China rethinks autonomy for ethnic minorities

There is a growing body of opinion in China that its problems with minorities like the Tibetans, Uighurs and others among the 56 recognized "nationality groups" is not that they are repressed, but that they are excessively privileged and over-indulged.

By The Vancouver SunJuly 24, 2009

There is a growing body of opinion in China that its problems with minorities like the Tibetans, Uighurs and others among the 56 recognized "nationality groups" is not that they are repressed, but that they are excessively privileged and over-indulged.

And the finger of blame points not, of course, at the current or past leaders of the Communist Party, but at the early leaders of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, from whom Mao Zedong and his revolutionaries took the modern Chinese constitution.

So in the wake of riots in the Tibetan capital Lhasa last year and in Urumqi, the capital of the Uighurs' Xinjiang Autonomous Region, on July 5 when local people vented their anger against Han Chinese, arguments are being made to do away with the privileges enjoyed by minority ethnic groups. This debate has profound implications, though it would be ideologically difficult for the Communist Party to adopt the argument that its problems stem from mistakes in Marxist-Leninism.

But Beijing has never allowed ideological purity to stand in the way of practicality. There are some signs, on the Tibet question for example, that Beijing is quite prepared to reinterpret or set aside the laws on autonomy if it suits political needs.

These developments in China have significant implications for the Tibetans' spiritual and political leader, the Dalai Lama, who recently marked the 50th anniversary of his exile with about 150,000 fellow Tibetans at Dharamsala in northern India.

The Dalai Lama is 74 years old and has been trying to fashion a working relationship with Beijing before he dies and the whole issue of the divine revelation of his reincarnated successor becomes a divisive issue. He is even contemplating introducing elections for his successor to avoid Beijing trying to dictate the succession and thus provoke a split in Tibetan Buddhism.

Last November the exiled Tibetans presented a discussion paper to Beijing in which they reaffirmed that they are not seeking independence for Tibet and argued that the Dalai Lama's position on autonomy for the Himalayan region is entirely consistent with Chinese law.

Beijing rejected the paper out of hand, and the Dalai Lama's chief negotiators are now trying to draft a new paper that will tempt China's leaders to negotiate.

The prospects do not look good.

The key document that is spurring debate in China on the ethnic minorities issue was written by Ma Rong, professor of sociology at Peking University and published in April, a year after the Lhasa riots and before the latest bloodletting in Xinjiang.

Ma argues that while European and even the imperial Chinese and post-1911 republican concepts of nationhood encompassed many ethnic groups with one citizenship, Communist China after 1949 adopted the Soviet Union's laws.

In China, 56 "nationalities" were recognized, and while not given the right to separate as was done in the Soviet Union -- and which led to its breakup 20 years ago -- they do have many special rights.

These include exemption from the hated "one child" family planning policy, education privileges, allocations of top posts in local administrations, and additional financial subsidies and welfare programs.

However, these policies have done little or nothing to improve the livelihoods of the minority groups, while at the same time they have stirred up resentment among Han Chinese.

And Ma makes the case that the granting of autonomy rights has politicized group identity, inspired separatism and acted as a barrier to the integration of minority ethnic groups into a multicultural China.

"The problem and danger of nationalist separation was therefore actually created, at least in part, by the authorities of the USSR (Soviet Union) and China themselves in the process of

nation-building," Ma wrote in April.

Ma says China should entirely rethink its attitude and policies towards the ethnic minorities.

It should aim at multicultural integration with the same rights for all citizens. He holds up the United States and India as countries that have successfully forged unified nation states out of regional and ethnic diversity.

A significant difference between China and those two examples, of course, is that in China the Han make up 91 per cent of the population and are politically and economically dominant.

jmanthorpe@vancouversun.com

This guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
India is hardly the best example, as seen from the separatist movements in Assam and Kashmir. US grants special rights for minorities (support programs for native americans, affirmative action)

I do agree to a certain extent that nationalist sentiments were an inadvertent by-product of China's nation-building policies. Once you propagate the idea of being 'one nation, one Chinese,' it sharpens the contrast for those who are not Han Chinese.
But ethnic nationalism seems to be a new fad in international politics, and China would have caught up regardless of its domestic policies.

At least there is some discussion going on, instead of persistent blaming of foreign forces. That's a start.

think over the question of "what is un-american?", and its practical face, like situations when the government did something unhappy and it remains to the opposition and a few exotic groups, to criticise.

it is meant as a disciplinatory notion to keep the nation together, but often it is used by politicians to remain stubbornly in their mistakes.

though - literally it would mean anything that violates the values and intent of the constitution.
sadly, in practise the definition is grey zone and a matter of power.


one thing with america is particular:
it is the name. it is not associated to any ethnic allegiance.
if we mention that the continent was taken from indigenous ethnicities, still they did not call themselves americans.
from this we see that american nationalism is an ideologic construction. it has served to create a whole country. who ever came to this place from the outside, had always the intent to become "american".
even asian american is not so much of a problem.

after the fact, after the declaration, this is a very concrete and physical matter.
in spite of a few factions who promote ethnic supremacy, there is no doubt that every human can become american when adopting the constitution and the law.

europeans are still struggling, and - possibly to evil indoctrination - are shy to construct europe as an ideology of common values in ethics, economy and sciences. politically the regions can maintain a high degree of autonomy.


coming from this simple example, I would like to raise the question:
what would be the consequences, if the name of china means that han-chinese are the "original" chinese?
would someone stumble in danger, even be called un-chinese, when not bending over to some tradition or common view of the Han?
or is it possible to give priority to the underlying values and philosophies, coded in law and constitution, among them the contribution by maoism and confucianism, that eventually an environment exists where basically everyone who adopts it in a loyal way, can become 100% chinese?

the matter of identity will remain to have some complexity.
should it be seen as a basic goal, to give any chinese identity a core that is as simple as birth and death?
and as strong and inclusive as "born in the land of america, you _are_ american."

Good to read something like this.
How many times I said it myself, the "ethnic autonomy" is a quaint leftover which is obsolete, they copied it from USSR.

This kind of political decision is actually bad because it encourages "separate identity" and hampers integration and racial harmony.

Not many countries do this, only China and maybe a few more. Usually countries try to forge a national identity, out of their component ethnicities.

It's really time they should gradually phase out this old system and with the end view of totally abandoning it in the future.

lol @ using America and India as example of multicultural integration? there is a religious war in India, and a ghetto war in America (notably black and latino).

there is nothing wrong with china's minority special privilege.

the main issue, at hand, is some regions are undeveloped than Eastern provinces which caused a huge socioeconomic disparity forcing ethnic tension to escalate.

Definitely there is a problem, it is unhealthy to separate people based on their race and then give special treatment one way or another.
And I'm speaking in general, so special treatment for Blacks in America for example, is also wrong.

If there is a problem, like poverty, then the solution is to target the poverty and give help to anyone who need it, regardless of their race.

To separate people based on what race they are born into this world, is actually very rude, crude, backward, feudalistic, and it weakens meritocracy.

This is just from social aspect, how about from politics and nation building? It propagates and perpetuates separate identity, and it weakens the country.

Btw USSR disbanded, and Yugoslavia disbanded, because they couldn't forge their national identity strong enough. They made this mistake.

Many ethnic groups like uighurs have been given state support to follow their traditional lifestyle, they can even rape,kill, steal and only get a warning. If you don't teach a minority group to be better they'll never will be.

im 50/50 on this. so weird. i know its not "fair" or "equal" but, Han can still make it, despite the disadvantage.

not that anybody cares LOL, but han chinese can say that to people who rant about minorities in china, that they actually get crazy benefits in their favor. the kind of benefits that the ruling group usually gives themselves, in this case, han gives it to others.

you're going too far there... china separates them? nobody put a gun into their head forcing them to declare this or that ethnic affiliation.

i insist on what i said, there is nothing wrong with minority's special privilege.

you don't often hear other 54 ethnic minority causing riot.

it's usually the anti-ccp, independent groups (like exiled tibet and muslim uighur).


the reason the government gives them privilege is so they can compete with the massive han population. if they're not giving these treatments, it almost forcing them integrated into 1-china cultural identity which go up against our ancient and modern ideological philosophy "ethnic harmony under 1 china policy".

although they're being discriminate against due to their facial differences, but if they try hard enough to integrate, their social life can be equally well-off like any elite han chinese.

The reason is because the others have close distance between them, while these 2 and especially some others have a wider gap or wider difference.

You cant really tell the difference between a Mongol, Manchu, Han, Miao, for example, but the distance to Uighur is quite big. Just like in other countries like America you cant separate German Americans, Irish / Scotts Americans etc, but the distance to African American is quite big.

Now the problem imagine if Blacks have their own formalized "autonomy areas", have more privileged treatment, etc, it's just a tinderbox waiting to explode.

What is the basis or the purpose of this special rights? If it is to improve problems such as poverty, then just target the problem in a straightforward manner, regardless of race.

Furthermore in a society it is unhealthy to entrench and formalize racial differences. Imagine you cant enter university because someone else who is born into a "special caste" is chosen over you. This is fundamentally wrong, a reversion to feudalistic caste system.

Ya, in the past, maybe this policy made sense. They are thought to serve a purpose and can foster and promote harmony. But is it actually true? If after some time has passed, there should be evaluation, and also conduct study on other countries' experience. If it is not suitable or there can be better alternative, then they should dare to change it.

I think there is lack of analysis of the historic process of unifying, conquering or re-conquering particular regions, and examination about the social consequences and personal experience of the inhabitants of such provinces during history.

it exists the problem that the common will of a cultural or ethnic group is being broken.
this is utterly serious, because in this case the province will remain a very weak part of the whole, and will contribute close to nothing to the "mother country" that they do not learn to love this way.
no re-education can create the strength that comes from centuries of growth of a genuine culture. there is too much non-verbal element in any culture that works in the education starting at birth. it is not feasible to technicalize this.
it just takes many generations of peaceful integration, that a culture can become part of a bigger country and maintain its strength to the benefit of the whole. if this is not possible then you have a marginalized open wound that is an open door to bacteria and parasites. better abandon.

the russian communists tried this ethnic autonomy as a solution to that problem. they wanted to put focus on the benefit of communism to the development of the regions.
their partial failure from beginning should have its own analysis.
one pont is that russian ethnic nationalism still remained a strong factor that enraged other nations in the warshaw pact and the soviet areal.
another point is the slowly ongoing "bail-out" of the apparatchiks, no matter what ethnicity, that culminated in giving up the whole system, because they gave only lip service to communism, but in fact wanted in the first place their power, their privileges, mercedes cars and datchas. this weakness opened the door to foreign intrige and seduction.
it had to make use of russian nationalism again, to prevent the energy system from becoming globalized. putin was just the front-man for this.
it is an instructive experience but cannot applied 1:1 on any other country.

my conclusion is that the russian system failed in achieving its required maturity, and their sociopolitic development was too slow within those paradigms that were hammered in stone, and but not even were obeyed from the head of the system.

I recommend it should be acknowledged that the idea of autonomy does not "create" any difference that was not there in the first place since the life of most generations of the culture in question.
it can be seen as just one method of dealing with it, and possibly an intermediate condition with open outcome.



as said above, among the whites there IS now multicultural integration that was not in centuries before.

the worst wars in europe were between people you could not distinguish from the look of their bodies.
anyway there was a strong ethnic notion and drive, and regional culture and sometimes religion were playgrounds that inflamed the conflicts.
but - there was most time an economic conflict involved, or conflict among economic systems. this is very important for understanding of the west.
there is lack of versatility in dealing with diversity in economic paradigms.
one component of this weakness is the binary or linear reasoning on which the classic roman law system has been based.

blacks get benefits of "affirmative action" on individual base. they have no political-geographic area.
the ghettoes are a structural and social phenomenon. they will not be allowed to become autonomomus because there is not the least reason to that, in the context of the american national paradigm

what I want to stress is that in the west, there is good progress in the solution of ethnic conflicts among caucasians, but this is thanks to the french revolution, and at that time the benefits only were valid for white french citizens, and then became common for all "classic" europeans and later americans.
(just to repeat the explanation: ethnic conflict was mainly used and powered by the ruling classes, while the uneducated had only limited problems to deal with each other, so the abandon of feudalism was the starting point of progress about that. but europe did not complete her task and allowed constitutional monarchy to remain, with all its political influence. the nazi reich became possible because still at that time the germans had no consequent understanding of the french principles. still today they are slow in this.)

the americans were extremely and tragically slow in adopting their values for non-white populations. (values including french revolution about that they had even a split, being represented by the two party system up to today, democrats being more french-friendly)
they even enrolled a second wave of segregation just to curb the "problem" of workers associations.
it is yet to see what president obama can do about all that.

This maybe a little bit extreme but deep down most Chinese nationalists know and some may even admit that the more Han demographically=less potential problems in terms of ethnic conflicts and separatism.

I thought being Chinese was a cultural identity.

China's society is not formalized on the system of "racial differences" as mentioned by TruthDoesntHurt, but perhaps on ethical and cultural diversity.

it's a fact that 56 distinctive ethnic minorities and han itself share a similar ancestry, culture, and origin is what makes china today inimitable and unique.

it is eminent that the component of ethnic harmony requires all chinese nationality to have similar features with yellow skin tone, black hair, and facial structure. however despite the close similarity, we can still distinguish each other apart by culture and custom.

thus the idea of ethnic harmony and diversity under 1 china policy should be embracing and preserving by the people and government.

sometime resentment and ethnic tension are the consequence of communal wider gap and maybe a little too much of govt restriction in media and basic liberty.

in order to eliminate and improve ethnic tension, it's essential that the govt focuses on developing these underdeveloped regions so the socioeconomic can be caught up with the eastern region and close the gap of disparity.

anyway, i don't think outside ethnics will be grant autonomy in the future.

china recognized only 56 ethnic minorities and had no plan to extend it any further. hence if black African, white European/American, or Latino, for instance, emigrate and assemble a community, they won't have the same privileges since they are categorized as foreign immigrant. it is like how Asian Americans get no special treatment in America.

and if china would to take away the autonomy region and integrated all under the one harmony principle, then they must also do that to Macau and HK. as you can already guess, people in those regions wouldn't be too thrilled about it.

it is also difficult to get risk of autonomy region when china is still developing. people, in general, do not care enough for independent and autonomy if their livelihood is well-off.

the objection is to keep people satisfy by expand the economy and continue teaching education.

i reiterated, the idea of special rights is to aid and encourage minority groups to compete with their han counterpart in many socioeconomic issues ranging from in academic, economic, and politic.

also, some of these minorities, mostly are peasants and highly spiritual, are way more conservative than han chinese. therefore the idea of liberalism and reformation is very foreign to them. consequently, to help them competing, china govt needs to grant special privileges.

we can't take a few isolated circumstances, like the Uighur and Tibetan riots, and apply it together with the rest of other 54 ethnic minorities because it is simply unmerited and unjustified to these innocent groups.

if the separatists and imbecile knuckleheads continue to commit crime and riot, they will be punished by law and put under detrimental position. death penalty is absolute inevitability. i have no sympathy for criminals.

most of the times, ethnic disgruntles are caused by separatists and being exaggerated by western media.

therefore i urge to keep a distance from western media, their tendentious reports of china ethnic turbulence is a way of promoting western ideology of multiculturalism.

i've been to china for short stay, and quickly observed the vast difference, like night and day, in what western media is reporting, in particular the perception of communist china.

it is mostly a propaganda, and a trap to encourage anti-govt activity and unrealistic democracy.

again democracy, at this time, is impractical when you have a large gap in income distribution and educational discrepancy between old and young generation.

India and South America provide a good example; huge population, abundant resources, manpower under a democratic/republic system, but gangs and criminals run the street. it's way too chaotic for china to handle under that situation, especially with huge population.,

the problem china currently facing is similar situation that KMT had in Taiwan during their initial occupation.

Even "Han" Chinese itself isn't really a single ethnic group right? ...but was an assimilation of many many different people living in China into the Han culture and language system during ancient times, hence the many dialect groups existing now...?

for simplistic purpose, han is an ethnic evolved around a single cultural identity, and the word chinese to represent all 56+han (which also consists of many ethnics, quite frankly).

in my perspective, if you go back to the feudal system of zhou era, any one of the 7 states could easily be the mainstream ethnic today for chinese people.

but the xia, in my opinion, should represents chinese ethical identity, meanwhile qin representing the cultural identity.

because it was the qin that first unified all states, including different dialectal systems into a single spoken system (classical chinese) and unifying different aspects of culture.

however due to its being a short-live dynasty, and a tyrannical emperor's against confucianism, which is the core chinese philosophical belief among all chinese people, forced people to distant themselves from the qin.

then it was basically came down to chu vs han, whoever won that contention would representing all people.

and in conclusion, han won and adopted confucianism, that unifying a common belief system before the hundred school of thoughts had an opportunity to re-emerge.

in addition, han conquered and assimilated many tribes and kingdoms in the process.

thus the middle chinese (imo, song era - after) and modern chinese preferred han as an ethnic identity because of the great cultural influence and progressive ruling dynasty.

there is an old saying, "you win, you get everything. you lose, everything is taken from you".

^ What would have happened if the Chu won?

^chu won? history already been made, you can't change it.

but we can speculating and try fitting the puzzle.

if chu won, xiang yu was on the verge of reverting back to the feudalism, when he set up 18 divisional states according to shijie of sima qian.

you can also guess under a feudal system, in the long term, different schools of thought emerge again to compete with confucianism, and once the chu kingdom weakened, each duke and warlord would gain military power and influence, so then we would have a second warring states era.

however this scenario is unlikely to happened.

while xiang yu has all the competences as a great conqueror. he's fierce, dedication, proud, loyalty, vicious, and prestige, but he's still lacked one demeanor that common people needed of a new conqueror, and that is charisma.

therefore the mandate of heaven will be given to someone else after xiang yu empire collapsed.

in the end, tang dynasty will be the next successor. hence, today chinese will be identifying as ethnic tang instead of han.

Chunese