People keep bringing up these "violent Wahhabist reactionaries" and yet I can't find any evidence of a militant puritanical movement in the region. All I can find are separatist groups trying to recover their land that Beijing annexed decades ago. The only coherent Islamic organizations I can find in the region are Sufi tariqas, which by their very nature as mystical and (arguably) semi-syncretic movements are diametrically opposed to puritanism. Beijing has already signaled its suspicion or even dislike of Islam by doing things like banning Halal products and razing mosques and rebuilding them in the shape of Buddhist temples. Talk about thinking critically about state department narratives, the west has used Salafism as a code for "any Muslims willing to fight against our exploitation of their people and resources" for decades now. Christ if we learn anything from the Middle-East-Forever-War it should be that repressing religious communities to try and impose our own ideals is a completely futile and quite frankly horrifying practice. China does not need to fear Wahhabis or Salafis or any of the Muslims who are actually in Xinjiang, they just want the rich natural resources of the area and to completely homogenize the population by overrunning minority regions with Han settlers. Xinjiang does not belong to Han China, it belongs to Uighurs. The idea that Beijing has some obligation to "uplift" the population of Turkestan through what I can only call Hanification is no different than the White Man's Burden to "civilize" indigenous Americans and Africans. Is the core tenet of anti imperialism not "If someone doesn't actively want to be a part your nation, leave them the fuck alone?"
All I see in this article is systematic discrimination and abuse of an ethnic minority by the Han. It makes no mention of any militant organization, but it is a great example of how they develop. Yeah, cultural and ethnic discrimination in a region that was militarily annexed by the very ethnic majority that abuses them will breed anti establishment sentiment in the population. That is not a purely Muslim phenomenon, nor is it entirely unjustified. Being told to just accept that you must integrate into a new nation where you will forever be a minority stigmatized for your cultural background is very worth resistance as far as I'm concerned. This article even outlines how Uighurs are forced to do things that are directly opposed to their religious beliefs and effectively make them sinners. I'm not sure what you see in this article that I don't, but if you're opposed to ethnic minorities rioting against systemic abuse then I think we're not on the same page.
Really, no evidence? How about some very western sources. Repressing religious reactionaries is the job of communists and must be done to prevent them from instituting a dictatorship of first estate bourgeoisie. Beijing is obligated to take the mass line in Xianjiang and use it to improve the lives of those living there as well as defend the dictatorship of the proletariat against the depredation of bourgeois fifth columnists since the territory was liberated from the KMT in 1949. Are you saying that anti-imperialism is allowing separatist movements to balkanize into nations too weak to defend against imperialist depredation? Should Tibet be "freed" so that it's old national bourgeoisie can reinstate feudal slavery?
deleted by creator
People keep bringing up these "violent Wahhabist reactionaries" and yet I can't find any evidence of a militant puritanical movement in the region. All I can find are separatist groups trying to recover their land that Beijing annexed decades ago. The only coherent Islamic organizations I can find in the region are Sufi tariqas, which by their very nature as mystical and (arguably) semi-syncretic movements are diametrically opposed to puritanism. Beijing has already signaled its suspicion or even dislike of Islam by doing things like banning Halal products and razing mosques and rebuilding them in the shape of Buddhist temples. Talk about thinking critically about state department narratives, the west has used Salafism as a code for "any Muslims willing to fight against our exploitation of their people and resources" for decades now. Christ if we learn anything from the Middle-East-Forever-War it should be that repressing religious communities to try and impose our own ideals is a completely futile and quite frankly horrifying practice. China does not need to fear Wahhabis or Salafis or any of the Muslims who are actually in Xinjiang, they just want the rich natural resources of the area and to completely homogenize the population by overrunning minority regions with Han settlers. Xinjiang does not belong to Han China, it belongs to Uighurs. The idea that Beijing has some obligation to "uplift" the population of Turkestan through what I can only call Hanification is no different than the White Man's Burden to "civilize" indigenous Americans and Africans. Is the core tenet of anti imperialism not "If someone doesn't actively want to be a part your nation, leave them the fuck alone?"
Oh worm?
All I see in this article is systematic discrimination and abuse of an ethnic minority by the Han. It makes no mention of any militant organization, but it is a great example of how they develop. Yeah, cultural and ethnic discrimination in a region that was militarily annexed by the very ethnic majority that abuses them will breed anti establishment sentiment in the population. That is not a purely Muslim phenomenon, nor is it entirely unjustified. Being told to just accept that you must integrate into a new nation where you will forever be a minority stigmatized for your cultural background is very worth resistance as far as I'm concerned. This article even outlines how Uighurs are forced to do things that are directly opposed to their religious beliefs and effectively make them sinners. I'm not sure what you see in this article that I don't, but if you're opposed to ethnic minorities rioting against systemic abuse then I think we're not on the same page.
I linked to a Twitter thread that explains a lot, and you read the article? Why?
Really, no evidence? How about some very western sources. Repressing religious reactionaries is the job of communists and must be done to prevent them from instituting a dictatorship of first estate bourgeoisie. Beijing is obligated to take the mass line in Xianjiang and use it to improve the lives of those living there as well as defend the dictatorship of the proletariat against the depredation of bourgeois fifth columnists since the territory was liberated from the KMT in 1949. Are you saying that anti-imperialism is allowing separatist movements to balkanize into nations too weak to defend against imperialist depredation? Should Tibet be "freed" so that it's old national bourgeoisie can reinstate feudal slavery?