Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHCs582uUx8

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.

I recommend reading comments in this thread:

"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.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-poverty-xinjiang/china...

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.

human rights, property rights, labor costs, and a lot of slow and costly government procurement processes

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.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-poverty-xinjiang/china...

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).

I'm glad you know the history there. It's definitely more convoluted than most people think.

> nothing in history has shown that China is any better at colonizing lands than the west

I agree - I guess historically speaking, China just hasn't colonized enough countries to have a decent sample size.

No. Xinjiang, or whatever its name was, was controlled by the Chinese government more than a thousand years before the Qing dynasty.

China didn't really colonize, if colonization means to move there and enslave the natives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com