There are a lot of snide remarks in that answer, however, detracting from otherwise great information. (Eg what does the Dalai Lama and Uighur oppression have to do with this?)
I am grateful for these "snide remarks", as to me there is nothing so important and interesting as trying to bring humans out of oppression and suffering (no matter who is the instigator).
Something I found amazing (horrific) when reading the article: what if this writing only sounds snide to us, but not to others? Consider your examples:
> Some of these Uyghurs, Kazakhs are sent to the reeducation camps and they are forced to learn Mandarin Chinese and the latest drip irrigation techniques to save water and reduce costs. Moreover, each village is assigned with one or more communist party members to guide them through to make sure that they don’t mess up the newly cultivated land.
> I mean, the Chinese government has also forced Tibetans to build a massive amount of greenhouses on the Tibetan plateau. Those Tibetans have no time to go to temples for worshipping any more, instead, they have to work in the greenhouses taking care of tomatoes. This is why Dalai Lama is not so happy to hear this.
This is horrific and dystopian to me. But imagine if you believed the Uyghurs/Kazakhs are inferior peoples, and that Tibetan temples/monks are evil. You could read these paragraphs and consider all of this to be positive. I wonder how popular that type of thinking is in China.
> But imagine if you believed the Uyghurs/Kazakhs are inferior peoples, and that Tibetan temples/monks are evil.
That's a big stretch. More likely that
1. The author, like many Han Chinese people, was raised in a completely atheist environment, and just don't put any value on religious activities at all.
2. Again, like in many East Asian countries, Chinese people value/praise hard work above "enjoying life".
So, what you see as horrific and dystopian is seen as progress and a sign of a thriving community.
> what does the Dalai Lama and Uighur oppression have to do with this
The snark likely comes from the fact that Xinjiang is consistently portrayed in Western media as a nightmarish, dystopian, Orwellian hellhole suffering under the iron fisted oppression of the Communist Party. They ignore the very real benefits that have been afforded to millions of poverty-stricken people in Xinjiang via progressive government policies, while tunnel visioning solely on human rights abuses.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the answer, however. Xinjiang and Tibet are complicated, China has obviously improved their economies and has obviously trampled on human rights. Both of those things can easily coexist (the same could be said about western colonialism, one doesn’t excuse the other).
The western media does report those things, it’s just that the Chinese media only focuses on those pieces from the western media that it wants to be defensive about. Call it tunnel tunnel vision if you will.
I don’t disagree with you that the two can coexist. I’m saying the mainstream publications have skewed most people’s perception of Xinjiang so far out of the realm of reality that they would likely be absolutely shocked if they ever actually set foot there. World class airports, modern agricultural techniques, a high speed rail system that would put the ones in NY or London to shame [1]. Stray from the “dystopian Xinjiang” narrative and you’re automatically branded a 50c army propagandist.
I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw a sensational exposé about alleviating poverty through technology-driven, sustainable farming in Xinjiang, in a mainstream publication. On the other hand, I don’t have enough hairs on my head to count the number of condemnations and denouncements.
This is likely the cause of frustration that you see seeping through in answers such as the one posted.
Meanwhile California can't even put together a high speed rail line between SF and LA because of Human rights.
Your right to have good public transit is being violated by someone else's right to not have a rail go through their lawn. Protect that man's right to a lawn at all costs.
So is your argument that they should be grateful for what they e been given? Because this is an absurd argument. Nowhere is it written that they can’t have both be treated like the rest of the country and economic prosperity like the rest of the country.
This is just a bullshit way of justifying oppression using the economic development they would have received anyway.
People make the same absurd arguments about slavery, and lack of suffrage, and it’s just as obviously bullshit in those cases as it is in this one.
"Tibet used to be a feudal serfdom with the Lamas lording over everyone else. Most Dalai Lamas were murdered by their rivals for control over the country. So yeah, of course the Lamas are upset that they're no longer in power."
"I’m of the opinion that it’s impossible to achieve economic progress with social upheaval, threats of separatism and terrorist attacks. Economic progress is incompatible with the others.
It's the extreme poverty and lack of economic opportunities which drive destabilizing forces such as these.
Prosperity by means of terrorism then separatism is the path offered by the WUC and ETIM.
Prosperity by means of forced “re-education” in vocational skills and poverty alleviation plans [1] is the one offered by the CCP.
I think it’s the CCP’s gambit that when there is economic prosperity in the region, there will be room for expanding human rights. There won’t be a need or desire to separate from a system which you are actively benefiting from and when that threat goes away, so do the armoured patrols and surveillance mechanisms.
Re-reading my comment, I should have actually written “I don’t disagree with you that the two can coexist, but only in certain contexts”.
I’m of the opinion that it’s impossible to achieve economic progress with social upheaval, threats of separatism and terrorist attacks. Economic progress is incompatible with the others.
It's the extreme poverty and lack of economic opportunities which drive destabilizing forces such as these.
Prosperity by means of terrorism then separatism is the path offered by the WUC and ETIM.
Prosperity by means of forced “re-education” in vocational skills and poverty alleviation plans [1] is the one offered by the CCP.
I think it’s the CCP’s gambit that when there is economic prosperity in the region, there will be room for expanding human rights. There won’t be a need or desire to separate from a system which you are actively benefiting from and when that threat goes away, so do the armoured patrols and surveillance mechanisms.
It didn’t really work for the British, it didn’t work for the Afrikaners, it didn’t really work for the Americans, why do the Chinese think they will get it right?
If I understand the point you’re trying to make correctly, you’re likening China’s claim to Xinjiang to that of the historical colonial powers?
Because if we’re going to go down that road, I have to warn you that the Xinjiang story is not nearly as black and white as the British, Dutch or American stories.
I’m pretty aware of the history: the Qing brought the Uighurs into north Xinjiang to genocide the Mongolians, who already killed a bunch of Han living there already. Still, again, nothing in history has shown that China is any better at colonizing lands than the west (or even the Russians).
>They ignore the very real benefits that have been afforded to millions of poverty-stricken people in Xinjiang via progressive government policies, while tunnel visioning solely on human rights abuses.
And I'm sure that many folks made the argument that Africans working on plantations in the South had a higher standard of living than where they came from.
> Xinjiang is consistently portrayed in Western media as a nightmarish, dystopian, Orwellian hellhole suffering under the iron fisted oppression of the Communist Party
That’s because it is, and if you visited you wouldn’t be so flippant about it. In large part because a tourist can’t even make a stop in the area without getting their own personal police minder.
I’ve visited Xinjiang in 2006, before the 2008 riots mind you, but it’s just another Chinese province and you wouldn’t know there was trouble going on if it weren’t for the armed police, extra internet fire walling, and so on.
That is not to say there isn’t a problem, but hanging out in Urumqi is definitely nowhere near as interesting as hanging out in Pyongyang.
Tibet is much harder to visit, foreigners have to apply for a permit (which you don’t need to visit Xinjiang).
If you follow the right people you can have a good experience. I try to strike some balance to avoid echo chambers. If you've ever wanted to learn the perspectives on life and fighting of a convicted war criminal/terrorist then Quora's your place.
The thing I absolutely loathe, however are these clickbait answers - always about sex - written by anonymous users and normal answers that - because the photos load before the text - have borderline porn to draw people in. It ruins the site.
And it’s the top answer, clearly distinguishable from the answers you’re referring to, which I think is better than most social media, HN included.