Great Site On Ethnic Groups In China

Repost from the old site.

From the Chinese government.

That isn’t really the homepage; I can’t find the homepage, so just click to the left on any ethnic groups you want to read about.

Lists all of the official minorities, with a good anthropological background for them, along with a good history, a bit about the language, customs, religious beliefs, culture, etc., then onto recent history.

The history and recent history is written according to Marxist economic analysis, and shows how the coming of the Chinese Revolution really did improve things for many minorities.

I’ve been scared to read the part about the Tibetans and Uighurs.

I’m sure in the case of Tibet it will talk about how the revolution ended feudalism (Yes, there was real feudalism in Tibet.) in Tibet and made life better for most Tibetans. One thing no one tells you about the Free Tibet crowd was that the Dalai Lama presided over a particularly horrible modern form of feudalism, complete with castes and out and out slavery.

The site does provide a tremendous amount of evidence that the Chinese revolution has resulted in tremendous improvements in the lives of many Chinese minorities. Anti-Communists seem to be blind to that fact. Life in China in 1949 and the decades prior was no picnic!

It’s pretty cool to have an anthropological overview of lots of interesting ethnic groups written strictly from a Marxist perspective. More typical is this one, still very well-done, but written by hardline Estonian anti-Communists. It deals with the ethnic groups of the Former Soviet Union.

I wasn’t aware that the USSR had destroyed every single ethnic group in the country until these stalwart Balts informed me. I realize the Balts are pissed, but it needn’t taint your scholarship.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

37 thoughts on “Great Site On Ethnic Groups In China”

  1. Aren’t the Tibetans closely related to the Northern Han Chinese? I read somewhere that the Tibetans used to be part of the original Huaxia tribes living near the Yellow River but they split off from what would later become the northern Chinese ethnos by moving southwest and becoming nomads rather than agriculturalists.

        1. Yes. I think so. But the Koreans and Japanese are quite close. They are a separate cluster. Plus they split off from the rest around 50,000 YBP, which is really weird. There is a cluster that is like Korean-Japanese, and then Ainu. North Chinese are outside of that.

  2. Life in China in 1949 and the decades prior was no picnic!

    Well Robert, China had just undergone a century of internal population/ecological problems, foreign intrusions, WWII Japanese aggression, and Civil War.

    So even if the Communists had been absolute shit, they still would have improved the country relative to the years before.

    And yes, I acknowledge that China under the Communists did indeed make tremendous progress in the early 1950s.

    (although after that, they fucked up big time, but that’s another story)

    However, China today hardly treats its minorities well. Saying that modernization and Chinese imperialism has improved their lives economically is very similar to the arguments white nationalists make regarding blacks and black Africans.

    “Hey, look at how much more affluent black Americans are than black Africans. Sure, we treated them like shit, but they could be living in poverty in Africa!”

    or “look at how blacks in Zimbabwe used to have more food to eat under white rule, and look at them now!”

    Believe me Robert, China treats its minorities like shit. They encourage Han immigration to minority areas, displace the natives, take the good jobs, and dilute their cultures.

    And when Tibetans and Northwest Muslims object, the Han act as if they are ungrateful. They act as if these groups are too ungrateful to enjoy being lifted out of “backwardness.”

    Robert, I hate to say it, but when talking about minorities in China, you’re using rhetoric and arguments very similar to white nationalists.

    Yeah, I’m a pseudo-white nationalist. I admit it. But I don’t make those types of arguments regarding black Africans and American blacks, at least in terms of how things are/were so much better for them on account of being ruled by whites, and how they have been lifted out of “backwardness.”

    1. I get pissed off when jew neocons bash China over its treatment of its minorities. Do these fuckers have no limit to their hypocrisy?

      1. I’m no neocon, and I’m not bashing China over its treatment of minorities.

        But yeah, it’s true, they do treat their minorities like shit.

        But so what? Every country does. If I were to bash China for treating its minorities like shit, I’d have to bash every country.

        (and yeah, I know that sounds like a two wrongs make a right fallacy, but I don’t care)

        I’m just pointing out that they do indeed treat their minorities like shit. That’s just a factual statement, not an opinionated one.

        And I just think it’s interesting the way Robert seems to defend many of China’s practices, solely because they were/still are to a lesser extent Maoist.

        The way I see it, if India were Maoist and China non-Communist, even if everything about those two countries were the same as they are now, he would be calling China a shithole and praising India.

        Okay, maybe not praising India. It still would be a shithole! 🙂

      2. Oops, I guess you just meant Jewish neocons.

        Since you were replying to my comment pointing out China’s poor treatment of its minorities, I thought you were critiquing me.

        My mistake. I misread your comment.

    2. This is not true. All of those minorities were living in the most horrible feudalism. The Chinese revolution made everything so much better for most of them. Also, they made alphabets for many of the native languages, made publishing houses for native languages, encouraged native customs, etc. Also minority groups get the right to education in their native language if I am not mistaken. It’s very similar to the Leninist liberation of the nationalities of the USSR in the early years. Mao even said that the minorities could have the right to self-determination, including secession, but he got rid of that after maybe a few years.

      There were some bad things that happened during the Cultural Revolution though.

      It’s only the Tibetans and Uighurs pretty much who are pissed. And the Inner Mongolians to some extent. Everyone else is pretty much happy, and especially in the rural areas, the Communists made things so much better! Unbelievable! The Tibetans and Uighurs are pissed, and they have a right to be, but the others are happy. Han migration has only been encouraged to Tibetan and Uighur areas because they are secessionists.

      1. Well, I guess I should have clarified.

        The main minorities in China are the Tibetans and Northwest Muslims (ie. Uighurs).

        I confess my ignorance regarding the other minorities, but when I took a course at my UC on China, the professor mainly focused on those two minorities.

        And yeah, they are pissed.

        1. Well Robert, how do you measure whether or not they’re happy?

          Just look at minority groups in the U.S.

          Even bourgeois, economically well off ones can be malcontents.

          A relatively high standard of living doesn’t necessarily make you happy.

          That reminds me. I think a post comparing and contrasting the experiences of minority groups in the West compared to Asian countries would be good.

        2. There are 80 official ethnic groups in China, officially designated. An officially designated ethnic group gets lots of good benefits from the designation. Some groups are angry because they say they are ethnic groups, but they got lumped into “Han.” At some point, the Chinese said enough is enough and decided not to make more designated ethnic groups. China’s policy on ethnic groups is actually very good for a backwards, 3rd world country. It’s almost a European type policy.

          The Tibetans and Uighurs are very large groups, and both are secessionist. Chinese don’t dig secessionists. Hence…

          I do support the Tibetans and Uighurs though and I wish China would let them go, but probably they never will.

        3. BAG, this is crazy. In China, other than Uighurs, Tibetans and to some extent Inner Mongolians, you don’t hear a peep from minorities. China doesn’t necessarily have much right to those lands. Especially Inner Mongolia I think they just annexed it. Fuckers. And Tibet is similar. They annexed it in 1911. And Uighurs have never been part of China. The proper thing to do would be to liberate those nations, but it ain’t going to happen.

        4. you don’t hear a peep from minorities.

          Well Robert, China has such great censorship and these groups are so powerless that those of us here in the West probably aren’t going to hear from them.

          China is indeed an empire. Their territory has certainly expanded following the unification of China starting with the short-lived Qin Dynasty.

          Not to mention neocolonialism in Africa.

        5. Uigher terrorists are being trained en mass since the 90’s in terrorist camps in Afghanistan so US can have a Kosovo style colony depriving China of natural resources in the region. The entire exiled government and all there propaganda

          US has been supporting the tyrants/kleptocracy in Tibet since the late 40’s/early 50’s training them in camps in the US who during their rule would routinely torture and have slaves for the ruling elite.

          Good website about the real Tibet

        6. The Tibetans are pissed? Something funny about Chinese people, I’ve noticed, is that the minorities who have day to day contact with them like them the most.

          The cretins (and I mean this in strictly medical terms) who are raised on American propaganda and a lack of iodized salt in the nomadic hinterlands are much more likely to hate Chinese.

          Lhasa natives generally had far fewer problems with Chinese migrant workers. It was resettled, jobless, alcoholic former-nomads who took their anger out on civilians.

          China is indeed an empire. Their territory has certainly expanded following the unification of China starting with the short-lived Qin Dynasty.

          And I guess that means America is what, a sort of post-Nazi crumbling plutocracy? The difference between Tibet and America is that the Tibetans are alive and strong, while the Amerinds are broken and dying (due to ongoing genocidal policies). Talk to me once there’s a one-child policy in America for whites, blacks, Mexicans and Jews.

          The funny thing about this Qin Dynasty thing is that the Qin themselves were probably half-Qiang (the predecessor to both Huaxia and Tibetan). There are few if any examples of pure Han societies taking over other polities by force- all of those near the Huaxia heartland were assimilated (State of Chu- sinicized Miao, State of Wu- sinicized Austronesians, State of Yue- sinicized Tai-Kradai).

          They’re nothing like the whites who started off their genocidal frenzy with the Basques and Uralics.

    3. Bay Area Guy
      Believe me Robert, China treats its minorities like shit. They encourage Han immigration to minority areas, displace the natives, take the good jobs, and dilute their cultures.

      And when Tibetans and Northwest Muslims object, the Han act as if they are ungrateful. They act as if these groups are too ungrateful to enjoy being lifted out of “backwardness.”

      They do not. By Western standards the Chinese government treats everyone like shit, and the Han Chinese worse than shit. Shit is better than worse than shit.

      And guess how those poor, poor Northwest Muslims became a majority in Xinjiang?

      Centuries upon centuries of genocide. The first people in Xinjiang were most likely proto-Huns. Then the Tocharians absorbed them. Then the Han Chinese arrived in the East. Then the real Uighur (pure blood NE Asians) came and displaced the Tocharians. Then the Mongols marginalized the real Uighur. Then the Manchu exterminated the Western Mongols. Then the Uzbeks exterminated nearly every non-Muslim and millions of Hui in a bloody genocide in the 1860s and squatted in the area. Then the Uzbeks were renamed Uighur by the Soviets, reviving an ethnonym which was by all accounts dead for centuries.

      Urumqi, where “Uighurs” committed atrocities against men, women and babies, was founded by a Tang Emperor (Taizong). It was a black hole of nothingness before. So I guess if 10 million Mestizo Mexicans razed Barcelona to the ground and squatted there you’d have no problem?

      And for the PRC encouraging “immigration” into minority areas? Actually the Manchu court forced or enticed Northern Han into Inner Mongolia, Manchuria and Eastern Xinjiang to shore up borders against the Russian Imperialists. They also posted Manchu, Xibe, Mongols and Nanai there. Then they sent administrators into Western Tibet after Francis Younghusband invaded it and murdered thousands of Tibetan soldiers (monk militias). They suffered 5 casualties or thereabouts- the Tibetans lost thousands.

      What is sometimes known as Tibet today is not all of Tibet- at least half of the Tibetan population was annexed into the Qing Dynasty in 1724. The Free Tibet people change their definition of Tibet to suit their purposes; for example they love to claim that the Dalai Lama has relinquished “Greater Tibet” but when they want to scream about Han migration they enlarge the borders to encompass frontier cities like Kangding that have been peacefully half-Chinese half-Tibetan for centuries. Even when China was divided into warlord ruled regions Eastern Tibet was ruled by Han Warlords. ALL of China had to be re-invaded by the PRC, not just the TAR.

      The funny thing is that the Southern parts of the former Tibetan Empire are almost completely flooded to their core by Indian and other South Asian recent migrants, and they will be all but exterminated within the decade, yet there is no outcry- the Bhutanese want to purge hundreds of thousands of such illegal migrants but Western progressives want nothing less than the total extermination/assimilation of East Asians no matter where they are.

      And yes, Tibet had an empire. Don’t laugh. At its height it was arguably the world’s second or third strongest military power. So the Dalai Lama more or less handed legitimacy to India to colonize the Southern parts which were formerly independent Mon-Khmer and Sino-Tibetan Kingdoms. The reason why Tibetans north of the Himalayas were kept culturally and racially intact for so long is because China intervened at least twice to prevent invasions from the much more densely populated South.

      It’s ironic that you accuse Robert of supporting a “white nationalist” like argument and then go off supporting the Marxist minority-coddling of the PRC. If anything China is the only thing keeping Tibetans in general from being totally exterminated.

        1. There are lots of good stories to be read if you don’t mind doing some digging.

          I’d take a look at Kangding, “Northeast India”, “Greater Tibet”, “Tibetan Empire”.

          For the politics of Tibet look at CIA Tibet, or and of these keywords: CIA Declassified Sino-Indian Border War 2008

          Basically everything the West knows about Tibet and China is wrong.

          But don’t get me wrong, it’s complete hyperbole to call the Dalai Lama a monster. He was too young when all this was going on (early twenties) and he has been consistently strong-armed by his older brother, Thubten Norbu, who is the quintessential representative of the secular ruling class of what is now the TAR.

          Norbu can basically be described, in few words, as your “typical Cold War anti-Communist type”. He is has become much more pragmatic in recent times.

        2. And I forgot a few details on the peopling of Xinjiang- after a while the Huns made a comeback and lorded over everyone there, proto-Tibetans bumped up against the South, then the Tibetan Empire took over major trade routes through it. At this point we would cue the Mongol domination.

  3. Rob, I know you wrote many pieces critiquing India and calling it a shithole, would you consider Pakistan more progressive in comparison? They are at least allied with China while India is allying with America and Israhell.

    1. The funny thing about that is the U.S. used to like Pakistan more than Indian because they were staunchly anti-Communist.

      But now, all of a sudden they’re a problem.

      Same thing with Afghanistan.

      The U.S. could really use a paleocon as their foreign policy expert.

    2. Pakistan is a very, very, very seriously fucked up shithole. A Pakistani nationalist I know says it’s way less of a shithole than India, but I doubt it. Pakistan sucks. So does Bangladesh. Same with Nepal and Afghanistan. The whole region is fucked, most with feudal and semi-feudal social relations. They got a lot of that from India with their Hindu caste shit.

    3. @fpy3p

      Pakistan has been allied with Britain from its inception and later the US especially in the mid 70’s up to the Mumbai attack when the ISI, MI6 and CIA were/are working together

  4. Robert, couldn’t the argument be made that the Leninist liberation of minorities made it easier for the USSR to collapse? In China, Han make up 95% of the population, whereas in the USSR, Russians made up about 50%. What’s your take on Gorbachev, I consider him a failure and a traitor and Russians should piss on his grave after he croaks.

    1. 92%.

      I am not an ultranationalist or a fascist. Nations want liberation. We Commies give it to them, within reason. The breakup of the USSR was correct, and it one of the most progressive events of the 20th century with the mass liberation of all those nations.

      1. And also, with the break-up of the USSR, Russians are no longer a minority. Though they do have to contend with a growing Muslim population, but that’s another story.

        Besides, I support self-determination and nationalism everywhere.

        I believe every group should control its destiny.

  5. Rob, didn’t the collapse of the USSR lead to an even more arrogant, triumphant U.S. that then preceded to expand NATO into countries where it didn’t belong and lead to neocon goals for total American hegemony over the globe?

    1. Yeah, that is interesting.

      It seems that following the conclusion of the Cold War, neocons started to play more and more of a role.

  6. Anyway, unless someone directly addresses me and makes an interesting comment in the process, I’m calling it a night.

    Great conversations, as always!

Leave a Reply to Huax Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)