Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule over peoples and other countries, for extending political and economic access, power and control, through employing hard power especially military force, but also soft power.
Uighurs are the peoples, CCP are the rulers that you inexplicably stan.
True and not true. Xinjiang has been a contested region for going on 1500 years or so. It was decisively controlled by the Qing dynasty (who were foreign rulers and not Han Chinese) for a few hundred years until the Republican era, when it became its own sovereign state, just like Tibet, until the Communists re-conquered it in 1949. It was not "China" as such when the CCP came into power.
The thing is, "China" has always been a continuous civilization, never a continuous state. To say that Uighurs were "Chinese" in the Qing dynasty is roughly equivalent to saying Polish people were once Chinese because they were part of Pax Mongolia, which of course had its capital in Beijing.
I suppose you think that the CPC "conquered" Beijing too. The communists didn't "conquer" shit, the revolution and subsequent liberation spread to those areas just as it had the rest of China.
I guess if we're going to be particular about our terms it was ultimately neither conquered nor liberated but more or less passed over to the CCP by the Soviets
Serious question: Are you pro-Soviet? If so, why did the state have to be liberated from Soviet backing?
But it’s not imperialism? Isn’t it internal politics?
Sure, but that's also like saying Hawaii wasn't colonized because it's part of the US so it's internal politics. Both modern-day Hawaii and Xinjiang, however you feel about them, are clear examples of settler colonialism.
Edited to include a quote because the original poster is way the hell up there.
The Qing dynasty (Manchu, not Han, but let's not get lost in the weeds) genocided the Buddhist Dzungar and then initiated massive settler colonialism into Dzungaria. This isn't really disputed by anybody, except I guess whether you want to call it "migration" or colonization. Take your pick, Dzungaria was more or less the Qing version of Australia.
The Qing were the ones who destabilized the region, arguably sowed the seeds of Islamic extremism in it, and established Han settler colonialism. I'd go so far as to say all contemporary conflict in Xinjiang ultimately should be blamed on the Qing.
However, the CCP has yet to put an end to any of the things that the Qing started.
If Hawaii were to try to separate from the US in order to implement a theocracy by force( that even excludes other Muslim minorities) . A system even more oppressive than capitalism. Would you let them? How would you solve that problem?
My man, the future can redeem the past and our relationship to it but it doesn't change the events themselves.
Plus, you have to remember that China has been around for a long time and shifted wildly in the 20th century. I'm not even 100% sure what your analogy is directed towards. Xinjiang was taken over by a sharia theocracy for a brief period in the 30s. The region was and still is an absolute dumpster fire. IMO the best solution would have been for it to be integrated into Mongolia back when it was an autonomous state, but the Soviets were too concerned about Chinese retaliation to back it.
Uighurstan is not a historical name for anything, its something that was thought up by separatists that aren't satisfied with an islamic state but want an Uighur ethnostate essentially, bad look.
Ah ok, it just set me off since I've heard interviews with separatists who describe it as wanting an ethnostate where even other muslims are either expelled or disenfranchised.
extremely disrespectful to advocate for ethnonationalism for an ethnicity you cant even spell or know the actual name of the claimed (and hugely unpopular separatist movement)
They explicitly describe them as no longer having that role, this is a phrased used by fucking Amnesty International and the BBC against countries like Iran, like fucking Business times does this its a common phrase.
I mean I'm a no nation's no border proponent myself, but I think that'll be possible once capitalism is overcome. So I see how it's debateable.
Looking at the major support China has from other Muslim countries (that arent US aligned) gives some comfort. China did had a uighur extremist/suicide bombing problem a few years back and had to do something. Also when Azerbaijan or France does reeducation camps it's not met with this much skepticism. China will be shortly/is the new world hegemon and you will see a lot of antagonization against that in the western world
Schools may suck in capitalism because you're forced to learn useless shit for the ruling class, but nonetheless there's merit in having educated people?
deleted by creator
Uighurs are the peoples, CCP are the rulers that you inexplicably stan.
https://historicly.substack.com/p/demystifying-xinjiang-and-the-uighers
uighurs live very far away from Beijing, aren't chinese and don't want to be part of china
deleted by creator
True and not true. Xinjiang has been a contested region for going on 1500 years or so. It was decisively controlled by the Qing dynasty (who were foreign rulers and not Han Chinese) for a few hundred years until the Republican era, when it became its own sovereign state, just like Tibet, until the Communists re-conquered it in 1949. It was not "China" as such when the CCP came into power.
The thing is, "China" has always been a continuous civilization, never a continuous state. To say that Uighurs were "Chinese" in the Qing dynasty is roughly equivalent to saying Polish people were once Chinese because they were part of Pax Mongolia, which of course had its capital in Beijing.
I suppose you think that the CPC "conquered" Beijing too. The communists didn't "conquer" shit, the revolution and subsequent liberation spread to those areas just as it had the rest of China.
I guess if we're going to be particular about our terms it was ultimately neither conquered nor liberated but more or less passed over to the CCP by the Soviets
Serious question: Are you pro-Soviet? If so, why did the state have to be liberated from Soviet backing?
how are uighurs chinese?
edit: if uighurs are already chinese then what are they being "reeducated" from?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Isn't that like asking if Cherokees are American?
look how that fucking turned out.
Yeah but you're comparing two different governments. Obv what the US did to Cherokees was bad. But the essence of the question is the same, or not?
uh, imperialism is bad no matter which government does it. what the fuck website am I on?
But it's not imperialism? Isn't it internal politics? It's like calling schools imperialism because as a kid you have to go there
Sure, but that's also like saying Hawaii wasn't colonized because it's part of the US so it's internal politics. Both modern-day Hawaii and Xinjiang, however you feel about them, are clear examples of settler colonialism.
Edited to include a quote because the original poster is way the hell up there.
deleted by creator
The Qing dynasty (Manchu, not Han, but let's not get lost in the weeds) genocided the Buddhist Dzungar and then initiated massive settler colonialism into Dzungaria. This isn't really disputed by anybody, except I guess whether you want to call it "migration" or colonization. Take your pick, Dzungaria was more or less the Qing version of Australia.
The Qing were the ones who destabilized the region, arguably sowed the seeds of Islamic extremism in it, and established Han settler colonialism. I'd go so far as to say all contemporary conflict in Xinjiang ultimately should be blamed on the Qing.
However, the CCP has yet to put an end to any of the things that the Qing started.
If Hawaii were to try to separate from the US in order to implement a theocracy by force( that even excludes other Muslim minorities) . A system even more oppressive than capitalism. Would you let them? How would you solve that problem?
My man, the future can redeem the past and our relationship to it but it doesn't change the events themselves.
Plus, you have to remember that China has been around for a long time and shifted wildly in the 20th century. I'm not even 100% sure what your analogy is directed towards. Xinjiang was taken over by a sharia theocracy for a brief period in the 30s. The region was and still is an absolute dumpster fire. IMO the best solution would have been for it to be integrated into Mongolia back when it was an autonomous state, but the Soviets were too concerned about Chinese retaliation to back it.
so the entire argument for this being okay is that uighurs are chinese and uighurstan is part of china?
you see how that could be debatable for someone who doesn't 100% trust the CCP, right?
Uighurstan is not a historical name for anything, its something that was thought up by separatists that aren't satisfied with an islamic state but want an Uighur ethnostate essentially, bad look.
I was being facetious, "uighurstan" sounds funny
Ah ok, it just set me off since I've heard interviews with separatists who describe it as wanting an ethnostate where even other muslims are either expelled or disenfranchised.
extremely disrespectful to advocate for ethnonationalism for an ethnicity you cant even spell or know the actual name of the claimed (and hugely unpopular separatist movement)
more disrespectful than calling uighur women "baby-making machines"?
What are you smoking because your inability to understand words is making me want to have some
They explicitly describe them as no longer having that role, this is a phrased used by fucking Amnesty International and the BBC against countries like Iran, like fucking Business times does this its a common phrase.
I mean I'm a no nation's no border proponent myself, but I think that'll be possible once capitalism is overcome. So I see how it's debateable.
Looking at the major support China has from other Muslim countries (that arent US aligned) gives some comfort. China did had a uighur extremist/suicide bombing problem a few years back and had to do something. Also when Azerbaijan or France does reeducation camps it's not met with this much skepticism. China will be shortly/is the new world hegemon and you will see a lot of antagonization against that in the western world
Listen schools suck okay? They are authoritarian, totalitarian, Orwellian, and all the other bad "-ians". Change your analogy.
Schools may suck in capitalism because you're forced to learn useless shit for the ruling class, but nonetheless there's merit in having educated people?
yeah that's true. schools in a socialist/communist/anarchist system would be better, but then again, everything in such a system would be better.
deleted by creator