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.
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.
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?
Listen schools suck okay? They are authoritarian, totalitarian, Orwellian, and all the other bad "-ians". Change your analogy.
deleted by creator