April 28, 2008

PRESUMABLY THIS IS ETHNIC CLEANSING THAT FAREED ZAKARIA APPROVES OF?:

Uighurs struggle in a world reshaped by Chinese influx: In China's far west, the Muslim ethnic group finds itself relegated to menial jobs. Chinese officials also restrict religious practice and use of their language in schools. (Peter Ford, 4/28/08, The Christian Science Monitor)

"We feel like foreigners in our own land," complains one Uighur teacher in the provincial capital of Urumqi, who offers only a nickname, Batur, for fear of angering the authorities. "We are like the Indians in America." Or Tibetans in Tibet. "Most Uighurs sympathize with the Tibetans," says Batur. "We feel we are all under the same sort of rule." [...]

That concern, many Uighurs charge, translates into harsh government control of their lives, restrictions on the use of their language in schools and on their Muslim religious practice, and a colonial-style economy that keeps most local people in menial jobs while Han Chinese immigrants run businesses and the local administration.


How dare John McCain treat the Chicoms like enemies....

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 28, 2008 7:25 AM
Comments

I wish people would stop using the term "Chicoms".

It's talk radio terminology. China far more closely resembles a fascist nation than a communist, making them more dangerous.

No one getting that rich is communist.

Posted by: Bruno at April 28, 2008 10:00 AM

that's false. a fascist regime would have defended the church and other traditional institutions. they're stock communists.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2008 11:37 AM

OJ, you need to read Liberal Fascism. There is no meaningful difference between a fascist dictatorship and a commie dictatorship; both spring from the same intellectual tradition, and if you've seen one totalitarian police state, you've seen 'em all.

Posted by: Mike Morley at April 28, 2008 3:29 PM

There's a huge difference. Look at Chile and Cuba.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2008 5:58 PM

The key word is totalitarian.

Besides, all "totalitarian" dictatorships don't remain driven by ideology for very long - the pigs who are more equal than others enrich (or enjoy) themselves at the expense of everyone else pretty quickly. Even Pol Pot and his murderers cared only about killing. They weren't building anything.

Chicom is absolutely correct - no matter who the party leader of the month is, the song remains the same, and deviations are punished (remember the smiling friend of the students in the spring of 1989, who was purged and airbrushed out of existence?).

Posted by: jim hamlen at April 28, 2008 10:50 PM

Yes, fascism isn't totalitarian.

Posted by: oj at April 29, 2008 6:24 AM

Sometimes it is.

Posted by: ratbert at April 29, 2008 10:44 AM
« | Main | ON NOT GRASPING YOUR OWN PARENTHETICAL: »