Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Re-reading my comment, I should have actually written “I don’t disagree with you that the two can coexist, but only in certain contexts”.

I’m of the opinion that it’s impossible to achieve economic progress with social upheaval, threats of separatism and terrorist attacks. Economic progress is incompatible with the others.

It's the extreme poverty and lack of economic opportunities which drive destabilizing forces such as these.

Prosperity by means of terrorism then separatism is the path offered by the WUC and ETIM.

Prosperity by means of forced “re-education” in vocational skills and poverty alleviation plans [1] is the one offered by the CCP.

I think it’s the CCP’s gambit that when there is economic prosperity in the region, there will be room for expanding human rights. There won’t be a need or desire to separate from a system which you are actively benefiting from and when that threat goes away, so do the armoured patrols and surveillance mechanisms.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-poverty-xinjiang/china...

It didn’t really work for the British, it didn’t work for the Afrikaners, it didn’t really work for the Americans, why do the Chinese think they will get it right?

If I understand the point you’re trying to make correctly, you’re likening China’s claim to Xinjiang to that of the historical colonial powers?

Because if we’re going to go down that road, I have to warn you that the Xinjiang story is not nearly as black and white as the British, Dutch or American stories.

I’m pretty aware of the history: the Qing brought the Uighurs into north Xinjiang to genocide the Mongolians, who already killed a bunch of Han living there already. Still, again, nothing in history has shown that China is any better at colonizing lands than the west (or even the Russians).

No. Xinjiang, or whatever its name was, was controlled by the Chinese government more than a thousand years before the Qing dynasty.

China didn't really colonize, if colonization means to move there and enslave the natives.

I'm glad you know the history there. It's definitely more convoluted than most people think.

> nothing in history has shown that China is any better at colonizing lands than the west

I agree - I guess historically speaking, China just hasn't colonized enough countries to have a decent sample size.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact