Who are the Uyghurs of China? By James Reed

     I have been writing about the Chinese communist government’s human rights violations against the Uyghurs, and the relative lack of interest about this in the public debates about China worship. But, for interest, who are the Uyghurs? Here are some extracts from a recent vDare article telling us. Turns out that the Uyghurs, are predominantly white, which explains why the Left will just let them burn, just as the ethnic cleansing of the Yazidis by ISIS, to “smash their blond bloodline,” was never of any interest to the Left of the West:

“There’s an old stereotype that “all Chinese people look the same.” However, what people really mean is that Han Chinese people, who make up 91% of the population of the People’s Republic of China, look the same. There are also 55 officially-recognized ethnic minorities in China. And then there are ethnic minorities whom the Chinese government refuses to recognize. This is usually because they are Turkic peoples who are genetically very different from the Han and don’t like being ruled by them. One of these unrecognized ethnic minorities: 11.3 million-strong Muslim “Uyghur.” They have effectively been in rebellion against Han occupation for centuries. And, genetically, they are, to a great extent, white. … The Uyghur, known until the 1930s simply as the Turki, have repeatedly risen up against their East Asian Han overlords, inevitable because they are genetically and culturally very different from the Han. It has been demonstrated that the more genetically different two ethnic groups are, the more likely they are fight against each other [see Ethnic Conflicts, by Tatu Vanhanen]. Essentially, there has been continuous unrest in the Northwest province of Xinjiang, where the China’s Uyghur mainly live, since 1931. This province, once overwhelmingly Uyghur, is now only 45% Uyghur—and 40% Han. Its capital city, Urumqi, is now 75% Han and only 12.8% Uyghur.

These massive demographic changes reflect a deliberate Han government policy of overwhelming Xinjiang, and especially its capital, with Han immigrants so that the Uyghur will completely lose control of their territory, be absorbed into Han culture, and stop being a quasi-white thorn in the Han regime’s side. … So, who exactly are the Uyghur? According to the most up-to-date research, they are a genetic “cline” between “European” and “East Asian.” Specifically, in Hotan in northern Xianjiang, they are about 60% genetically European and 40% genetically East Asian. In the south of Xinjiang, Uyghurs are around 52% genetically European [Analysis of Genomic Admixture in Uyghur and Its Implication in Mapping Strategy, by Shuhua Xu et al., American Journal of Human Genetics, 2008]. Of course, these are only averages. They imply that a minority of Uyghur are considerably more than 60% genetically European—explaining why some of them, with their blond hair and blue eyes, wouldn’t look out of place in Northeastern Europe. Genetics researcher Razib Khan has theorized that Indo-Europeans made their way to what is now Northwest China about 4000 years ago, led there by the search for fresh farming pastures [Uighurs are Hybrids, By Razib Khan, Discovery Magazine, March 28, 2003]. This explains why the region’s Tarim Mummies, which are about 2000 years old, are conspicuously Caucasian, much to the embarrassment of Beijing [The Dead Tell A Tale China Doesn't Care To Listen To, by Edward Wong, New York Times, November 18, 2008].

     World traveler Linda Thom visited Xinjiang in 2007, and wrote, at the time of the riots, that:

The mummies are Europeans, not Han Chinese. Although there are hundreds of mummies, perhaps the two most famous are "Cherchen Man" and the "Loulan Beauty", which my husband and I saw in the provincial museum in Urumqi in 2007. Cherchen man dates from 1000 BC. He has red hair, is about 5' 10" tall and has a decidedly European face. Loulan Beauty, among the oldest mummies, has light brown hair and again looks European, not Chinese. Beside the Loulan Beauty's case, an artist drew a picture  (right) of how beautiful she may have been because the Uighurs have adopted her as a symbol of their people. She looks like them, not Chinese. DNA samples do not completely support this view—the Uighurs are a Turkic people—but whatever else they are, the mummies are not Han Chinese. Approximately 2500 years ago, an East Asian people came to this area and intermixed with the Indo-European population. The result was the Uyghur people seen in China today.”     

     So, like much else, it is a racial thing, and one tied to destroying a white bloodline. That is what absorption into the mainstream population entails, and in Australia, our own Human Rights Commission in their Bringing Them Home Report (1997), defined acts of genetic assimilation and absorption as genocide:

“Genocide was first defined in a detailed way in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Australia ratified the Convention in 1949 and it came into force in 1951. The Convention confirmed that genocide is a crime against humanity. This expressed a shared international outrage about genocide and empowered any country to prosecute an offender. A state cannot excuse itself by claiming that the practice was lawful under its own laws or that its people did not (or do not) share the outrage of the international community. Genocide is defined as, ... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a. killing members of the group; b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (article II). Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate physical destruction of a group or nation. The Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin was the author of the term and the major proponent of the United Nations Convention. He defined `genocide' as `a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves' (Lemkin 1944 page 147). The objectives of such a coordinated plan would be `the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups' (Lemkin 1944 page 79).

Lemkin defined genocide to include `deliberate separation of families for depopulation purposes subordinated to the criminal intent to destroy or to cripple permanently a human group'. Genocide, he said, typically comprises two phases: the destruction of the cultural and social life of the `oppressed group' and the imposition of the national pattern of the `oppressor' (1944 page 147). Lemkin's approach was adopted in the United Nations Convention of 1948. Genocide can be committed by means other than actual physical extermination. It is committed by the forcible transfer of children, provided the other elements of the crime are established. As the United Nations Secretary-General explained, the separation of children from their parents results in `forcing upon the former at an impressionable and receptive age a culture and mentality different from their parents. This process tends to bring about the disappearance of the group as a cultural unit in a relatively short time' (UN Document E/447 1947).

     The Left have some questions to answer. And, so does the new God, China.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Wednesday, 28 October 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/