PDA

View Full Version : China and its subjugation of Muslims.


BehindBlueEyes
24th Oct 2018, 18:29
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps

“Harsh new legal penalties have been introduced to curtail Islamic identity and practice - banning, among other things, long beards and headscarves, the religious instruction of children, and even Islamic-sounding names.“

The West sometimes has a tricky relationship with Islam but this is on another level.

meadowrun
24th Oct 2018, 18:51
No one dare criticize China over what is clearly an internal cultural issue and off-limits to any foreign meddling in the state security concerns of a top notch nation that cares for all its minions.

Espada III
24th Oct 2018, 19:20
There was a Uigur on the BBC at lunchtime; she lilves in London having escaped from China. If she was so concerned about her religion, surely she should have gone to a Moslem country.. Oh wait.....

DaveReidUK
24th Oct 2018, 19:31
There was a Uigur on the BBC at lunchtime; she lilves in London having escaped from China. If she was so concerned about her religion, surely she should have gone to a Moslem country.. Oh wait.....

Even by Jetblast standards, what a remarkably crass post.

Ascend Charlie
24th Oct 2018, 19:44
But it's OK for muslim countries to subjugate other religions?

BehindBlueEyes
24th Oct 2018, 19:49
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/burqa-ban-models-denmark-copenhagen-fashion-show-hijab-niqab-police-officers-a8484276.html

I have a duty to support all women’s freedom of speech and freedom of thought’ said the designer in question.
Sadly, democratic Denmark is a soft target. Try saying that Beijing, Jeddah, Islamabad, Lagos, Kabul...

Nemrytter
24th Oct 2018, 19:58
No one dare criticize China over what is clearly an internal cultural issue and off-limits to any foreign meddling in the state security concerns of a top notch nation that cares for all its minions.No one dare criticise China...apart from the giant BBC article in the first post that is, hey, critical of China.:yuk:

DaveReidUK
24th Oct 2018, 20:09
But it's OK for muslim countries to subjugate other religions?

Now that's much better. Classic whataboutery, the Jetblast we've come to know and love.

Lonewolf_50
24th Oct 2018, 21:05
The Economist has had a couple of pretty good articles on the hard line China takes with both Christians, and Muslims, who dare to speak up in a critical way about anything the government does.
Their take on the new deal Pope Gutless Francis made in re appointing bishops was worth a read, as was their small bit on the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the West of China being put into second class citizen ship status.
The Chinese are also showing no sense of humor with some more secular critics in Hong Kong and Canton/Guangzhou, based on the last three issues of Economist that I've had delivered.

jolihokistix
24th Oct 2018, 23:03
Al-Jazeera takes heart from the BBC article (even if they do not give credit), and publishes a similar parallel piece.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/china-internment-camps-tear-gas-tasers-textbooks-181024080527871.html

funfly
24th Oct 2018, 23:07
We, of course, have taken the decision to trade with these countries that have different values to us - China, Saudi, African countries, South American Countries, U.S etc. rather than trade with people of similar moral values to us i.e. Europe. We therefore have to tread carefully when dealing with these countries, from an economic viewpoint anyway.
Sorry slight thread drift to that unmentionable subject B*****T.

WingNut60
24th Oct 2018, 23:38
Within the Uyghur population of the autonomous area of south-western China there are elements pushing, in some cases violently, for separation from China (read that as independence).
China, as a unitary state with a population approaching 1.4 billion citizens, does not agree or condone those local ideals.
The southern area of Xinjiang has a Uyghur population of somewhere between 10 - 15 million, forming a large percentage (60%??) of the 50 or so ethnic groups residing there,
The northern area has a smaller but still substantial population of Uyghurs.
Overall, they form a very small percentage of the population of the unitary state.

The recent push for separation is almost certainly based on increasing religiosity and may be attracting funding and support from the middle-east and the neighbouring '-stans'.

The recent articles have spoken about the current re-education programs being run by the government. Processes for which the Chinese are well known.

Now, while all of the above is probably very euphemistic if you are a western Uyghur, how does our panel of experts think that the Chinese SHOULD counter what is arguably a threat to their sovereignty?
In particular, see if you can come up with some middle ground that would be acceptable to the Uyghurs, AND the other residents (40%) of Xinjiang.

ethicalconundrum
25th Oct 2018, 00:02
Now, while all of the above is probably very euphemistic if you are a western Uyghur, how does our panel of experts think that the Chinese SHOULD counter what is arguably a threat to their sovereignty?

If this is not a rhetorical question, from a westerner, the answer is amazingly simple. A massive dose of civil liberty is in order for ALL people of western China. Freedom of speech, worship, assembly, etc, and the right to petition the govt for grievances. This would work wonders for them personally, and work for the govt of China who could then say they have shown they are no longer oppressive, and for their liberty, the citizens will be severely punished for attempting the overthrow of the current govt. Take it to your local representative en-masse, and present your case.

Of course, this is ridiculous from an eastern perspective, so it'll never happen. But - pretty simple really.

WingNut60
25th Oct 2018, 00:26
I guess for a rhetorical question, a rhetorical answer.

But what you describe is a solution to which you would respond favourably.
I am far from convinced that it is a solution to which the Uyghur separatists would respond favourably.

I am ever mindful also of the solution of the separatist issue in America in the 1860's.
I don't remember any "massive dose of civil liberties" being used to settle that one.

ethicalconundrum
25th Oct 2018, 00:44
I guess for a rhetorical question, a rhetorical answer.

But what you describe is a solution to which you would respond favourably.
I am far from convinced that it is a solution to which the Uyghur separatists would respond favourably.

I am ever mindful also of the solution of the separatist issue in America in the 1860's.
I don't remember any "massive dose of civil liberties" being used to settle that one.

You make a good point, but you need to back up a bit. The progeny for the separatist issue in the US 1860s was the denial of said petitioning the govt for grievance and in its place came a "proclamation", not by a king, or prince but by an administrator of one third of our govt. It was the antithesis of the republican form of govt in action, and was the proximate cause of said difficulty. Further, it was issued by a new party representative who took upon himself powers that existed NO WHERE in our republic. No one in the US govt should ever be able to issue a proclamation which sets any kind of major policy. The way it should have been done was through the legislature which we set up to determine this kind of policy shift. I will go ahead and speculate that if the central theme of the proclamation been put into a major piece of legislation, perhaps even an amendment, we would not have fought that war.

Of course, it was the right idealist decision, but it was done entirely the wrong way. Full of passion, emotion, and having severe financial and personal consequences for millions of people(of both color). A republic changes slowly. But it does change to form 'a more perfect union' through contemplation, and rule of law, not waving a wand, and issuing a decree like a totalitarian or pope.

Oh, and fundamentally, the proclamation was entirely about civil liberties for an oppressed group, perhaps similar to the Chinese folks under examination in this thread?

maggot
25th Oct 2018, 00:55
Maybe they're on the right track banning religious instruction to children
if it needs to be indoctrinated for it to stick maybe it's a rubbish idea

WingNut60
25th Oct 2018, 01:02
A real bummer being a small minority in a very populous state.

Even if you are given the freedom to express your grievances, you are very unlikely to attain your aspirations, especially if your aspirations are separation from the unitary state.
Put it all to a vote of the eligible citizens of that state or to the government of that state; still no light on the horizon.

Maintaining rule of law in a disparate country of 1.4 billion people is going to see some people with unresolved aspirations.
Start using violence to support the argument for your aspirations then you can expect a repressive response.

And I'll ask the question again: where is the middle ground that would be acceptable to the Uyghurs, AND the other residents (40%) of Xinjiang

I am not convinced that a "massive dose of civil liberties" is the middle ground that would appease the Uyghur seperatists.

ethicalconundrum
25th Oct 2018, 01:54
Why focus just on the Chinese? The PI has large populations of muslims who wish for a separate nation. NZ has the Maori, wanting their own lands since 1960s. Hutsi and Tutus, etc. Anyway, I still consider liberty for everyone equally is the cornerstone of solving ethic issues. Going beyond civil advocacy to rioting and separatism, they can try, but the Chinese have a lot of bodies to throw in the fight.

jolihokistix
25th Oct 2018, 02:32
One of my students was from Inner Mongolia, now part of China. One day I asked him what his hobby was. "On a Saturday night to go drinking", he said. "Then on the way home we would find some random Han Chinese guy and beat him up." He told me that felt a strong affinity with the Tibetans, too.

The Chinese seem to be taking a leaf out of Genghis Khan's notebook, "Might makes Right." I guess the hope is that the Uighurs will eventually love their state and party for helping them to assimilate. But what will remain hidden in the heart, and will it be too faint?

WingNut60
25th Oct 2018, 03:43
Why focus just on the Chinese? ........

Rhetorical question? But, to state the obvious, the title of the thread is "China and its subjugation of Muslims"

And so yes, it's hardly restricted to China and Muslims. Try China and Christians. Or China and Buddhists. Or UK and Christians (northern Ireland).
Or Indonesia and Muslims (non-conforming sects). In fact, just about anywhere for the last one.

I don't know of a single solution which will satisfy, or in any meaningful way mollify, all parties.
Give independence and government to the Muslims in the Tarim Basin and then what happens to the other 49 ethnic groups?
Do you think that the Uyghurs will treat them with respect and equanimity?

It seems to me that "re-education" may be the least pervasive intervention amongst a lot of very unsavoury alternatives.

The Chinese seem to be taking a leaf out of Genghis Khan's notebook, "Might makes Right."

I'm unsure that they are deliberately applying that as a policy.
But they are certainly demonstrating that it is so.

krismiler
25th Oct 2018, 03:57
Why not include the subjugation of non Muslims in majority Muslim countries as well ?
Try bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia.

jolihokistix
25th Oct 2018, 04:56
Wiki has a good long read regarding the Uyghurs, perhaps not quite as Caucasoid/European as some have made them out to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs

Simmbob
25th Oct 2018, 11:28
We, of course, have taken the decision to trade with these countries that have different values to us - China, Saudi, African countries, South American Countries, U.S etc. rather than trade with people of similar moral values to us i.e. Europe. We therefore have to tread carefully when dealing with these countries, from an economic viewpoint anyway.
Sorry slight thread drift to that unmentionable subject B*****T.

Every nation has different values to each other, at a greater or lesser extent.
We have not at this point in time. Just !! decided to trade with countries outside of the E.U.
To bring Brexit into the discussion about the way China's abhorrent actions towards its Muslim population is crass.

Simmbob

ShotOne
25th Oct 2018, 13:28
“Try bringing a bible into Saudi Arabia..(etc)”. Are we even thinking about what point that sort of comment is attempting to prove ? Shocking evidence of hundreds of thousands of people rounded up and incarcerated -but mentioning another bit of oppression somewhere else makes it all ok??

Curious Pax
25th Oct 2018, 15:30
The recent push for separation is almost certainly based on increasing religiosity and may be attracting funding and support from the middle-east and the neighbouring '-stans'.


Or is it because there has been an increased level of religious suppression that triggered pushback in the form of increased separatist support?

WingNut60
25th Oct 2018, 22:23
Or is it because there has been an increased level of religious suppression that triggered pushback in the form of increased separatist support?

That's chicken and the egg stuff for which I have no answer.
But, from what I have read, the crowd funding is definitely a factor.

fitliker
26th Oct 2018, 05:04
Rooster .
The correct answer to which came first the Chicken or the egg is the Rooster.
The Rooster always finishes first :)

ShotOne
26th Oct 2018, 10:56
Presumably if we were seeing the first evidence of Nazi concentration camps we’d be offering reasons to validate them? Rounding up and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people isn’t what civilised countries do. Why does China get a free pass? Yet China DOES care very much what the world says and thinks. That’s why they’ve gone to such extreme lengths to keep it secret and to (laughably) maintain the fiction of these razor-wire shrouded buildings being “schools”. It mustn’t be normalised with ludicrous whataboutery.

dook
26th Oct 2018, 14:36
Try bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia.

Or a one foot Christmas tree in a suitcase as the children of a colleague tried.

neila83
26th Oct 2018, 18:05
But it's OK for muslim countries to subjugate other religions?

Where are you from? How's the native population doing? How do many of the immigrant population respond to people speaking a language not their 'native tongue'. Clue in the name 'English'. It's not yours.

Cool Guys
27th Oct 2018, 06:57
This has little to do with Uyghurs or Islam in particular. There are laws against sedition and engaging in separatist activities. If any person is rebelling against the state or pushing for separation they run the risk of some sort of punishment. If there is a high percentage of people in a particular group engaging in these activities then that group is more likely to be targeted. China probably has a lower threshold for these activities and if you happen to be an innocent member of that group it could obviously seem unfair. It is not a perfect system but it does have some workability. Outlawing long beards and head scarfs could hardly be deemed a “harsh penalty” or a major form of persecution. The wife may be glad to get rid of the beard.

Gault
27th Oct 2018, 09:53
How about Saudi Arabia and it's subjugation of everyone but male muslims with money?, hypocrisy is everywhere, this world is not a place for balance, fairness or equality................it's just one big load of bollox

BehindBlueEyes
27th Oct 2018, 11:20
This has little to do with Uyghurs or Islam in particular. There are laws against sedition and engaging in separatist activities. If any person is rebelling against the state or pushing for separation they run the risk of some sort of punishment. If there is a high percentage of people in a particular group engaging in these activities then that group is more likely to be targeted. China probably has a lower threshold for these activities and if you happen to be an innocent member of that group it could obviously seem unfair. It is not a perfect system but it does have some workability. Outlawing long beards and head scarfs could hardly be deemed a “harsh penalty” or a major form of persecution. The wife may be glad to get rid of the beard.

Good point. The Chinese authorities seem to clamp down on any individual or group that doesn’t meet the party standard - I’m not sure this is a policy particularly singling out Islam, although this is the case that’s been highlighted. They’ve persecuted all sorts of racial and/or religious groups who aren’t part of the homogenous populace they want to achieve. During the Cultural Revolution even men and women were expected to look exactly the same.

The ironic thing is; all these protests we have about injustices by the West against minorities, would be be quashed without question under Chinese rule.