Thread by @JimMillward

Interesting thread here from Sheena Greitens about distinguishing between Uyghur Region and Tibet region indoctrination and coercive labor policies. But I think “security” in the wrong lens to see this through. (Thread)

If viewed as attempts aimed at ethnic assimilation in PRC colonies, the common denominator of both XUAR and TAR policies is clear. Neither people present serious threats to security other than in the colonies themselves. But after 70 years, persistent

Tibetanness of Tibetans confounds Xi’s CCP. They have abandoned pluralist multi-minzu approaches of the early CCP in favor of coercive assimilationism. Turning farmers and herders into regimented factory workers is the method de jour, sold as poverty alleviation. Again,

immolations ended years ago in Tibet, so to see today’s mass labor transfers of 15% Tibetan population as related to immolations is a red herring.

Differences between XUAR and TAR are better explained by different persistent Han stereotypes: Tibetans lazy, Uyghurs extremist. Hence different colorings to the same general policy approaches. Chen Quanguo a commonality, but also longer term debates over 2nd gen minzu policy,

XJP’s sinicization of religion, razing of domed Islamic architecture and Tib Buddhist Larung Gar and other monastic centers, restrictions on Mongol, Uyghur, Tibetan language,

the elevation of “zhonghua minzu” and relative de stressing of the 56 minzu 多民族國家 model—that’s the context. “Security” is a minor issue used as an excuse for these assimilationist policies.