Uighurs, Tibetans, Jews

In China, Moslems called the Uighurs
are fighting to be free
of rule by Han Chinese. It figures
that they want liberty,
just like the other captive nations
the Han now rule, Tibet
the largest, but their expectations
aren't likely to be met.

The Han call freedom fighters in
both places terrorists,
and almost certainly will win
by force of arms and fists,
but no one cares about these Asians
here in the west, because
we fear our vital trade relations
might suffer, with a loss
of our prosperity, and let
the Chinese use their terror
in both East Turkestan, Tibet,
committing a grave error
based on our need to save the dollar
from falling, which it might
if we grew hot beneath the collar,
declaring might ain't right.

It seems we need Han Chinese more
than they need us, and so
we can't show them that we feel sore
about the Uighurs' woe.
By contrast, since we need much oil,
with Dreyfusard "J'accuse"
we may, when Jews protect their soil,
hurl at them our abuse.

Inspired by the news concerning the massacre of more than 150 Uighurs in Urumqi, the capital of East Turkestan, a region the Chinese government calls Xinjiang and is trying to repopulate with Han Chinese, displacing the ethnically and culturally different indigenous population. Erik Eckholm writes in the NYT on July 7 about the exiled leader of the Uighurs, Rebiya Kadeer, whose fame does not yet parallel that of the Dalai Lama, but may do in the future. While Ms. Kadeer condemns the Chinese government's excessive use of force, she said that the Uighurs "also condemn in no uncertain terms the violent actions of some of the Uighur community."

Follow Gershon Hepner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gwhepner

Comments

[petalsbloom]

Finally, your last stanza, as many commenters have pointed out, is riddled with problems. If I have it correct, you're saying the United States is openly biased towards Jews because we have nothing to gain from them. This is where your logic turns on itself. We should speak up for oppressed minorities in Asia but support the Israeli state, whose hardliners have been more than unfriendly to Muslims and Arabs? (I'm not trying to equate Jews with Israel as you had Han Chinese and China, but if I take your label literally, your intentions become even more confusing in that you're using this as an opportunity to talk about anti-Semitism.) I don't take sides in volatile conflicts, and do not support the actions of either extremist Israelis or Palestinians, and suggest you do the same for the parties involved in the Xinjiang riots.
One more thing: Rebiya Kadeer ain't no Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama calls for peace during ethnic clashes...Rebiya, well, read her biography and watch her do her rounds in the television news circuit.

[petalsbloom]

Thirdly, how much do you actually know about Chinese Uighur- Han relations? There are always two sides to a story. This is not a classic case of oppressor and oppressed. Many Han Chinese migrants to the Xinjiang region are poor laborers in search of a better life. Uighurs see the Chinese influx as even more detrimental to their tenuous lifestyle in a part of the world that has been less than friendly to their beliefs and culture. This, coupled with a ravaged economy and shrinking job market, has resulted in an explosion of ethnic tensions. And I hate to say it, but reports from that area suggest that Chinese police forces have actually been careful not to use excessive force, refraining from the use of "arms and fists" that you speak of.

[petalsbloom]

It pains me to see such an oversimplified perspective of Chinese Uighur- Han relations represented in this poem. First of all, the "Han Chinese" are an ethnic group, not a government or political entity, and are dispersed all around the world from countries in South America to Europe. Many Han Chinese disagree with the actions of the PRC and native activists call for reform in the struggle for peace and democracy.
Secondly, would you call Al-Qaeda "freedom fighters?" How is it that the United States can call on other nations to join us in the "war on terror" and use the word "terrorists" without the implication that we are calling all Muslim groups "terrorists?" I don't condone the word and have always hated it for its divisive qualities, but I think it's appropriate for the PRC to condemn the actions of a few violent individuals. It's especially troubling that you would, without distinction, call these guys "freedom fighters."

[undisclosedrecipient0]

Clarence Darrow:
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."

[noweknow]

Americans are too divided to respond with a unified voice on this and many other events in the world. Biased reports from corporate media lack credibility. There are two sides to this story, but we should condemn violence from both sides. Our government's role is not to police morals around the world but to protect our national interests. We have deteriorating race relations in the U.S. despite the election of a mixed race president. We should focus our attention and spend more resources to resolve racial tensions in our own country. We don't want the simmering tensions to explode like they did to Katrina victims and the LA Riots.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

[Sinick]

We have to remember that from the early 1600s up until the early 1900s, the Hans were bitterly repressed by Manchu invaders within the borders of their own country. It was the Manchus, who forced the Hans to braid their hair and bind the feet of their women. It was the Manchus who in conjunction with Western armies and their technology, burned down Shaolin temple and slaughtered the revered Shaolin monks on sight across the country.

China has been historically overrun by foreign invaders of all ilks--hence the Great Wall. Is it possible that they may be a bit overprotective of their wildly historic turf?

We westerners, Americans in particular (veritable toddlers on the world scene), simply do not have sufficient perspective in order to objectively gauge the psyche of the ancient Chinese civilization.

[GeoffMenendez]

"We westerners, Americans in particular (veritable toddlers on the world scene), simply do not have sufficient perspective in order to objectively gauge the psyche of the ancient Chinese civilization."

Well, that's a load of crap. A 40-year old Chinese man has exactly the same number of years of experience on this earth as a 40-year old American man, regardless of how "ancient" each believes his civilization to be. And while the USA is young as a nation-state, so, too, is the PRC. Much younger, in fact. And the USA is part of a larger civilization, and one as ancient as the Chinese.

Besides, none of that "ancient culture" nonsense excuses the barbaric acts the Chinese government have inflicted on the Tibetans and the Uighurs or gives the Chinese immunity from criticism, even criticism specifically from citizens of the world's "toddler" nations. Indeed, the ability to reason is the only "sufficient perspective" anyone EVER needs in order to form a valid judgment.

[Gewyne]

"By contrast, since we need much oil,
with Dreyfusard "J'accuse"
we may, when Jews protect their soil,
hurl at them our abuse."

How did that sneak in - Surely the Israeli are the Han Chinese and the Palestinians the Uighurs
and Tibetans in this story, you know the oppressed people whos land has been stolen, who now live under occupation and are fighting for liberty.

[GeoffMenendez]

In any reasoned, rationed view, that comparison is clear.

Crappy poem; crappy politics.

[LindasLookout]

You may misunderstand. Think about it.