China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)

Enjoying the discussion. Some very interesting debate about Chinese history and ethnic composition. Everyone seems to be getting a bit heated though...

Iron Man said:

Recognizing the legitimacy of the Yuan dynasty as a Chinese dynasty is NOT the same thing as recognizing the Mongols as “Chinese”. The Mongols used Chinese institutions, practices and officials to rule China; essentially every characteristic of the Yuan dynasty was Chinese, so why wouldn’t it be a Chinese dynasty? Nonetheless, the rallying cry of the Ming rebels was in fact to expel the Mongol foreigners, which clearly tells me they did NOT view the Mongols as Chinese, contrary to your ultra-romanticized and heavily-redacted historical claims.

Click to expand...

So a big unanswered question that keeps coming up in one way or another with all of these posts (Mongol, Tibetan etc) is what constitutes 'Chinese'? And this seems to be where the tension is stemming from.

Iron Man is acknowledging 'Chinese' as a definition of Citizenship for those living in China, regardless of ethnic background, but seems to question whether people of Tibetan heritage or Mongol ancestry or the like would consider themselves part of the 'Chinese' race, is that right? And then based on that question, discussion of rights to self determination and territorial rights have come up?

Personally I too am interest in what exactly constitutes the 'Chinese' race (which ethnicities?), but in the context of a stable nation state, what does it matter? By that I mean, history is a pile of shit every modern day country has had to deal with, because people are inherently territorial and form homogeneous groups in an 'us versus them' fashion. But over time, close contact, shared culture and mutual prosperity, bring about a degree of unity. You'll always have some who are disgruntled (Scotland, Quebec, Alaska, Texas, Ryukyu's, Xinjiang, Kashmir etc) but if social progress is being made and the well being of each new generation is improving, the disgruntled will be in the minority.

CPC is no stranger to this, which is why they always talk about social harmony and bringing development to the rural central and northern parts of the country. It can sometimes sound like propaganda but it really is the lesson of history. Continue to improve peoples quality of life and they will buy into the system and become too lazy to challenge in any significant number, even when there are legitimate concerns at play (for those of us in the West dealing with Security versus Privacy...).

Zool said:

Enjoying the discussion. Some very interesting debate about Chinese history and ethnic composition. Everyone seems to be getting a bit heated though...

So a big unanswered question that keeps coming up in one way or another with all of these posts (Mongol, Tibetan etc) is what constitutes 'Chinese'? And this seems to be where the tension is stemming from.

Iron Man is acknowledging 'Chinese' as a definition of Citizenship for those living in China, regardless of ethnic background, but seems to question whether people of Tibetan heritage or Mongol ancestry or the like would consider themselves part of the 'Chinese' race, is that right? And then based on that question, discussion of rights to self determination and territorial rights have come up?

Click to expand...

If you want to be technical, "Chinese" is not a "race". Race as a concept is out of favor these days as it is seen as not very useful or descriptive. "Chinese citizen" is probably a better and more precise descriptor for our current discussion because it allows for the inclusion of different ethnicities within China, including the Tibetans and Uyghurs, and is also irrespective of personal or general ethnic preferences regarding integration vs secession. My point has been not that Tibetans and Uyghurs aren't Chinese citizens (they clearly are), but to ask whether they want to be considered Chinese PEOPLE and how much difference this preference should make in the real world.

Zool said:

Personally I too am interest in what exactly constitutes the 'Chinese' race (which ethnicities?), but in the context of a stable nation state, what does it matter? By that I mean, history is a pile of shit every modern day country has had to deal with, because people are inherently territorial and form homogeneous groups in an 'us versus them' fashion. But over time, close contact, shared culture and mutual prosperity, bring about a degree of unity. You'll always have some who are disgruntled (Scotland, Quebec, Alaska, Texas, Ryukyu's, Xinjiang, Kashmir etc) but if social progress is being made and the well being of each new generation is improving, the disgruntled will be in the minority.

CPC is no stranger to this, which is why they always talk about social harmony and bringing development to the rural central and northern parts of the country. It can sometimes sound like propaganda but it really is the lesson of history. Continue to improve peoples quality of life and they will buy into the system and become too lazy to challenge in any significant number, even when there are legitimate concerns at play (for those of us in the West dealing with Security versus Privacy...).

Click to expand...

By that measure the Hawaiian independence movement is a break in the fabric of space-time for you. Obviously their quality of life is pretty good and yet they still feel what they feel. Will Tibetans and Uyghurs become too lazy to fight for independence when their quality of life is "improved"? Who knows. If they do become too lazy, then this discussion becomes moot. But what if they are still ornery (or become ornery), even after quality of life improvements?

Iron Man said:

Because people like you and the CCP do not want to know the answer and do not want to even ask the question in the first place, presumably because you are afraid of it.

Click to expand...

I see, after so many posts you're still stuck with the same old narrative that "people like you and the CCP" must either (quoting your original words)

“ask if the Tibetan or Uighur people themselves prefer to be under Han rule, regardless of the economic benefits"

or it would prove that "people like you and the CCP" is afraid and ignorant towards the minorities' self-determination rights.

You remain oblivious (or pretend to be oblivious) to the fact that your question is

1. full of pre-installed values and judgment,
2. is specifically designed to facilitate divide and opposition by emphasizing racial/ethnic lines, as well as by disregarding all economic (practical) considerations, and
3. is against the fundamental principles set by the Chinese constitution.

You also remain ignorant to the fact that an independence referendum or inquiry, when carried out in reality and not in your imagination, is not just (and sometimes not really) a democratic process effectively revealing people's true insight on the particular question. Such a question is in effect a political statement, representing a political movement. A political movement based on the so-called opposition between "Han rule versus self-determination", like I said earlier, is against the spirits of the Chinese constitution.

Some may ask, why do people have to agree with the Chinese constitution? Well, first of all, "people like you and the CCP" apparently have no reason to go against their own constitution. For the imagined Tibetan or Uighur groups that are against the current establishment, they don't have to follow any rules, they can form a rebellion if they want. They just have to bear the consequences.

But this is a discussion on what's right, not just what would happen. So what is the moral thing to do? The government should hear minority groups' opinions, and the minorities should be encouraged to participate in politics. That is the moral thing to do. This is already being done at different levels (not saying that it has been done enough or not).

What's NOT the moral thing to do? Irresponsibly throw out leading question which aims to elicit opposition between ethnic groups under the name of "respecting one's right to self-determination", and then accuse those who don't like such question as ignorant or "afraid". That's NOT the right thing to do, and it does not give you a moral high ground at all.

Btw, Iron Man, you don't have to reply to this post (not saying you can't), because seeing all the previous back and forth I don't plan to continue a debate, I feel that would just repeat things and be a waste of my time, plus you're busy enough debating with others. Here I expressed some of my thoughts for others to see, and I believe the logic is clear enough to them, that's all.

Iron Man said:

If you want to be technical, "Chinese" is not a "race". Race as a concept is out of favor these days as it is seen as not very useful or descriptive. "Chinese citizen" is probably a better and more precise descriptor for our current discussion because it allows for the inclusion of different ethnicities within China, including the Tibetans and Uyghurs, and is also irrespective of personal or general ethnic preferences regarding integration vs secession. My point has been not that Tibetans and Uyghurs aren't Chinese citizens (they clearly are), but to ask whether they want to be considered Chinese PEOPLE and how much difference this preference should make in the real world.

Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned with policing words unless someone has a personal issue with the way 'race' is used. Obviously we agree living in China as a citizen can constitute one definition of being 'Chinese' as I agreed in my first post. I'm more interested in an answer to the question I asked: What constitutes 'Chinese' beyond citizenship? I know from my own interactions with Chinese folk in my life, they consider their race to be Chinese, usually have a pride in that and the growth happening in China, and don't sub-identify themselves as Han or Uyghur or what not.

You too seem to identify Chinese as a race in your last sentence, where you question whether Tibetans or Uyghur would want to be considered 'Chinese'. We agree they are Chinese Citizens so what other definition could you be getting at with that question?

Regardless of the answer (and I am interested to learn from anyone who has a perspective on it), I don't think there is any data, or none which you or anyone else has shared so far, that indicates whether Tibetans or Uyghur want to be considered 'Chinese' people (whatever you interpret that to mean outside Citizen), or some other kind of people. Unless there is data or some social indication that a majority or clear % of that ethnic group does NOT want to be associated with Chinese, or American, or Japanese or whatever, then it literally becomes a rhetorical question. Are you asking if someone has this kind of information? Otherwise what's the point of that question?

Iron Man said:

By that measure the Hawaiian independence movement is a break in the fabric of space-time for you. Obviously their quality of life is pretty good and yet they still feel what they feel. Will Tibetans and Uyghurs become too lazy to fight for independence when their quality of life is "improved"? Who knows. If they do become too lazy, then this discussion becomes moot. But what if they are still ornery (or become ornery), even after quality of life improvements?

Click to expand...

Well you bolded my text so its perfectly clear what I said... Are YOU saying there IS a significant number of State of Hawaii population that is wanting independence? That is my first question. My second would be, do you have any data to indicate this, like for example the number of people who belong to the Hawaii Independence Movement as a % of the overall State population? You brought it up so please do enlighten me. Your snark aside, I don't think any bending of the space-time continuum is going to win you points here. Logical answers to the above questions though? Absolutely!

Iron Man said:

Your lack of idea as to what I'm saying represents confusion or incapability on your part, not on mine. Defining what is "Tibetan" is NOT the same as defining who gets to vote in a hypothetical referendum. I find it rather frightening that you are unable to grasp this simple concept. Tibetan Americans would certainly not get to vote. Tibetan Indians would also not get to vote. Tibetans living in China as Chinese citizens would get to vote because they would be deciding on the future of China.

This makes me laugh very hard because you literally FAILED one of your very own requirements: "and does not include foreign citizens that happen to be ethnic Tibetan" which you tried to catch me on. You failed your own fail criticism ROFLMAO. So either your definition is fail or your criticism is fail; which one would you prefer? Now try harder.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you cannot even follow a flow of conversation without getting lost in your own preconceptions.

To recap, here is the relevant exchange:

You: I agree that the province of Tibet is not asking for secession. People like you don’t want to even allow Tibetans to ask it in the first place. How dare they, amiright?

Me: Again, who are these "Tibetans"? Can you provide a definition?

You: An ethnic group that is native to Tibet and speaks a Tibetic language. I struggle to see how this elementary definition is somehow able to elude you.

Click to expand...

As you can see, I asked you for a specific definition. You said that Tibetans aren't allowed to ask for secession. I asked you who you are referring to by "Tibetans". You then gave me a definition that included non-Chinese citizens.

So, if you are still following the logic, you gave me a definition of who should be allowed to ask for secession for the Chinese province of Tibet.

I did not ask you for a definition of "Tibetans" as a culture or ethnicity. I asked you for a definition of who you think should be allowed to ask for the secession of the Tibetan province of China. You failed to understand the question and went on a rambling, self-contradictory rant.

superdog said:

You remain oblivious (or pretend to be oblivious) to the fact that your question is

1. full of pre-installed values and judgment,
2. is specifically designed to facilitate divide and opposition by emphasizing racial/ethnic lines, as well as by disregarding all economic (practical) considerations, and
3. is against the fundamental principles set by the Chinese constitution.

Click to expand...

Regarding 1): like what values and judgment, exactly? Like people have no say in what happens to them or who they are ruled by? You sound just like a dictator. I don't feel necessarily that people in China right now should have full democracy or something like that, but people should have some kind of ability to decide their fate. In the past, Chinese people decided that various emperors should lose their mandate of heaven or left to form their own kingdoms/empires by picking up shovels and picks and making revolution. I would hope that in today's world such a drastic option would not be needed. Clearly you long for those days from the comfort of your computer.

Regarding 2): my question emphasizes racial/ethnic lines for the purpose of "divide and opposition". Only someone like you would view this type of question in insidious and malevolent terms. I'm sure you had the same paranoid reaction to the Scottish and Brexit referendums, amiright? Second, you clearly did not read or chose to deliberately ignore what I have already said about the economic repercussions of secession. Go back and read it again and respond to that instead of pretending I haven't addressed it. If you are too lazy to have followed this thread carefully and do not want to go back and reread what I said, then you should just stop talking here altogether.

Regarding 3): whether a referendum is "against the fundamental principles set by the Chinese constitution" means precisely: NOTHING. A constitution does not by itself constitute what is "moral" or "immoral" (for example a Nazi constitution which calls for death to all Jews or something like that), but what is legal and not legal, which aren't the same things. Also, a constitution like any legal document can be amended if needed as times and circumstances change.

superdog said:

You also remain ignorant to the fact that an independence referendum or inquiry, when carried out in reality and not in your imagination, is not just (and sometimes not really) a democratic process effectively revealing people's true insight on the particular question. Such a question is in effect a political statement, representing a political movement. A political movement based on the so-called opposition between "Han rule versus self-determination", like I said earlier, is against the spirits of the Chinese constitution.

Click to expand...

WTH are you even talking about here? As long as it reveals "true insight" on the particular question, I don't care what you personally call it. And YOU would have to be the one to demonstrate that such a question asked officially somehow does NOT reveal their "true insight" into the question.

superdog said:

Some may ask, why do people have to agree with the Chinese constitution? Well, first of all, "people like you and the CCP" apparently have no reason to go against their own constitution. For the imagined Tibetan or Uighur groups that are against the current establishment, they don't have to follow any rules, they can form a rebellion if they want. They just have to bear the consequences.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Yes, Han have no reason (at least right now) to go against the current Chinese constitution. But if any minority groups HAVE such a reason then they should either start a "rebellion" or else they should just STFU about it. Right? This is exactly what it sounds like you are saying. Again, you sound just like a dictator.

superdog said:

But this is a discussion on what's right, not just what would happen. So what is the moral thing to do? The government should hear minority groups' opinions, and the minorities should be encouraged to participate in politics. That is the moral thing to do. This is already being done at different levels (not saying that it has been done enough or not).

What's NOT the moral thing to do? Irresponsibly throw out leading question which aims to elicit opposition between ethnic groups under the name of "respecting one's right to self-determination", and then accuse those who don't like such question as ignorant or "afraid". That's NOT the right thing to do, and it does not give you a moral high ground at all.

Click to expand...

Elicit opposition between ethnic groups, eh? They don't exist already? So the 1959 uprising, the 1987-89 riots, and the 2008 Tibetan unrests where Tibetans en masse decided to kill Han people both inside and outside of the TAR was just a 'few' bad apples incited by the Dalai Lama himself to foment separatism, right? Tibetans in general LOVE Han people, right?? RIGHT??? And Uyghur terrorists involved in multiple killings of Han ethnics in Xinjiang were all the workings of a few bad apples instigated by Rebiya Kadeer herself rather than representing the extreme portion of a more general Uyghur discontent towards Han people or the Chinese government. Uyghurs in general LOVE Han people, right?? RIGHT??? AND YOU KNOW THIS ANSWER HOW EXACTLY, especially when you feel that even asking this question is a sign of "separatism"?

superdog said:

Btw, Iron Man, you don't have to reply to this post (not saying you can't), because seeing all the previous back and forth I don't plan to continue a debate, I feel that would just repeat things and be a waste of my time, plus you're busy enough debating with others. Here I expressed some of my thoughts for others to see, and I believe the logic is clear enough to them, that's all.

Click to expand...

What, you fear my answer? LOL then practice what you preach and stop continuing the debate.

Zool said:

Regardless of the answer (and I am interested to learn from anyone who has a perspective on it), I don't think there is any data, or none which you or anyone else has shared so far, that indicates whether Tibetans or Uyghur want to be considered 'Chinese' people (whatever you interpret that to mean outside Citizen), or some other kind of people. Unless there is data or some social indication that a majority or clear % of that ethnic group does NOT want to be associated with Chinese, or American, or Japanese or whatever, then it literally becomes a rhetorical question. Are you asking if someone has this kind of information? Otherwise what's the point of that question?

Click to expand...

I think he wants to prove that others are "afraid" and have "imperialist thinking", because during PRC rule (or otherwise) there was never any independence referendum or survey asking the Tibetans or Uighur "do you want to be Chinese or not", and some people who participated in the discussion here don't support asking such a question like he did.

The problem is that he meddled with two concepts, one is the legal status of being Chinese, the other is the ethnic/cultural self-identification of Chinese. For the former, you don't have a choice unless you emigrate to another country and then renounce your original citizenship. For the latter, nobody but yourself can decide but it has no legal implication. You don't get to say "I don't want to self-identify as a Chinese so you (the government) no longer have rights to govern me as a Chinese citizen". It's not just China, but most countries in the world runs like this. Yet this guy tries to jump between the two concepts to create an argument that "you don't want to ask them whether they want secession, so you don't respect how people identify themselves, what an imperialist!". It is a silly argument.

Iron Man said:

What, you fear my answer? LOL then practice what you preach and stop continuing the debate.

Click to expand...

Yup I'm so very scared, you can tell yourself that if that feeds your ego.

And I already told you I'm not debating with you, you're not the only one that reads my post you know.

superdog said:

I think he wants to prove that others are "afraid" and have "imperialist thinking", because during PRC rule (or otherwise) there was never any independence referendum or survey asking the Tibetans or Uighur "do you want to be Chinese or not", and some people who participated in the discussion here don't support asking such a question like he did.

The problem is that he meddled with two concepts, one is the legal status of being Chinese, the other is the ethnic/cultural self-identification of Chinese. For the former, you don't have a choice unless you emigrate to another country and then renounce your original citizenship. For the latter, nobody but yourself can decide but it has no legal implication. You don't get to say "I don't want to self-identify as a Chinese so you (the government) no longer have rights to govern me as a Chinese citizen". It's not just China, but most countries in the world runs like this. Yet this guy tries to jump between the two concepts to create an argument that "you don't want to ask them whether they want secession, so you don't respect how people identify themselves, what an imperialist!". It is a silly argument.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Sovereignty is the pillar upon which international relations are conducted. Sovereignty encompasses the concepts of respecting another nation's borders, and not interfering in their domestic affairs. It is the basis upon which all mutually respecting relations are built between nations.

The hidden agenda behind these "self-determination" advocates is to undermine a nation's sovereignty using ethnic or religious divides, while couching them in seemingly righteous language.

superdog said:

I think he wants to prove that others are "afraid" and have "imperialist thinking", because during PRC rule (or otherwise) there was never any independence referendum or survey asking the Tibetans or Uighur "do you want to be Chinese or not", and some people who participated in the discussion here don't support asking such a question like he did.

The problem is that he meddled with two concepts, one is the legal status of being Chinese, the other is the ethnic/cultural self-identification of Chinese. For the former, you don't have a choice unless you emigrate to another country and then renounce your original citizenship. For the latter, nobody but yourself can decide but it has no legal implication. You don't get to say "I don't want to self-identify as a Chinese so you (the government) no longer have rights to govern me as a Chinese citizen". It's not just China, but most countries in the world runs like this. Yet this guy tries to jump between the two concepts to create an argument that "you don't want to ask them whether they want secession, so you don't respect how people identify themselves, what an imperialist!". It is a silly argument.

Click to expand...

I agree as you said in your second paragraph, there is an obvious distinction between legal identification and cultural self-identification. Chinese people I have met outside China have never sub-identified as Han or other and on travels to China I've never brought up such a question so can't say. And I still don't know exactly what makes up 'Chinese' beyond Chinese Citizenship. Maybe its down to culture more than anything.

But as to Iron Man's intentions with his posts, I can't make a judgement because I really don't know what he's driving at. It's why I made a couple of reply's to him and asked some questions. We'll see what he says. I think you are right that some people here don't support asking some of the questions he's asked, PERIOD, and responded in kind which put him on the defensive (and that makes sense). But per my last message to him I honestly don't understand what he is driving at because the question he asks seems rhetorical with no information to support a conclusion one way or the other, and so answers to some of my questions would at least help me to understand his point.