Riots in Xinjiang

[Jeikun]

250 years, baby

 

give it another 5000 years and lets see .

 

Elaborate, please.

 

I'm far too much of an infant in a historical and cultural sense to glean what your deeper meaning was in those 2 sentences, or to see how they were on topic. But I am sure the 5,000 years surging through your veins and imbuing every neural synapse with the wisdom of the ancients had a greater purpose in mind that I simply fail to see. Enlighten me.

[Guest Pommey]

The sad news clearly shows the volatility of the Chinese people; demonstrates the power of the Internet/freedom of the press; and explains to some degree why China wants to control the Internet/the press.

 

Let me first say, that I am an American. I love my country and it's people. The fundamental rules and laws written over 250 years have stood the test of time. The freedom of the press is a cornerstone of American life. It is the one place Americans can turn to learn more about things going on in Washington, the nation, and their communities. It can shine a spotlight on corruption, and illuminate stories about things we otherwise might not have learned.

 

I wonder however, what our founding fathers would have to say in this day and age where you can display images and video in real-time from virtually anywhere on planet earth. While these images and stories help us learn about what's going on, they can also be used to inflame already tense situations. Take for example, a hostage situation or violent demonstration. American police often forbid the media from displaying live video as the perpetrators could use the information to gain a tactical advantage.

 

Somewhere, there is a line that must be drawn between a complete and open reporting of stories, that inflame tense situations, and a responsible reporting that reports the truth without inflaming it.

 

We all know that China actively censors stories. I disagree with the practice in general, but there may be times that doing so helps maintain peace. Perhaps that might be a good thing, as long as the truth is not being oppressed.

 

 

 

Jesse, the press has pretty much been replaced by the internet, blogging and IM in all countries.

[whome?]

The sad news clearly shows the volatility of the Chinese people; demonstrates the power of the Internet/freedom of the press; and explains to some degree why China wants to control the Internet/the press.

 

Let me first say, that I am an American. I love my country and it's people. The fundamental rules and laws written over 250 years have stood the test of time. The freedom of the press is a cornerstone of American life. It is the one place Americans can turn to learn more about things going on in Washington, the nation, and their communities. It can shine a spotlight on corruption, and illuminate stories about things we otherwise might not have learned.

 

I wonder however, what our founding fathers would have to say in this day and age where you can display images and video in real-time from virtually anywhere on planet earth. While these images and stories help us learn about what's going on, they can also be used to inflame already tense situations. Take for example, a hostage situation or violent demonstration. American police often forbid the media from displaying live video as the perpetrators could use the information to gain a tactical advantage.

 

Somewhere, there is a line that must be drawn between a complete and open reporting of stories, that inflame tense situations, and a responsible reporting that reports the truth without inflaming it.

 

We all know that China actively censors stories. I disagree with the practice in general, but there may be times that doing so helps maintain peace. Perhaps that might be a good thing, as long as the truth is not being oppressed.

 

 

 

Jesse, the press has pretty much been replaced by the internet, blogging and IM in all countries.

Yes and it also goes to show that while freedom should be a human right guranteed for all along with freedom comes responsibility. No one can be 100% free to do whatever they like at the expense of another.

 

In this case freedom comes from have access to news, internet, blogs, etc. but freedom cannot mean if you see a rumor on the internet you do not like (or even the "truth") that you then organize and/or engage in a violent response.

[knloregon]

We are transitioning into very uncertain waters...

 

- By the end of WW2, Information reported as news had a measure of fact checking, and the 'AP Style" (Associate Press) ---born in the 1930's (I think) required an end to the sensationalist journalism of the "yellow" journalist style. ---the classic: "Just the facts.." It may have been something of an illusion in terms of objectivity, and could be gamed, but it encouraged objective reporting...

 

The AP style came under substantial attack during the '60's ---'70's' by the Gonzo journalistic period---distrust of institutions---and major 'establishment' papers--- which launched a number of 'alternative' news ---weekly's mostly---we have a charter member here in Portland--- Willamette Week.

 

Style aside the factual veracity of Gonzo has always been in doubt---but hey! ---a great read! --particularly for the '420' audience who are a little out of touch anyway..

 

but now, on the net, access is everything, facts, or fact checking ---nothing. This thread has several examples, but the most obvious is the international backers of the Uighurs making the outrageous claim of a thousand dead Uighurs. During the hay-day of the AP---that would never see the light of day---which was by definition, ink on paper--- without a body (head) count.

 

The same thing happened in March 2008 during the Tibetan riots----burning to death Han small business owners in their homes above the business, while claiming (international advocates of the Dalai Lama) that 200 Tibetans---mostly monks were killed----and it actually was reported---yes, ink on paper---by the liberal press. LP---(liberal press): "Where are their bodies?" DL supporters: "They had to be buried quickly under the sacred traditions of Tibetan Buddhism." LP: "Can you tell us their names?" DL supporters: "No". LP: "Ok, good enough for us! it will be in print in the NYT tomorrow..."

 

Not encouraged about objective, or well researched reporting going forward....

[samsong]

http://i25.tinypic.com/15dqm21.jpg

 

I read a touching story where a Uigher woman held a bereaving Han woman as she watched members of her family being put to their final rest. They were killed in the riots.

The story shows that there are friends among the Uighers and the Han. Having common goals and interest made them friends. That is true with any nationality of people. They become friends. It's ashame that such turmoil comes about but that is also true with any nationality of people. They will always fight.

[knloregon]

Samsong, where is this statue ? So true, that when people leave their political and in the case of the Uighurs---religious differences aside, we all behave more humanly...

[samsong]

The statue is located in Unity Square in Hotan Prefecture of Xinjiang.

 

 

http://www.centralasiatraveler.com/cn/xj/k...rban-tulum.html

[Jeikun]

Samsong, where is this statue ? So true, that when people leave their political and in the case of the Uighurs---religious differences aside, we all behave more humanly...

 

 

I don't want to come off as justifying ANY of the violence that went on on either side. But I would point out, that when putting aside differences means gradual total assimilation into a larger and more dominant culture and religion... that tends to rile people up a bit. I can understand their objection to the sinofication of their lives.

 

I imagine if the Koreans had just accepted the Japanization of their culture and not fought it tooth and nail for decades, that things in the Korean penninsula would be much more peaceful and harmonious right now, but a language culture and people would be extinct. Or like we did to 95% of the Native Americans, or the Spanish did to the native Mexican peoples. There's still a Mexican people, but is their culture more Mezo-American, or more Spanish?

 

More dominant cultures always assimilate smaller or less "advanced" ones, but it doesn't mean they have to or should like it.

[Guest jin979]

Samsong, where is this statue ? So true, that when people leave their political and in the case of the Uighurs---religious differences aside, we all behave more humanly...

 

 

I don't want to come off as justifying ANY of the violence that went on on either side. But I would point out, that when putting aside differences means gradual total assimilation into a larger and more dominant culture and religion... that tends to rile people up a bit. I can understand their objection to the sinofication of their lives.

 

I imagine if the Koreans had just accepted the Japanization of their culture and not fought it tooth and nail for decades, that things in the Korean penninsula would be much more peaceful and harmonious right now, but a language culture and people would be extinct. Or like we did to 95% of the Native Americans, or the Spanish did to the native Mexican peoples. There's still a Mexican people, but is their culture more Mezo-American, or more Spanish?

 

More dominant cultures always assimilate smaller or less "advanced" ones, but it doesn't mean they have to or should like it.

 

 

not true come to Taos , meet the many people/cultures

[Christopher]

Yes, I agree...I have a very hard time feeling "sympathetic" for anyone that has a grievance, but chooses to use violence rather than intelligence to get a solution. Regardless of how frustrated you are, there are so many other ways to get attention to your plight.

Sorta like the Boston Tea Party? That was a lovely example of street justice.

 

If you put a conservative style spin on it, as the Loyalists of the time did, then a bunch of our revolutionary heroes were nothing a bunch of hooligans destroying property and resisting the lawful authority of King George III and the Parliament.

 

Just a shift in perspective is all it takes.

In this case, other cases around the globe...authorities should find a leader of the group or a spokesperson, listen to what they have to say, tell everyone to go home, then work together to create a solution. And without any further nonsense, that should be the end of street justice.

And if the authorities don't? Sit there and be good little boys and girls suffering quietly in the dark?

If it isn't the end...make it the end. Everyone of those people that are burning cars, beating people, killing people, ...they know the law... they know that their actions are going to get them executed if they are caught...they have no valid complaint about "justice".

I suspect that many Uighyurs have decided there is not going to be any justice for them. The dangerous ones always feel they have nothing to lose: the Jewish zealots and sicarii in Roman Palestine to William Wallace to Americas founding fathers to Geronimo, Red Cloud and Sitting Bull, all the way up to Michael Collins and the Viet-Minh.

 

All you have to do to pacify people, is to give them something to lose.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Christopher (see edit history)

[whome?]

Yes, I agree...I have a very hard time feeling "sympathetic" for anyone that has a grievance, but chooses to use violence rather than intelligence to get a solution. Regardless of how frustrated you are, there are so many other ways to get attention to your plight.

Sorta like the Boston Tea Party? That was a lovely example of street justice.

 

If you put a conservative style spin on it, as the Loyalists of the time did, then a bunch of our revolutionary heroes were nothing a bunch of hooligans destroying property and resisting the lawful authority of King George III and the Parliament.

 

Just a shift in perspective is all it takes.

In this case, other cases around the globe...authorities should find a leader of the group or a spokesperson, listen to what they have to say, tell everyone to go home, then work together to create a solution. And without any further nonsense, that should be the end of street justice.

And if the authorities don't? Sit there and be good little boys and girls suffering quietly in the dark?

If it isn't the end...make it the end. Everyone of those people that are burning cars, beating people, killing people, ...they know the law... they know that their actions are going to get them executed if they are caught...they have no valid complaint about "justice".

I suspect that many Uighyurs have decided there is not going to be any justice for them. The dangerous ones always feel they have nothing to lose: the Jewish zealots and sicarii in Roman Palestine to William Wallace to Americas founding fathers to Geronimo, Red Cloud and Sitting Bull, all the way up to Michael Collins and the Viet-Minh.

 

All you have to do to pacify people, is to give them something to lose.

Just for fun change the scene to somewhere in the USA, change Uighyur to Hispanic and China govt to USA govt and then tell me how it would be handled?

[whome?]

We would kiss their ass and give them money.

If they were just complaining ... if they were rioting ... I dont think we would just kiss their ass ...

[knloregon]

"if they were rioting" --- step back and take a deep breath----this is exactly what the liberal media reported, time and time again----they weren't "rioting" they were committing mass murder.

 

We know some large numbers of the dead, and we have seen pictures of them in the make-shift morgue---we know they are overwhelmingly Han.

 

Don't fall in the trap of the liberal western press---on this web site, please, start by stating the facts.

[whome?]

"if they were rioting" --- step back and take a deep breath----this is exactly what the liberal media reported, time and time again----they weren't "rioting" they were committing mass murder.

 

We know some large numbers of the dead, and we have seen pictures of them in the make-shift morgue---we know they are overwhelmingly Han.

 

Don't fall in the trap of the liberal western press---on this web site, please, start by stating the facts.

A riot is typically defined as "a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism or other crime. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."

 

The murders/deaths (on both sides) were a result of the intense violence. Unless you have factual evidence that the Uighyurs only did this to committ mass murder against the Han.

 

I am quite sure there are problems on both sides and the reports from China are not totally the truth nor the ones from the West.

 

My point was that the western press and people should quite trying to say China is too heavy-handed on this issue. If something similar occurred in the USA I am quite sure we would not let it get out of hand into a free-for-all killing spree. The govt would step in quite forefully.

[knloregon]

Point taken, Alan..

 

It does seem there is evidence (from both the PRC accounts and by Rebiya Kadeer leader of the overseas East Turkistan movement), that just prior to the riots, Uighurs purposely assembled with some intent. That it escalated so quickly to murder is, to me, strong circumstantial evidence that murder was part of the original intent.

 

But intent aside, murder is what factually happened, on a large scale, and I don't see how any responsible news organization leaves that out---no matter how brief the story.

 

Worth noting that on a very tiny scale, the American Indian Movement of the 1970's, was in some ways similar to this----and our Federal police (US Marshals and FBI) came down like a ton of bricks, using far less restraint than PRC forces in the Xinjiang region, as far as we can ascertain from press accounts.