In my last post, I discussed the race riots in Sweden that shocked the world. Needless to say, anyone who couldn’t see it coming needs to acquire some perspective. But I digress. This time, I’m going to take a break from the Western world and focus on the recent violence that has taken place in China.
In Xinjiang, Western China, clashes between Uighurs and Han Chinese have left over twenty five people dead. This is hardly the first time such violence has erupted between the two groups. In 2009, rumors that six Uighur factory workers had raped two Han women sparked violence and unrest in Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi.
The growing presence of China in Xinjiang has undoubtedly brought about development and modernization. However, as no less than revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinksy once said, all peoples resist their colonizers, regardless of how benevolent those colonizers happen to be. On a side note, whenever you’re confronted with the arguments of a pro-open borders advocates, don’t fall into the trap of debating whether or not third world immigration is economically beneficial. All peoples have the right to preserve the ethnic and cultural integrity of their homelands, no matter what.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed is that there is very little self-loathing or introspection on the part of the Chinese. Not interested in analyzing the “root causes” or “structural inequality” that might have been responsible for the riots, the Chinese media unequivocally condemned the riots as a “terrorist attack.” They didn’t engage in the kind of soul searching that Swedes did following the violence in Stockholm.
By framing the riots as a “terrorist attack,” Chinese elites are demonstrating a couple of things. For starters, just like comfort women apologists such as Toru Hashimoto, the Chinese government cares far more about order, stability, and face than they do about fundamental questions of justice. To admit that China’s treatment of the Uighurs has been less than noble, or that China’s actions in Xinjiang might have provoked this violence, would be to shatter the illusion of unity and strength that the Chinese wish to project. I don’t believe that this is merely the work of China’s authoritarian government, as China’s population consistently demonstrates intense nationalism.
Also, one can’t help but notice that the Chinese have taken advantage of the “war on terror” and increasingly anti-Muslim climate in the West. Any astute observer can see that the conflict between the Han Chinese and Uighurs is an ethnonationalist conflict tied to land and resources. However, by framing the conflict as one of order and stability versus radical Islamic separatism and extremism, the Chinese can appeal to Westerners who themselves are wary of Islamic extremism and growing separatist trends among certain Muslim minorities. There’s certainly logic to such an approach. Given how no less than the BBC misleadingly depicted the ethnonationalist conflict in Burma between the Rohingya and native Burmese as a Buddhist versus Muslim conflict, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t fall for such tricks again.
I hope this demonstrates that Western cultures are far more conscience-based than the pragmatic, face obsessed, collectivist cultures of Asia. I also hope this demonstrates that much of the self-loathing conscience that characterizes Western culture needs to be tempered in favor of a slightly more pragmatic approach.
For all of China’s faults, they’re obviously doing something right.