comments. This is a fact accepted by the Israeli government that I have already pointed out to you, but you keep ignoring it.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-01-28/israel-admits-injecti...
If you're referring to the now-obsolete one-child policy, IIRC, they do this to all ethnicity. The ethnic minority usually got more slack when the government enforced this policy.
> family separation
Mind elaborate a bit?
https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-we... : China cuts Uighur births with IUDs, abortion, sterilization
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/ch...
More importantly, the policy officially allowed minorities to have two children, which is very much the opposite of driving down minority numbers relative to Han numbers.
There is a popular poem reflecting the Han's view of what their government thinks of them:
一等外人，二等官
三等少民，四等汉
It is terrible.
It is also common, although thankfully not so much in the 21st century as in previous.
Of the top of my head... Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, Spanish South America, Germany, Russia, Various Balkan countries. My African history isn't very good, but I'd imagine there too.
And these are just examples of state-sponsored and facilitated, non-genocidal (so leaving out direct murder) attempts to shift the majority ethnicity within an area.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_... https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-histo... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Uruguay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Poland_(1939%E... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Balkans
But more to your direct point: the CCP is engaging in forced sterilizations right now in 2021. See sibling comments with links.
I'm not one to often bring whataboutism into arguments involving China, but I think it's an important point of context that many of the world's now-stable countries either perpetrated same or were victims of it.
It doesn't begin to excuse or justify it, but it does provide some perspective on the darker parts of our own history.
[Edit] I am against forced sterilization by anyone on to any one. I want to highlight that sterilization has happened in recent years in Canada. As the message above me points out, there is very little outcry in North America. Here is a data point where sterilization has happened in Canada and there is very little public outcry or knowledge of the situation.
I wanted to add a data point that forced birth control happens in Canada. Forced birth control is not something limited to the CPP handbook.
i just don't get the argument that because X happened in X place, people from X place can't be against it in another country? when they are against it happening anywhere, including their country.
I don't want to tamper anyone's disgust. I would like to add that it happens in my home country and it breaks my heart.
Factually incorrect. It is the opposite. Quite many ethnic groups had more right than the Han majority.
One example:
"The policy also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities."
Uighurs who have fled from there to Afghanistan are not happy with recent developments
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/afghanistan-uyghurs-...
Beastie Boys - shambala / bodhisattva vow
You can read about this any number of places including https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/ch...