Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Great Dis_Account 2006-01-21 7:15

Nice shot Andre, the lighting of the status stands out well against the dark background.
maybe a portrait format would have worked better? I wondered what "People who are not Chinese" means? - sorry I do not understand?

thanks
...tim

  #1  
Old 01-21-2006, 03:24 PM
Andre-H's Avatar
Andre-H Andre-H is offline
TE Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Default To timleahy: About the Mao statue

Hi and thanks,

A portrait would have been difficult in the circusmstances, as I was low on the ground, while the statue, base and all, is quite tall. But a good idea nonetheless.

The point about non-Chinese people is that the folks out in that far-western region of the People's Republic are not ethnically Chinese. They are not Han, or even any of the closely related groups. The majority of the people in Xinjiang are Uyghur, though there are also Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Mongolians, and a number of other ethnic minorities. The Uyghurs, like their central Asian counterparts, are of Turkic origin, and migrated into present-day Xinjiang from what is now southern Siberia and Mongolia several centuries ago. They are about as Chinese as Swedes are Italian, although such an admission in China today would be subversive.

Not surprisingly, they resent Chinese rule, and the Chinese have done, and are doing, their best to keep them underdeveloped and unable to threaten authority. Mao is a symbol of that authority, and of the Communist government. As such, the statue is intended for propaganda purposes, and thus an insult.

I hope that clears a few questions.

Andre
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-12-2007, 12:15 PM
garbage's Avatar
garbage garbage is offline
TE Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2
Default Re: To timleahy: About the Mao statue

Hi, Andre,
I have to say that you didn't know the history of China although most of your pictures are amazing.

Actually,It is not People's Republic rules Xinjiang.Since Han dynasty about B.C 2 century,Xinjiang had been a part of China.From Han & Qin dynasty,The China central government had setup the local government in Xinjiang.
After Opium War in 19th century,the Qing dynasty comedown and became weak,around 1860's ,they sign a series treaties which humiliate the nation and forfeit its sovereignty with tsar Russia,Xinjiang lost lots of their territory to Russian.The Russian even occupied Yili,until 1871,The Qing government dispatched troops,Yili had just return to China.So the territory of xinjiang now is smaller than it be before 19th century.

I am now in Xinjiang, and I have a lots of minority friedns like Uyghur,Kazakhs etc.They never resent Han Chinese and Han Chinese rule,they think we belong the same big family,most of them appreciate to be a part of People's Republic.I found that also in Tibet.some of the old Tibetan hang the Mao's picture in their living room,I am so strange that you even can't find Mao's picture in most of the Han CHinese 's room in other region of China.
But that is ture,Their actions come from their real heart and they answered me that They appreciate Mao Ze Dong sincerely because before 1949 when new People's Republic fouding,most of the Tibetan were just slaves under few powerful people.

Most western people don't know the history of China.they only read LP or other books.You can ask the same question to Taiwan Chinese or Hongkong Chinese,they can also answer you Xinjiang is a part of China since long long ago not begin from Communist government and Mao.




Baisong
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-14-2007, 05:34 PM
Andre-H's Avatar
Andre-H Andre-H is offline
TE Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Default Re: To timleahy: About the Mao statue

Hi Tim,

I don't want to get into a silly fight about this, and I certainly don't write with bad intentions. However, there are a few things to be noted.

First of all, it is awfully presumptuous of you to say that I know nothing of Chinese history based on the very scant information that you have. Moreover, there is no need to insinuate that I don't know Chinese history merely on the grounds that I do not share your opinions and conclusions. You do not know me, and you know little of my interests, and your statement is clearly reactionary.

I don't know if you are trying to prove something, such as that the people of Xinjiang love Chinese rule, or anything else of the sort, but short of hard evidence it's not going to work. Hard evidence will work, though; if it is forthcoming, I'm all eyes. Do Uyghurs like being ruled by China, whether recently or not? Of course, I'm certain many people are happy to be part of China, and I do not doubt that your friends are being sincere in their comments to this effect. However, it is also a hard fact that there are great masses of people there who deeply resent Chinese rule, for a multitude of reasons. You needn't attempt to refute this; I am well versed in literature relating to this fact, and I have personally spoken to people who expressed their resentment of Chinese rule.

As to the history... I know enough to know that although the region currently known as Xinjiang (the New Territory) was indeed conquered during the Han Dynasty. However, subsequent to the fall of the dynasty, the region was not effectively ruled in a continuous manner for the following two millenia. In fact, it was the British who aided the Qing Dynasty in the reconquest of Xinjiang. At the time, the Russian and British empires were growing, and there was a risk of these empires coming into collision in Central Asia; Russia from the North; the British from South Asia, and particularly India and what is now Pakistan. The effect of such a collision of empires at home in Europe would have been disastrous, so the British helped the Qing. By returning Xinjiang to China, a buffer was created between the Russian and British empires. It's not pretty, and I don't condone it, but it is a fact of history, though a little-known one. The net result is that for much of the time between the Han and Qing dynasties, Xinjiang was not truly ruled by China, though it was perhaps nominally so.

But all this is in some sense quite irrelevant; whatever the history, there are more fundamentally important questions. I shall illustrate with another example: Canada. There are people in Quebec, Canada's largest, and only francophone province, who wish to separate from Canada and form an independent country. So the question is... should this be allowed? Well, it is up to the people of Quebec to make that decision, and no-one outside themselves has any right to impose a decision upon them. If the people of Provence, which has always been part of France, should want to break free, they should be allowed to do so, whether or not France has always ruled this place; it is really quite irrelevant to the situation.

I am not saying that Xinjiang should break from China; I am, however, saying that the question of who has ruled who, and for how long is of no consequence to the more fundamental question of the People's will. At this point we may diverge; you will likely feel obliged, as you have done, to regurgitate the official Chinese account word for word; I will be inclined to suggest that the majority of people in Xinjiang do not want to be part of China. The resort to official histories is what governments - not only in China - feel they must have recourse to when they are unable to justify their positions on the deeper issue, but at root this is merely an evasion tactic. The object is to say, "We've ruled this place for X number of years, therefore it is ours," when this is in fact quite vacuous and devoid of true argumentative value.

Were the majority of Tibetans effectively slaves under the previous circumstances? Yes. Tibet was indeed a very miserable place for most people, and it was a place where people had a very difficult and unfair life. Does this justify Chinese occupation of Tibet? Did the fact that Poland had been occupied by the Nazis during World War II justify Stalin in taking it over when the war ended? Not necessarily. Not unless there was a genuine will to bring about substantial improvement to the people's lives, which in Poland at least certainly was not the case. The justification is not to be found in historical facts, but in the will of the people. Everything else is mere, empty rhetoric.

Does the statue of Mao represent a humiliation to the people of Xinjiang? You seem happy to use the word "humiliation" when refering to the injustice done by others to China, but not, perhaps, when the injustice is perpetrated by China itself. Beware of double standards. And please don't insult me by insinuating that I get my information from LP books; I do not.

That's all for now. And don't take it personally; you are a human being, not a country.

;-D

André
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:38 PM
timleahy's Avatar
timleahy timleahy is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 309
Default Re: To timleahy: About the Mao statue

Hi André,

Actually, I think you intended your comments for Baisong ("garbage"). It was he that responded to you message, not I.

Politics & history are tricky subjects though - I steer clear of them - being from Ireland, and it's history!

Regards,
Tim.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2007, 12:10 PM
Andre-H's Avatar
Andre-H Andre-H is offline
TE Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Default Re: To timleahy: About the Mao statue

Oops, sorry about that.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:09 AM.



Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
explore TREKEARTH