PDA

View Full Version : Minorities? Uyghur Autonomous Region? Multi-nations?



A. Uighur
17-11-09, 13:37
少数民族? 新疆'维吾尔''自治区'? ‘多元民族’?
Minorities? Uyghur Autonomous Region? Multi-nations?

Those listed above are Chinese terms for minorities, Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region and multi-nations. For Chinese every nation in the world is 少数民族. For Chinese, when they occupied a nation, they become ' 少数民族' because of the absolute population and their political status. That is quite different from the American's '少数民族'.

While Han Chinese got independent from Manchu empire, the Mongol, Tibet and Uyghur did it too. However, after Tibet and Uyghur independent, Han invaded and occupied Uyghur and Tibet to force them become 'minority' in the new country. For Tibet, they claimed to liberate the 'slavery' for Tibetan. American liberated slavery system in their country after the country had formed for many years. Chinese invaded other country to abolish other's 'slavery', how good you will be if you did not occupied their land and made them your minority.

For Uyghur, they have nothing to liberate, because Uyghur have already started modern education before Chinese did, have adopted 'communist' before Chinese come, supported by Russia Uyghur had defeated old Manchu and Chinese remnant army, established East Turkestan republic before Chinese communist won their Chinese War. Chinese invaded and occupied it for no excuse or excused for 'Uyghur were occupied by Manchu historically'. Are they really ‘liberating’? Now, Chinese political historians are doing their hard work to demonstrate that ‘Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’ do not belong to Uyghur. The Chinese politicians (government) have been trying to demonstrate that Uyghur are anything but a bad model in the concurrent world. This is not just a ‘colony’ but ‘imprisoned colony’ by Chinese ‘law’.

Mongolia was able to claim independent after Manchu Empire collapsed with the support from Russia. Chinese cannot 'liberate' them without Russian's permission.

If minorities don’t have the equal political rights and have to be in a second place (or secondary citizen) after the 'majority' in politic, economic, education, cultural and religion, language etc. Then it is not '多元民族' but 'colonies' of majority. If they can't be equal with Han in the country level and can't even ‘autonomous’ then this is worse than a colony.

The Chinese '多元民族' is completely different from the US. US colonies rebelled and won the war against the UK with their united '多元民族' from the beginning. The US ''多元民族' consist of white, black, natives etc. '多元民族' together formed independent United States.

Not like the US, Chinese army invading and occupying other 'minority' to form the '多元民族'. The Chinese assimilating policy and fake 'autonomous' region have already broken the '多元民族', and the country has becoming 'only-Han-in charge' country, not only in politics but also in every aspects of life. Now, Chinese ‘policy-law’ makers trying not to accept any mistakes they made but keep restricting people’s voice with their new ‘laws’. Which is the pushing force for 'minorities' fight for independent and Han for rebelling, like the US did against the’grand’ UK, like Chinese did against the ‘grand’ Manchu in the history.

The communist party made the ‘grand Han’ ideology as the only driven power to keep the country under control, no '多元民族' can exist when one is on the absolute power against other. Maybe it is time to say bye-bye to Communist party, or bye-bye to China. Talk how to separate or reorganize might be more helpful to every one than stick on the ‘grand’ ideology in the long run, though that might hurt ‘grand’ Chinese’s feeling shortly.

A. Uighur

Unregistered
17-11-09, 19:46
It is funny, chinese want to equate their occupation of Tibet and America's civil war. American civil war is a war bewteen north and south in the country. They did not call on stop slavery before their invation. The Chinese attacked, invade and occupied Tibet, not because of the 'slavery'. Now 'slavery' problem solve, chinese please leave Tibet along.
Shame on their lie!