So why does the Chinese government not like their wiggers? I'm not a fan of these types but just because they wear droopy pants, hats turned sideways and blast hip hop music doesn't make them bad.

There are quite a few wiggers in my town...they could easily live here.

My friend is half-White, half-Chinese, and when she went to Xinjiang ("The New Frontier"), she was often confused as a Uighyr. There is a lot of distrust of the Uighyr community, and even though my friend was raised in the US, speaks/reads/writes perfect Mandarin Chinese, she experienced quite a bit of discrimination in Xinjiang because of her pale skin (and her mixed race heritage) that made her look a lot like a Uighyr.

The distrust of Han Chinese and Uighyr Chinese is mutual. While they share a common language, there is a very pervasive form of racism going on. As many Han Chinese were simply unfair to my friend, she managed to find free room and board with some Uighyr families, and even had the opportunity to eat some kabobs!

It's not that the Chinese are simply hatin' on their "wiggers," but as a cultural observation, the Chinese are extremely racist. While it is purely coincidence that "wigger" sounds much like the n-word, the meaning of such could not be more similar. Given that the Chinese have a long history of assimilating groups of people and converting them into one, it is difficult for them to accept people of different ethnicities, colour (yes, a misnomer), and national origins.

I'd just also like to add that White (and for that matter, black, yellow, red, purple) are terrible misnomers of skin colour because white is of paper, not so much of people. I've never seen Black as in jet black iPhone in skin, but neither have I seen yellow as in banana...

the term wigger is retarded and ignorant...

the term wigger is retarded and ignorant...There is no such thing as a Chinese alphabet. The people call themselves Uighyrs, which is pronounced much like wigger. Are you saying that you think the people of Uighyr sound stupid?

While it is purely coincidence that "wigger" sounds much like the n-word

You guys aren't talking about the same thing.

no in the US its typically used to mean a white guy who acts black, which how the hell do you act black....or how do you act white.

My apologies, haha. I thought you were talking about the Uighyr people ;-P

My original post was a lame attempt at Ali G...but you did give some good info.

You could also argue that calling something "retarded" is also a bit ignorant, no?

i almost wrote that Kel, but i used the term i feel in context, it is retarded intelligence? i could be stretching

Is there a politically correct name for that group of people? Eminem fans?

Ali G's new 'Bruno' character looks fucking hillarious. Has a black baby - like all the super stars do :P

That's not Ali G.

That's not Ali G.

Sasha Baron Cohen = Ali G!

But that's like saying Bruno = Borat!

But that's like saying Bruno = Borat!

Pointing that out however is being an asshole on purpose... You know what he meant.

Isn't that what you were doing too?

Halo, don't let the Americanized movies ruin it for you. Watch his BBC show, then watch the HBO version of his show. Ali G In Da House was kinda funny but not as good as the original works, and Borat was too scripted and not nearly up to par with his past greater works.

Isn't that what you were doing too?

Yea, to YOU...

So, what you're saying is that you're an asshole on purpose?

Borat was great Kelraz!!

So sanchek no other people than white people listen to Eminem? Clearly thats what one can get form your previous post.

You didn't answer the question.

misunderstood the response,

there really isn't a term...hip hop perhaps? white people who are hip hop fans and dress accordingly, and use the particular manurisms same as black people. Why does there need to be a term. and why isnt there Chigger for chinese people who act black, or jigger for jews, iiggers for indians.

more importantly how do you act black?

Disaffected, urban-friendly Caucasians?

I listen to eminem and I am most definitely not a 'wigger,' and in fact there's very little 'rap' that I listen too. I just find some eminem hilarious. Of course my two favorite Eminem songs aren't funny, Mosh and Lose Yourself.

In fact, I think I own every Eminem CD (yes even the new one).

It was hilarious when I saw it was on sale in the best buy add, and I mentioned that I wanted to get it. My daughter was like I want eminems too, to which I'm like wrong kind kiddo and no way. Wife laughed too.


Edit to add:
Just so more people can laugh that I like Eminem, I also like Marilyn Manson. Laugh at that one too. Oh and my favorite band is German, and I don't speak a lick of German.

Man, Eminem fans are defensive!

i dont like Eminem particularly, i just think poorly inpeople who feel they need to label only his white fans.

I hope you see the humor in my asking what you'd call a "wigger", since you're the one that objected to the term, then you going on to talk about Eminem instead, then objecting to that correlation too.

i dont call anything a wigger, and and you brought up Eminem

there really isn't a term...hip hop perhaps? white people who are hip hop fans and dress accordingly, and use the particular manurisms same as black people. Why does there need to be a term. and why isnt there Chigger for chinese people who act black, or jigger for jews, iiggers for indians.

more importantly how do you act black?

I didn't see your edits to this.

If you know people are going to use the term and you know exactly what they mean by it, yet are offended by it, you ought to figure out an alternative. Otherwise, it seems pointless to complain about it.

i shouldnt have to figure out an alternative, there shouldnt be a term for white kids who like rap to simplify it.

I find it retarded and ignorant when people generalize the GOP as a whole.

But then, I have a coworker who finds white kids who like to rap ignorant and retarded. :eek:

'Halo, don't let the Americanized movies ruin it for you. Watch his BBC show,'

- Oh, I did. Infact I watched the first series when it was aired, what, about 8 years ago now? Was obviously a great work of satire, a popular one too. But it was one of those things that hit the country like fever, and dissapeared within a few years (ala Spice Girls, you might say, or those weird giga-pets). Only until his later Borat work has he become popular again, while he spent the interim over in the US, I believe. I never caught his Ali G movie, but I did get to see Borat. I'm not the biggest fan, but the new Bruno looks bloody hillarious, caught the trailer at the weekend when we watched Drag Me to Hell, and I was screaming with laughter when he popped a black baby out.

I find it retarded and ignorant when people generalize the GOP as a whole.

Yes, but all the GOP calls themselves Republicans...

All members of the democratic party call themselves democrats too, but I would hardly characterize them as having a monolithic set of beliefs, agendas and mental capability.

Yes, but all the GOP calls themselves Republicans...

Yes, I find Republican more politically correct. Please refrain from the hurtful and mean GOP anymore.

Yes, I find Republican more politically correct. Please refrain from the hurtful and mean GOP anymore.

GOP is a common term used by all media outlets from net, to radio, to TV and is considered a politically correct phrase...you find where wigger is a common term used by those media outlets then i will never say GOP again.

Uighyr is a common term in the media in China.

GOP is a common term used by all media outlets from net, to radio, to TV and is considered a politically correct phrase...you find where wigger is a common term used by those media outlets then i will never say GOP again.

"Colored" used to be a common, unoffensive term, used by all media outlets. One day, your hurtful, archaic GOP slurs will come back to haunt your conscience.

I understand why someone could potentially be offended by the term "wigger." Please explain to me how a "Republican" could possibly be offended by being called a member of the "Grand Old Party."

Stop being an ass just for the sake of being an ass.

You really took that seriously? AND the Eminem thing? You must lighten up before you have an aneurysm.

Stop being an ass just for the sake of being an ass.


What else will he do then?

This was a really interesting thread until page 2. I learned something new!

This was a really interesting thread until page 2. I learned something new!

Ditto. I was never aware of the discrimination practiced within China; it does not seem to gel with the ideals of a communist state, as I understand them at least.

I actually would like to teach a course about Asia; in fact I already have a module in mind: -

Actual Topic: Everything I think America's little white kids should know about China that they wouldn't be exposed to otherwise.
Actual Content: Whatever the hell I want, once a week.

Course Titles In The Running:
The Political Environment of Modern China
Culture and Politics in Contemporary China

Titles That Actually Draw Enrollees:
SEX
MAO
CARROTS

Crowd-Raising Titles I Haven't Yet Thought Of:
e^10

You really took that seriously? AND the Eminem thing? You must lighten up before you have an aneurysm.

I don't know, you've been going on about it for a couple pages now. The Eminem thing I was posting was a joke. I was never offended when anyone said anything about Eminem fans being "wiggers;" I was just pointing out that not all of them are. Going on about Marilyn Manson and Rammstein was me just trying to interject some life into the discussion (I guess I failed).

The usage of the word "wigger" doesn't offend me, and I know I definitely use the term from time to time. As to how someone can "act black," I would venture to say that white kids sagging their pants, turning their hats to the side, and talking in ebonics would be "acting black" as all of those traits started with urban black people. To deny that there is an urban black culture that suburban white kids emulate, and then to say "what is acting black?" is just as ignorant as someone using the term "wigger."

My point is more that you are purposefully going on and on to Greystone. If it was in jest, you definitely failed in that coming across in this medium. It appeared to me, and I know I'm not the only one, that you were just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. And you shouldn't act surprised that someone would feel that way because I know that just about everyone on this board has thought that about just about everyone else on this board on numerous occasions. You just happen to be the king of being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk here.

The usage of the word "wigger" doesn't offend me, and I know I definitely use the term from time to time. As to how someone can "act black," I would venture to say that white kids sagging their pants, turning their hats to the side, and talking in ebonics would be "acting black" as all of those traits started with urban black people. To deny that there is an urban black culture that suburban white kids emulate, and then to say "what is acting black?" is just as ignorant as someone using the term "wigger."

I call a little bullshit, due to the fact a latino kid who sags his pants turns their hat sideways doesn't have a term. It's cool if the minorities emulate each other, but when a white kid does it, they are mocked and a rediculous term is used. Also, what if you grew up as a white kid in a predominately black neighborhood how would they be a "wigger" if they only emulate their enviroment like each and everyone of us do.

(Shouldnt this thread have been seperated about 4 pages ago??)

(Shouldnt this thread have been seperated about 4 pages ago??)

Yes.

Malibu's Most Wanted FTW!

Back to original topic and what Rybit posted, i had no idea either of the situation...we clearly need azn training.

Carrots?

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12591028?IADID


Rather than all the blathering, here is some interesting info regarding the Uighurs detained at Guantanamo. We acknowledged some time back they were not enemy combatants, yet they are just recently being freed.

fascinating

this all makes me wonder where the name wigger really came from

this all makes me wonder where the name wigger really came from

Seriously?

Probably from here, Yo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigg

The Whiggamore Raid (or "March of the Whiggamores") was a march on Edinburgh by supporters of the Kirk party of the Covenanters to take power from the Engagers whose army had recently been defeated by the English New Model Army at the Battle of Preston (1648).[1][2]

Whiggamores (later shortened to Whigs)—a term most likely originating from the Scots for "mare drivers"[3]—became a nickname for the Kirk party who were against the Engagement with King Charles I.[1]

Whiggamores (later shortened to Whigs)—a term most likely originating from the Scots for "mare drivers"[3]—became a nickname for the Kirk party who were against the Engagement with King Charles I.[1]


If anyone has seen the poor quality of Captain Kirk's (W Shatner) hairpieces, it should come as no surprise a nickname would be coming. And, based on Kirk's reputation involving female cast and guest stars, "mare driver" might have been viewed by him as a compliment.



Oh, wait....I think I might be taking a wrong tangent here..:p

I'm really surprised the Uighurs have no hard feelings toward the US after being imprisoned for four years. Then again, you'd say anything to get out of Guantanamo Bay. Bermuda is a nice place, and I'm happy the US has done them right, including newly purchased Polo shirts, hah!

Some pictures (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/06/14/world/20090614UIGHURS_index.html) of their new freedom:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/06/14/20090614UIGHURS/28647331.JPG

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/06/14/20090614UIGHURS/28647191.JPG

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/06/14/20090614UIGHURS/28647747.JPG

Some violence reported recently--what do you guys think?

According to Wikipedia, of the 1000 killed or injured only 40 were Uygurs--the protesters. Sounds like they were out injuring people, not the other way around. It's being denounced as an atrocity by the government, but if so then how are the casualties among the spectators and not the protesters?

Uyghurs targeted Han-Chinese because of some rumors, and the rioters killed over a hundred of them before riot police was able to beat the racist mob down? Not riot-police killing hundreds of Uyghurs...

I don't know that I'd trust Wikipedia for accurate data on that - try the BBC or the AP. Read about that a bit this morning (at work atm and will try to comment intelligently later), but I'd expect a pretty strong propaganda offensive by the Chinese government on this...

Here's the BBC article on the protest-turned violent, and it appears that the 'thousands' of casualties is a fabrication with the actual death toll being in the 140s (injured approaching a thousand) and overwhelmingly Uyghur, a massive police presence in the streets, and a tight lid on the Great Firewall (Twitter, Internet, cell phones all down) in the wake of the incident...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8135203.stm

Late for lab, will try to add to this later.

Regards,
Nydia

Now 180. A pretty serious and violent crack-down on what appeard at first sight to be somewhat peaceful protests.

Here's an update with photos and commentary from several different German publications, courtesy of Der Spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,634791,00.html

I think that Chinese policy and the current resulting revolts both with the Uyghur and Tibetan populations can most closely be aligned, historically, with the systematic two-century long gradual disenfranchisement, overwhelming, and cultural genocide by the United States upon the indigenous nations it interacted with here. What we are seeing here is a slow genocide, through massive and heavily promoted and incentivized inmigration of the ethnic majority, cultural repression (schools are only taught in Chinese, religious observance by civil servants is prohibited), with the goal being to marginalize and diffuse these populations and their influence down to a size where they can drown them in the bathtub and trot their remnants out to provide folksy color for tourists.

We don't have a large moral leg to stand on here given our own history, but it's still horrible (and in my mind unconscionable) to watch. Given the relative powerlessness of both the Tibetans and Uyghurs, and the big economic stick China now wields with regard to anyone who might criticise what they see as internal policies, it seems unlikely that anything will come out of the international community on this beyond muted and safely vague calls for 'restraint'...

Regards,
Nydia

Nydia, the whole Tibet issue is a completely different issue, and it's disappointing so many Americans want to add their two cents when they can't even point it on a map, or know about its brutal history, in that all citizens of Tibet were enslaved to the Dalai Lama up until the 1950s. What sucks about the Tibetan situation is that there's no true way to get the truth about the situation. Western media is enchanted with the idea of Tibet rather than the reality. Tibetans make up 40% of the population in Lhasa. We take the Dalai Lhama's word as gospel, even though he definitely has his own incentive to distort the truth. And we obviously can't get the straight talk from the Chinese government.

One of the reasons I am wary of this whole Tibet issue is that China happens to be the West's main economic rival, and now it is convenient for Western governments to support the Dalai Lama's cause. The Dalai Lama is not a democratically elected leader, and pre-1949 Tibet was not exactly the merry free independent country you see in Hollywood depictions. Most of the Tibetans were serfs and enslaved in all but name, serving the religious aristocracy of the Lamas. Did you know that, Nydia? Did you also know that the Dalai Lama's priests abused little boys and cut off hands for petty crimes up until the 1950s (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) (Michael Parenti, Yale professor)? Sometimes I wonder about the West's fascination of Tibet... and while it doesn't make China's rule of Tibet right, neither does the displacing the Native Americans do.

As long as China was an ally of the US against the Soviet Union, you did not hear much about Tibet or the Dalai Lama. Gone the Soviet Union, grown the Chinese economy, and hey presto! Here is a flurry of Hollywood movies designed to show just how ugly and mean the Estasians are, since Eurasia has always been our ally—right?

As for the Urumqi riots, the rioters are killing innocent Chinese--ethnic unrest... why don't they just say Muslim riots and that they're killing Han Chinese? Many kids, elderly were killed by Uighurs. The reasons for rioting are irrelevant--when they START to kill innocent bystanders, they are in the wrong. Besides I don't know how this turned into poor Uyghur being oppressed bullshit... The fact here is that rioters are killing innocent bypasses, the reasons are irrelevant. You don't kill innocent people and then play victim, but there are of course those idiots that let their brainwashed ''Evil China'' bias control their brains. You cannot expect rioters to do want they want and then expect police to accept it whether it is in China or not. And it is this that allot of people fail to see because there heads are filled with anti China nonsense...

Urumqi has only been part of China since 600 AD...

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8140492.stm):156 people - mostly Han Chinese - died in Sunday's violence.Is this your idea of oppression in Urumqi, Nydia? In fact, the Chinese government has implored more rights to the Uighyrs than regular Han Chinese, in ways that they are not subject to the one-child policy as a minority and afforded other rights. While 10% of China's population is Muslim, this clearly is not peaceful and the preservation of human life supersedes any net argument that they might have had. When you lay hands on life and limb when the other has not stricken, you are automatically in the wrong. Repeat that again: 156 of the dead--most of them Han Chinese, not Uighyr Chinese--were killed in the riots.

I don't believe the Han Chinese in these cases were violent, and I definitely have strong reason to believe the Uighyr Muslims were the first to lay hands. You've seen Chinese in the US and elsewhere; the one thing I can assure you is that the Chinese are not violent. More often than not, they're seen as overachieving in school and work.

From Wikipedia (please check footnotes for links to *.edu addresses for additional source checking):During the 22nd year of Emperor Taizong's reign in the Tang Dynasty, AD 648, the Tang government set up the town of Luntai in the ancient town seat of Urabo, 10 kilometers from the southern suburb of present-day Ürümqi. The Ancient Luntai Town was a seat of local government, and collected taxes from the caravans along the northern route of the Silk Road. During the Qing Dynasty (1763) Emperor Qianlong named the expanded town of Luntai "Dihua" (Chinese:迪化; pinyin: Díhuà; Manchu: Wen de dahabure fu), meaning "to enlighten." In 1884, Emperor Guang Xu established Xinjiang as a Province, with Di Hua as its capital. Following the founding of the People's Republic of China, on February 1, 1954, the city was renamed Ürümqi, meaning "beautiful pasture" in the Mongolian language of the Junggar tribe .648 CE is when the Tang dynasty setup the first city government. That's almost as old as some European countries! You're saying that China doesn't have a legitimate claim to Urumqi? That's as legitimate as England's rule to England!

And before you insist that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, I studied this in school when I was in Taiwan (Republic of China), there are records, but unless you can read Chinese from a first-person source of a document at least 2000 years old, I hope this should be enough proof. Otherwise, I can scan the original Chinese and try to find someone knowledgeable in Classical Chinese to read it. The characters will be the same but classical Chinese grammar is very sophisticated. I'll find some scans, and you can find some translators or you can trust my translations of them. And in case you might argue they're biased, our Western history comes from our Western sources--do we use Chinese sources for Western history textbooks? I think not!

Dear Rybit:

I'm having an extremely hectic day at work today and so don't have time to respond to your foaming in detail (will tonight), but please note that I used the word *slow* in there and referred to a time scale of centuries. I won't dispute that what has been recently seen in Urumqi bears the hallmarks of an uprising (and there were plenty in our history with the Native Americans as well), but what is incontrovertible is that both of these regions were *forcibly* conquered roughly half a century ago (regardless of who 'owned' them two millenia ago), and since then the populations have been subjected to various pogroms wherein their indigenous language and religions have been repressed, large numbers of ethnic majority Chinese have been encouraged to move into those regions, and existing power structures and their major players have been dismantled, causing widespread unrest and ultimately uprisings in both areas. China might have set up a city government in Urumqi in 648, but in 1949, it belonged to an independent nation-state.

One last caveat, before I'm forced to run, on the whole 'inside versus outside' issue when it comes to legitimacy in either current or historical perspective on events in an area: frequently, the most historically *accurate* assessments of what is going on or has occurred with regard to a major historical event, either short or long term, come from those that don't have a dog in the fight, so to speak. America is no stranger to bias and the employment of revisionist history as well as outright lies both in the short and long term (Gulf of Tonkin, or for that matter, Manifest Destiny, anyone?) for the purpose of defending their own interests and dogma with regard to what they're 'entitled' to, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that China is no different.

Sincerely,
Nydia

Nydia, might I respectfully remind you that from 1944 to 1949 the Chinese were engaged in two wars: firstly, World War II where conservative estimates state 20 million Chinese civilian lives were lost (with some figures of research today reporting 30-40 million), and secondly, the Civil War (Kuomintang - Republic vs. the Communists - People's Republic), which led the Kuomintang and everyone in Nanjing to move to Taiwan. Five years is hardly any legitimacy for a government that establishes itself in the wake of two crises, and I don't think any country recognised the independence of East Turkestan during that time.

By your reasoning, China should have been a permanent colony of Japan since a Japanese government formed in China around 1938, as a government was established for the five years as Chiang Kai-Shek struggled to keep his government afloat. I also suppose by your reasoning, whether it is right or not, Taiwan's government, the Republic of China, should also be in full charge of mainland China, since they attempted to maintain a government on the mainland from 1912 to 1949. Or by your other reasoning that Japan should still be in charge of Taiwan since they controlled it from 1895 to 1945 as a result of Japan waging war against China.

I agree that Manifest Destiny is an inherently flawed ideal and that colonisation in principle is bad. But there is no hope in the Chinese government to reverse their position. In the case of Hong Kong, there was a signed, legal document that limited the lease of Hong Kong to 99 years, since Common Law only permits the leasing of real estate for up to 99 years. Like you said, we (as in the United States) are really in no position to speak of expanding the frontier, as it was done plentifully in our country's history.

I'm not saying that things could work out better in East Turkestan. But China has firmly defended its claim to Urumqi since the 18th century. Again, these protestors are clearly in the wrong. What is with it with mass media calling them "peaceful protests" when most of the deaths were Han Chinese? If you've been to Urumqi, which I have, the Uighyrs keep to themselves, and the Han Chinese do the same. In fact, claims of "cultural genocide" are hardly even true. City mayors and government officials of Urumqi all have some Uighyr blood and take Uighyr names.

The interesting thing about it is that I feel that you are sympathising with the Uighyrs when they were using terrorist/guerilla tactics. Clearly any argument that they might have had is undermined by the killing of innocent Han Chinese. That is no way to win and earn friends.

Death Toll Debated (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071100464.html)

I'm pretty amazed that the Washington Post actually wrote a balanced article about the situation. In Canadian news sources, they rarely mention that the Uighur rioters beat and killed men, women and the elderly just because they were ethnically Chinese. They only mention the revenge riots by the Han Chinese or they vaguely mention the death toll, misleading people into thinking the police caused the majority of the deaths.

Good grief. Human migration must truly an evil act by the Chinese government. The area was underdeveloped, and the Chinese government developed it. Skilled Chinese workers went west to fill jobs that couldn't be filled by Uighurs because they were not educated and skilled. Governments all over the world do this--in the United States, doctors, teachers, and other skilled workers are paid huge amounts of money by the government to go into less developed areas, such as areas around native reserves. The skilled workers tend to be White, while the population they work with tend to be native.

Is that some kind of evil government plot to you?

Today, the Chinese government gives Uighurs tax breaks, education subsidies, bonus points on college applications exemption from 1-child policy, etc to help them out and reduce the economic gap. Many Uighurs are educated in Chinese universities and are encouraged to go back to Xinjiang to help out, but they want to stay in the east coast cities.

There are special minority colleges in China that only have 5% of the spots reserved for Han Chinese with the rest going to minorities. In addition to the regular curriculum, the Uighurs can learn their own languages and customs. These collegse are part of the normal university application process and are a CHOICE for the Uighurs.

The fact that you think that Chinese migration into Xinjiang is some kind of evil plot is laughable. If that was their goal, minorities would not be growing much more quickly than the Han Chinese population in China. They would not be exempt from the 1-child policy that middle-class Han Chinese must follow.

Why is it when attacks happen in the US or Western part of the world they are called acts of terrorism and when it happens in China they are called riots?

I got enchanted with coming up with an amusing name for a course Rybit.

The History of Mao's political carrots.

=p

Nydia,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40857000/jpg/_40857996_etlo_grab203.jpg

Here's another picture of rioting, peace-loving East Turkestan Liberation Organisation. From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/simp/hi/newsid_4290000/newsid_4295900/4295912.stm).