Ethnic minorities

[DeletedUser]

Nope, thread stays open.

 

[DeletedUser]

OK.
The thread only gets messy, because everyone post different ideas, which they think are relevant. But the thread has become too messy to create a nice debate.

I think we should chop it to different new threads like
Hitler's assassination (the assassination of a tyrant)
China vs. its minority groups or minority groups wanting to have indepence in general
The (political) development of China and other countries like it and how we should react to it.
Warfare (including all kinds of warefare) as a gerneral idea concerning past and present.

Otherwise the debate just can't really continue.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be quite honest, Parcific, the only reason the topic touched upon so many areas was that you kept grasping at straws in your arguments. You posed ridiculous, overgeneralized stances and then doubled back and contradicted yourself, as if trying to figure out where you were in this whole debate, but wanting to be consistent in your adamant persuasion.

Look, it's okay not to know the answer to something, but it doesn't make for good reading, nor good persuasion, when you flip-flop on your righteous indignations.

 

[DeletedUser]

The thread get to so many directions, because people mention new things. So need to respond to that. Like someone mentioned "revolution" and stated my opinion on that. And then we discussed about revolutions and warfare as a general idea.
denisero think that assassinating Hitler is relevant to this topic, but I disagree. I still have to respond on her question though, so he gets satisfied.

If you think a contradict myself, please point it out, so I can rethink the matter and correct myself, if necessary. A mere statement doesn't give me a good feeling and is not a good way of discussing.

 

[DeletedUser]

It would be easier to point out your condradictions if you didn't post books every time you responded. Look up the word eloquent, then practice it and come back when you're ready.

 

[DeletedUser]

Then just point out some, the most important perhaps.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be honest with you, I only skimmed over your frustratingly bad posts. I couldn't be bothered to go back since it's all been addressed by other people already. It shouldn't be our job to assist you in your own arguments. Again, go luck up the word of the day, study it, practice it, and love it, then return to the adult table to present a fresh argument that I will most likely tear apart.

 

[DeletedUser]

You only skimmed through everything and you can't get the whole picture. I don't want to waste my time with you guys discussing a topic which doesn't really interest you. Otherwise you would read through and point out, not making claims.

You think my arguments are bad? It's your right to do that, to have different opinions. But please give reasons. It's not "eloquent" to just make statements without substantiations.

If you could would you go back in time and assassinate Hitler in 1933 to stop the Holocaust or would you sit and try to talk him out of it. How long would you talk to him and urge him to change his policies before realizing it was an utter failure. How many people would have to die before you would decide that enough was enough and talking was not the answer.

I don't see that the Hitler question is relevant to this topic. Han-Chinese are not Hitlers. If you think so, then you do them a great wrong. How much do you know about them? You can justify the killing an insane despot, but you can't justify killing people from an ethnicity with the same reasons.

I really don't know much of what is going on in China.

If you really don't know, then get to know something, but from various sources. Please not from only one kind of source, otherwise you won't get the complete picture. Then, you can talk to someone who has lived and walked around in that particular country for years.

If you don't want to get informed, then there is no point in discussing. The topic doesn't interest anyone anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

The Hitler question is relevant. You have a tree hugger attitude that violence is never the answer. There should be no wars. Blah blah blah. Would you kill one person if it would stop the murder of millions? Would you kill a thousand people if it would stop the murder of millions? Where do you draw the line? Sometimes there just is no diplomacy options available and war or violence must be declared. It seems you are saying that if talking isn't enough then everybody should just shut up and deal with it (just look at your post regarding Native Americans).

You are making blanket statements about humanity. Obviously you don't know about every struggle or human rights issues or war that took place in the world. Don't point fingers at me and say because I don't know what is going on in China I don't have a right to point out your flawed arguments. Instead of making a blanket statement or pretending to know what is going on in China I asked you a very specific question, which you still haven't answered from several pages ago, to find out exactly where your tree hugging morals end.

Your desperation to have the thread closed just shows you have no clue where you stand personally on anything and since you have been pretty much publicly spanked wish to hide your red throbbing bottom. Cheers to Hellstromm for keeping it open.

 

[DeletedUser]

You only skimmed through everything and you can't get the whole picture. I don't want to waste my time with you guys discussing a topic which doesn't really interest you. Otherwise you would read through and point out, not making claims.

You think my arguments are bad? It's your right to do that, to have different opinions. But please give reasons. It's not "eloquent" to just make statements without substantiations.




I don't see that the Hitler question is relevant to this topic. Han-Chinese are not Hitlers. If you think so, then you do them a great wrong. How much do you know about them? You can justify the killing an insane despot, but you can't justify killing people from an ethnicity with the same reasons.



If you really don't know, then get to know something, but from various sources. Please not from only one kind of source, otherwise you won't get the complete picture. Then, you can talk to someone who has lived and walked around in that particular country for years.

If you don't want to get informed, then there is no point in discussing. The topic doesn't interest anyone anyway.

It's not difficult to look at this post and look at the sheer desperation of your words at this point. You keep insisting that no one is interested in this topic, but your version of "interested" seems to be that everyone needs to agree with you otherwise they're simply uninformed, which isn't the case. You neglected to answer Deni's very valid question which again demonstrates that you're either backed into a corner, or just too blind to realize that you're backed into a corner, which is it?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ps.: I don't want to dogde the Hitler question and I have once the same discussion about that topic with another group. I disagree with assassinating Hitler in 1933, because the Germans could have got rid of Hitler and the Nazis by other ways more effectively at that time. the Nazis never had the majority of the German people, but there was just no organized opposition, because the Germans were too split up. In 1933 the best way to deafeat the Nazis was to assemble together, storm into the Nazi buildings and arrest all Nazi officials. However, the German majority didn't realize, that Hitler will do so much crime in the next ten years, even though everything what Hitler wanted were stated in "Mein Kampf". And the Germans wanted to have war, because they felt hummiliated by the defeat in the WWI. If Hitler has only been assassinated, the German people would still get blindfolded by the Nazi propaganda and Himmler, Goebbles or some person like that would have been the successor.
Around 1943 the situation was different. There was no other way to end the war, because Hitler wanted to fight it to the end. Any other attempt to stop the Nazi couldn't work anymore, because the German people had become too weak to turn against the Nazis or had become absorbed by the Nazis due to all these propaganda. Then, the assassination, the last resort, is justified, because it will end the war and prevent the death of millions of people.

I actually think that you are defelcting the main topic by asking the Hitler question. You have to differentiate the assassionation of a lunatic despot with a conflict between ethnic groups, created by prejudices, history, political and religious ideas and so on. With the assassination of Hitler, you have good prospect to end a war and same millions' life. But with a group of people injuring people from another ethnicity, that will sooner or later turn awry and become war or terrorism/city-guerrilla-like warfare, which will claim lifes of thousands of people, and if it escalates, even life of millions.

So are you really about to say "Because the Germans are justified to kill Hitler, people from one ethnicity are also justified to kill people from another ethnicity to reach political goals"? If so, I'll not agree with you, because these are two totally different situations.

I have nothing against them "fighting" for their ideals, but I think the way they do it is wrong.

Here is my answer to Denisero's question, and she hasn't even respondet to it yet, except making blank statements that I'm wrong.

I have sympathy with the minority groups too, but I don't think they can reach anything with injuring people. That's only a good way to let out anger, but a bad way to win political goals. It's obvious, that the Chinese government is well prepared for riots and even foreign sanctions. The only weak point of them is the sentiments of their people, which, sometimes, can really put pressure on them. But right now, with ravaging minority groups, it has quite good control of the sentiments of their people and thus gain their support, even when it incarcerates so many people.
So I believe, creating faith between the minority groups and the majority Chinese and then putting pressure on the government has a higher chance of success than injuring civilians in order to put pressure on the Chinese government.

Besides, I don't like the idea of people from one ethnicity fighting against people from another ethnicity. That's a huge conflict, but there's nothing idealistic about that for me.

Here is my opinion on what the minority groups should do. If you read it carefully, you'll know that it's not:

It seems you are saying that if talking isn't enough then everybody should just shut up and deal with it (just look at your post regarding Native Americans)

If you have read my post reagarding Native Americans, then you would have noticed my very bitter and sarcastic remark "Thank God for America that Indian don't feel so suppressed anymore because they had been suppressed for a long time.", that the Native Americans are like "tamed" by the Americans, after so much wrong done on them. Americans profit from it, because there are no riots coming from Indians. But Indians seem to forget, that the land was once there's and have "shut up and dealt with it". That's what I tried to say and you misunderstood it. I was not saying, that Indians were not maltreated.

I see no point in discussing with people, who don't really read through my post seriously and give clear and relevant answers. So I requested the lock.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's definitley not an answer to the question, that's the sort of dodgy answer a politician would give to a reporter when they ask a tough question. She asked you a specific question if you would attempt to talk Hitler out of his ways, then if you woudl kill him. You responded by saying that the Germans could have blah, blah blah blah...

The second quote is just crap, crap, crap. Peaceful routes weren't working, what aren't you understanding? You are horribly ignorant. Your entire presence in this thread has been as follows:

"They're doing it wrong, they should be peaceful."
"What if peaceful doesn't work?"
"THEY'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
"How should they do it?"
"Peacefully."

REVOLVING DOOR.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you really so completely dense? 1943??? You think 1943 was the appropriate or justified time to kill Hitler in order to save millions of people? Millions had already died by then. How wonderful that 4 years after the war started you would finally agree the time for diplomacy was over. **rollseyes**

So are you really about to say "Because the Germans are justified to kill Hitler, people from one ethnicity are also justified to kill people from another ethnicity to reach political goals"? If so, I'll not agree with you, because these are two totally different situations.

There were 42 attempts on Hitler's life. They all failed. They didn't come from just Germans but from other nationalities as well. Why? Because of his evil policies and because diplomacy did not work. Read up on your history please.

You still haven't answered my question.

Should people be killing people based on ethnicity? No. Don't be ridiculous. If there are problems between different ethnic groups and one or both have leaders that are hell bent on destroying the other and diplomacy has run it's course then most likely there will be violence. That is just how it goes. Does it make it right? It does not. When one group of people are impinging on the rights of another group of people the oppressed have the right and the obligation to take a stand. If the only means they have available to them are rising up with pitchforks and stones in hand then they do so, even when the other side has machine guns. Why? Because all people are of equal worth and treating one group like they are sub-humans causes primal instincts of survival to kick in. Personal survival, tribe survival, etc. It is not wrong to fight back.

So I believe, creating faith between the minority groups and the majority Chinese and then putting pressure on the government has a higher chance of success than injuring civilians in order to put pressure on the Chinese government.

Yes, I see this is more of your shut up and take it line. Of course the Chinese government has control over the minority. Why is the minority fighting back? Do you think they are just sitting around going, oh...gee...I think today is a good time to die for no reason. Obviously something is going on that they feel is worth risking their lives to take a stand for.

I see no point in discussing with people, who don't really read through my post seriously and give clear and relevant answers. So I requested the lock.

Nice try. You don't make sense...ever. You say one thing. Then you backtrack and say another. Then you turn around and avoid questions. Then you turn around and try to point fingers elsewhere. You ended up looking like a fool in this thread and want to wish it all away

 

[DeletedUser]

You didn't resond to the Indian quesiton.

If there are problems between different ethnic groups and one or both have leaders that are hell bent on destroying the other and diplomacy has run it's course then most likely there will be violence. That is just how it goes. Does it make it right? It does not.

The leaders are hell bent, but what about the people, that might want to live in peace? Not all from the minority groups are hating the han-Chinese, because the Chinese has spent a lot of money to improve the life of the people in the desert like region. Anyway, life in peace time is definetly better than in war time. Denisero, you're reaised in a prospering land with peace, but don't underestimate its value. Other people living in other regions want to have peace too.

If the only means they have available to them are rising up with pitchforks and stones in hand then they do so, even when the other side has machine guns. Why? Because all people are of equal worth and treating one group like they are sub-humans causes primal instincts of survival. Personal survival, tribe survival, etc. It is not wrong to fight back.

Cool down, Denisero! Ask your reason, not your sentiments. If they do that, they won't survive. You need to do what gives you a high chance of success and not what follows your primal instincts.

Obviously something is going on that they feel is worth risking their lives to take a stand for.

Yeah, it's obvious that they want to have indepence, because they are a nation of their own. It's nationalism that drives them to kill Chinese civilians. You mentioned that the Chinese live like royalties, but in it is only a blank statement. The Chinese people living in the XingJian province are only people looking for jobs there or trying to create their own busness, because everything is cheaper there (as it is a quite isolated land, which has desert-like landscapes. You do have geographical knowledge on the matter, do you?).
If you have watched the news carefully, then you would have noticed that it mentioned quite briefly, that more than hundred people have died and some couple of hundreds injured.
These are all harmless Chinese civilians. I don't think they deserve to die, so their deaths become a tool to make pressure on their government. How will the Chinese government react to this kind of method? Definetely not granting them indepence.

What do you really think the minority group will reach by using your methods of "primal instincts"? How is your idealistic scenario? But please be realistic.

 

[DeletedUser]

You didn't resond to the Indian quesiton.

What Indian question. I answered the question you asked me. If you had another one in your pitiful wall of failed arguments please point it out. Answer my question as well.

The leaders are hell bent, but what about the people, that might want to live in peace? Not all from the minority groups are hating the han-Chinese, because the Chinese has spent a lot of money to improve the life of the people in the desert like region. Anyway, life in peace time is definetly better than in war time. Denisero, you're reaised in a prospering land with peace, but don't underestimate its value. Other people living in other regions want to have peace too.

Once again I will explain to you that I don't know what is going on in China. I have not claimed to know nor have I tried to assert my position regarding the situation in China. I am rebutting your blanket statements by giving you situations in history that you are ignoring.

You just said the leaders are hell bent. Okay, how did they become leaders? I assume they have people that support them and aren't both just crazy people that out of the blue decided whatever policies and attitudes towards the other without some sort of following. Otherwise I'm pretty sure they would have been deposed of their leadership status.

Cool down, Denisero! Ask your reason, not your sentiments. If they do that, they won't survive. You need to do what gives you a high chance of success and not what follows your primal instincts.

Are you tired of looking up to see all the things that go over your head?

Yeah, it's obvious that they want to have indepence, because they are a nation of their own. It's nationalism that drives them to kill Chinese civilians. You mentioned that the Chinese live like royalties, but in it is only a blank statement. The Chinese people living in the XingJian province are only people looking for jobs there or trying to create their own busness, because everything is cheaper there (as it is a quite isolated land, which has desert-like landscapes. You do have geographical knowledge on the matter, do you?).
If you have watched the news carefully, then you would have noticed that it mentioned quite briefly, that more than hundred people have died and some couple of hundreds injured.
These are all harmless Chinese civilians. I don't think they deserve to die, so their deaths become a tool to make pressure on their government. How will the Chinese government react to this kind of method? Definetely not granting them indepence.

What do you really think the minority group will reach? How is your idealistic scenario? But please be realistic.[/quote]
Please quote me where I said the Chinese live like royalty. I have specifically not delved into the China situation because again, I don't have a great enough knowledge of it to talk about that situation. Do not pin words on me I haven't said. I was talking in general terms of oppressed people, not the Chinese.

Let's just agree the Chinese are not known for their humanitarian efforts nor the freedom of their people. I'm sure the only thing the Chinese government is concerned with is the prosperity of the Chinese government and not it's people. That can be said for most, if not all, governments, but particularly of the Chinese.

You be realistic.

 

[DeletedUser]

The leaders are hell bent, but what about the people, that might want to live in peace? Not all from the minority groups are hating the han-Chinese, because the Chinese has spent a lot of money to improve the life of the people in the desert like region. Anyway, life in peace time is definetly better than in war time. Denisero, you're reaised in a prospering land with peace, but don't underestimate its value. Other people living in other regions want to have peace too.

Oh right. But those who don't have it already don't deserve it? Basically, what you're saying is if you're not already one of the priviledged to have equal rights and peaceful protest isn't working, don't upset the status quo? That just sounds stupid to me. I don't think you know what the hell you're getting at here.

Another thing is the books you're typing. All that needless fluff. Why do you feel the need to be so needlessly pretentious in all of your responses? Why do I have to sort through babble in order to figure out what your misinformed point is?

Cool down, Denisero! Ask your reason, not your sentiments. If they do that, they won't survive. You need to do what gives you a high chance of success and not what follows your primal instincts.

You're clearly not reading anyone else's posts, are you? Hellstromm already pointed out that many revolutions happened because a minority took up violence and overthrew the majority opressors.

Yeah, it's obvious that they want to have indepence, because they are a nation of their own. It's nationalism that drives them to kill Chinese civilians. You mentioned that the Chinese live like royalties, but in it is only a blank statement. The Chinese people living in the XingJian province are only people looking for jobs there or trying to create their own busness, because everything is cheaper there

Nobody is condoning the murder of innocents, but you need to realize that extreme neglect and resistance sometimes needs to be met with extreme violence.

(as it is a quite isolated land, which has desert-like landscapes. You do have geographical knowledge on the matter, do you?).

WOW THIS IS RELEVENT. IT'S COMPLETELY NECESSARY THAT SHE KNOW THE LANDSCAPE TO DEBATE THE IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THIS WHOLE DEBAUCLE, ISN'T IT?

You sound more and more with every ridiculous word you utter out of your mouth.

How will the Chinese government react to this kind of method? Definetely not granting them indepence.

What do you really think the minority group will reach? How is your idealistic scenario? But please be realistic.

I love how you pose a completely logical answer to your silly rhetorical question in the same sentence. It's like your regular brain is actually detached from the impulse you have to post in this thread. That last quote pretty much sums everything up, in your own words, yet you're still not going to get it, are you?

 

[DeletedUser]

Please quote me where I said the Chinese live like royalty.

Yep. If I was being oppressed and my children were being oppressed I would die in the hopes of giving them a better future. If my people were being starved, executed at random, tortured, denied basic human rights and treated worse than animals while the ruling class lived like royalty I would fight back. If you wouldn't fight back that makes you a coward or an idiot. To sit back and accept such behavior teaches your children they have no worth. Attitudes like yours helped Hitler get away with what he did; As long as it isn't happening to 'me' then it's best to just keep my head down and hope for the best. That attitude disgusts me.

Edit: On a side note I really can't wait til Divest pops back up on the board.

You say, that all these is relevant to our topic, which concerns China.

By these statements, you've stated, that the Uigurs are being starved, executed and denied basic rights. You also said, that the "ruling class", if there really is one, live like royalties. You mean the Han-Chinese, but they are not some kind of "ruling class", slavemaster or something like that.

And when I say that I don't support the riots, you compare the situation with Nazis and Hitler, saying again and again that it's relevant (to our topic which greatly concern China). It's evident that you think the situation in China is like that under Hitler. Otherwise you won't think that killing Hitler and killing Han Chinese is the same thing.

With your judgemental statements, you really seem to be an insider China expert.

And later you state several time, that you know little to nothing about China, its situation and its people by saying:

I really don't know much of what is going on in China.

Once again I will explain to you that I don't know what is going on in China. I have not claimed to know nor have I tried to assert my position regarding the situation in China.

I bet you'll disagree with me somehow, again. But being honest, aren't your contradictions evident?

 

[DeletedUser]

You say, that all these is relevant to our topic, which concerns China.

By these statements, you've stated, that the Uigurs are being starved, executed and denied basic rights. You also said, that the "ruling class", if there really is one, live like royalties. You mean the Han-Chinese, but they are not some kind of "ruling class", slavemaster or something like that.

And when I say that I don't support the riots, you compare the situation with Nazis and Hitler, saying again and again that it's relevant (to our topic which greatly concern China). It's evident that you think the situation in China is like that under Hitler. Otherwise you won't think that killing Hitler and killing Han Chinese is the same thing.

With your judgemental statements, you really seem to be an insider China expert.

And later you state several time, that you know little to nothing about China, its situation and its people by saying:





I bet you'll disagree with me somehow, again. But being honest, aren't your contradictions evident?

Oh really? This is a topic just about China? Funny then how you started the thread, chose to call it Ethnic Minorities and didn't mention China at all in your first post. In fact, you didn't mention China until your 11th post (post 41 in the thread). Aren't your contradictions biting you in the ass now?

Your first post in case you forgot:

Don't know if people have though about it. But it has something to do with The West, as it also concerns Indians, who get defeated by the White and become an ethnic minority:sad:.

In most big countries there are ethnic minorities. Sometimes they want to create a country of their own. Mostly they only get some adventages, or in bad cases even disadventages.

So should these ethnic minorities create a nation of their own, in expense of the current nations, which get land reductions. And should ethnic minorities get favourable policies or treated like everyone else. Our is it like a kind racism to differentiate people in many ethnic minorities.

What do you think?

Here is what I need to know about the situation in China. Are the citizens being killed working as toy makers? After all, as long as I can buy cheap toys at Walmart I don't care.

Edit: Parcific, I love how you are going back and editing your posts to try to make me look like I said something I didn't. The edit you did above adding the line
Originally Posted by Denisero
Please quote me where I said the Chinese live like royalty.
and then quoting me to make it look like I said that is pathetic. What you quoted me on was a reply to a post in which you were talking about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement and not one word of China was mentioned. Yet another epic fail on your part. Now you are just acting like a kid that is trying to cheat to win a point in a debate you are failing at. Silly boy.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, it's obvious that they want to have indepence, because they are a nation of their own. It's nationalism that drives them to kill Chinese civilians. You mentioned that the Chinese live like royalties, but in it is only a blank statement. The Chinese people living in the XingJian province are only people looking for jobs there or trying to create their own busness, because everything is cheaper there (as it is a quite isolated land, which has desert-like landscapes. You do have geographical knowledge on the matter, do you?).
If you have watched the news carefully, then you would have noticed that it mentioned quite briefly, that more than hundred people have died and some couple of hundreds injured.
These are all harmless Chinese civilians. I don't think they deserve to die, so their deaths become a tool to make pressure on their government. How will the Chinese government react to this kind of method? Definetely not granting them indepence.

What do you really think the minority group will reach by using your methods of "primal instincts"? How is your idealistic scenario? But please be realistic.

I have managed to stay out of this thread for quite a while now, because the nonsense being spouted was getting further and further off topic. If you want to return to the discussion of the Uyghur people and their demands for independance perhaps you should answer my assertion that these are not the actions of radical nationalists, but a people who have been disenfranchised by the state.
The Uyghur people have been prevented from following their moslem faith by the Chinese government for over 50 years, they are discriminated against in terms of education and employment opportunities. Many Han chinese have emigrated into their homeland, and take all the good jobs and all the government positions while the Uyghur find it hard to gain any employment at all. There are also significant oil reserves in Xinjiang, which yeild no benefits to the traditional landholders, only the ruling Han.
A demonstration or two is perhaps called for to fight for their rights. Many Uyghur people have been killed by government security forces and Han vigilantes. You are making this out to be a one sided revolt by utra-nationalists, it is not, it is a desperate fight for rights by a people who have been oppressed by their government and denied any other recourse.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right, we are really getting off topic. So I requested to lock it.

Maybe we stil can continue a proper discussion.

The Uyghur people have been prevented from following their moslem faith by the Chinese government for over 50 years

Being more precise, the Uigurs were only allowed to practise Moslem religion according to a community recorcnized by the government. So there is no real religous freedom.

Lack of religious and political freedom is not only the problem of Uigur people alone. Han Chinese people haven't got religious and political freedom either.

But the situation changes continuously in the 50 years. At first, the Uigurs supported communism and welcomed the Chinese. Later, communism turned awry under MaoZheDong. The time called "Culture Revolution" was really the living hell for all Chinese, when political and religious differences resulted in persecutions. China was that, what North Korea is today during the time of the Cold War. But the "Culture Revolution" is over now. The situation has changed in the recent 30 years, with more and more people aware of what political freedom means. Living condition continues to get better in all regions, including in XingJiang. China is "open" to Western countries. There is a prospect of a non-violent democratization in China though gradual reforms. So I don't have an extremely negative view on China anymore.

...they are discriminated against in terms of education and employment opportunities.

You can't say that all Uigurs get no job. Some even have become rich. But it is true that many had bad education due to lack of schools and thus have a big disandvantage. But more schools are being built and more teachers sent to the region.

Have you ever been to the US? Nobody has to give up their own language. If they want to send their children to school then they are expected to know English because that is what is taught in school. They are not forbidden to speak their own language.

Go to any large city in the US and you'll find a Chinatown and sections of the city completely inhabited by different ethnic groups in a cluster. Italians with Italians, Vietnamese with Vietnamese, etc. Their culture thrives in these areas and I would assume for those not living in large metropolitan areas that traditions are carried on within families and at home.

Well, that can work in China as well. Of course, their children have to learn Chinese in order to get a good positon. But that doesn't mean that they have to forget their Uigur language. People in America all speak English, but they can also speak their native tongue at home.

Many Han chinese have emigrated into their homeland

You speak of Han Chinese "emigrating" into their "homeland", which is not correct. China is one souvergn country. Han Chinese equally have the right to stay there like everyone else from the other 81 Chinese ethnic groups. I have some friends living there too. And they are trying to industrialize the region and creating jobs. There were no "job" before the industrialization, because the region was actually like a barren desert, with most of the people living from agriculture.

There are also significant oil reserves in Xinjiang, which yeild no benefits to the traditional landholders, only the ruling Han.

Of course, Chinese merchants want to make money too. What's wrong with that, it's also their country. One of America's main oil resource is the oil in Alaska. So by building the Tans-Alska-Pipeline, Americans do great wrong to the Inuits living there?

Besides, it's not that Uigurs are forced to stay in XingJiang. China is also their counrty and they have the right to live wherever they want, too. You see Uigurs in every big city of China. Even at the opposite corner at the sea, were I live, are Uigurs.

Some Uigur, including their "leaders", want to have an independent state. That's because they have a very strong national feeling, strengthened by their commune faith to Allah. An independant state doesn't neseccarily benefit all Uigurs, because the region itself is poor. You need a lot of external resources to cultivate it.

Many Uyghur people have been killed by government security forces and Han vigilantes.

I doubt if your source is reliable... Even if it is true, the Uigurs can't justify themselves to kill Han civilians. Otherwise they are as bad as the government and the Han vigilantes who allegedly killed their people.

...it is a desperate fight for rights by a people who have been oppressed by their government and denied any other recourse.

So I don't see the situation that bad. The situations of the Indians and the black slaves in America had been far worse.
The Uigurs have the right to gain more religious and political freedom. In my opinion, the Han Chinese are supposed to do the same.

Uigurs can also fight for independence, but I don't have to support them. Being realistic, I don't believe that they'll succeed anyway.


Ps. @ Denisero:

Edit: Parcific, I love how you are going back and editing your posts to try to make me look like I said something I didn't. The edit you did above adding the line
Originally Posted by Denisero
Please quote me where I said the Chinese live like royalty.
and then quoting me to make it look like I said that is pathetic.

I edited it because I wanted to make the references clearer.
You're getting way too personal:

Now you are just acting like a kid that is trying to cheat to win a point in a debate you are failing at. Silly boy.

That insults me! Insulting is the worst way to convince people. It's actually a sign of weakness...

Oh really? This is a topic just about China? Funny then how you started the thread, chose to call it Ethnic Minorities and didn't mention China at all in your first post. In fact, you didn't mention China until your 11th post (post 41 in the thread).

The topic started off really awefully, I confess. But I cleared the point with this post:

OK, currently I live in China. And I've heard recently that there are riots among the Uigur people, which is an ethinic group in one of the provinces. They want to create their own country, because they feel dominated by the major Chinese ethnic, which is Han. This reminds me of the riots last year in Tibet. I know from the media that many people have sympathy with these minorities and support them. But I, somehow, compare them in my mind with native Indians, conquered by the settlers. So if you support the Uigur and Tibetan, do you also support Indians, if they assumedly want to turn their reservoires into souvereign countries? Then other minorities would want souvereignity too and the world would be chopped in small pieces. That's why I don't like these riots. But I know many people will disagree and thus I want to initiate a discussion, starting with discussing ethnic groups in general and then dig a little bit deeper into these recent clashes.

This is at the 5th page, but still not too late. And I clearly stated the reference to China.

What you quoted me on was a reply to a post in which you were talking about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement and not one word of China was mentioned.

Your stating assassinating Hitler is a response to a post on MLK and Civil Rights Movements? This gets really funny now. What has Hitler to do with Martin Luther King?

Your post about camparing Hitler with Han-Chinese is at page 7. You can't claim that you don't know the reference to China.

You can't see that you are referring to China all the time? Otherwise your posts are all irrelevant to these recent riots in China.