To Protect an Ancient City, China Moves to Raze It - NYTimes
Kashgar's Old City: The Politics of Demolition - open Democracy News Analysis
China's comically loose interpretation of "protecting" historical treasures comes to the fore again, as the government moves to destroy essentially all of Kashgar's Old City. The government claims the move was done in the name of "earthquake protection" - an argument that doesn't hold much weight considering the Taklamakan desert city has lasted for upwards of 2000 years. The cheerily named "Resident's Resettlement Project" has continued Many suspect China's Han Majority are destroying the old city - a cultural touchstone for the Uighur minority and a religious center - as part and parcel of their efforts to absorb the troublesome natives into China's Borg-like majority. The Old City's residents have been included in the process in typical Chinese style:
The city says the Uighur residents have been consulted at every step of planning. Residents mostly say they are summoned to meetings at which eviction timetables and compensation sums are announced.
Although the city offers the displaced residents the opportunity to build new homes on the sites of their old ones, some also complain that the proposed compensation does not pay for the cost of rebuilding.
For their part, the Chinese government think the demolition of the historically precious city won't harm Uighur culture any: they intend to replace the buildings with "Uighur style" architecture and tourist-friendly attractions.
Residents of the Old City, some residing in family homes that were built over 500 years ago, are being efficiently repatriated into Soviet style apartment blocks - which, as we saw in Sichuan province, may be less earthquake safe then the ancient homes they are leaving behind. (By this logic, we should really start knocking down and earthquake proofing a healthy majority of, say, Italy.)
According to a NYTimes commentor who had spent some time in Kashgar, the residents saw it coming:
The Chinese had recently built the ring road and the encircling sea of "toilet buildings" as people call them - cement and white-tile Stalinist-style tenement buildings - inhabited by Han migrants (and which are certainly not impervious to earthquakes, as we saw in Sichuan), which seemed to be constantly pressing inward on the old city and its mosque. The Uighurs bemoaned that it was probably a matter of time before their final enclave was destroyed. That time has unfortunately come, eight years later. - Joshua L.
However.
To begin, I am personally biased here. I visited Urumqui and Turfan two years ago, and very much enjoyed experiencing Uighur country - it's like nothing else I've encountered, and entirely apart from the rest of China culturally and historically. Uighurs, a Turkic group totally distinct from Han Chinese, have waged a war against the Chinese government's control of their traditional territory since 1949. Although the Uighurs managed to free themselves from Kuomintang rule in 1933 and 1944, creating autonomous states, they were forcibly subsumed into the mainland in 1949 - creating a very similar political situation to that of Tibet.
Unfortunately for the Uighurs, the Tibetans play much better to crowds then they do - they lack a cuddly Dali Lama, have little hippie appeal, and practice a Muslim faith that isn't particularly popular in today's Western sentiment. As a result, the Chinese governments push against the Uighurs has gone on without much comment from the rest of the world, and Save Turkestan stickers just haven't taken off in the same way Save Tibet decals have. For their part, the Uighurs occasionally violent tactics against Chinese control haven't done much to win them sympathy from the government - which has, as some suspect, used charity as a front for destroying Kashgar in the name of diluting even further the realm of Uighur influence. Unfortunately for the people of Turkestan, the Chinese government is almost certainly going to win this battle. The Chinese, as we know, are spectacularly good at absorbing other cultures.
Still, as some noted on the comments section of the NYTimes article, the moaning and dramatics from us first worlders is a typical example of educated rich folks telling poor rural folks what is culturally relavant and what should be saved. The Old Town of Kashgar may be picturesque, but it also has no sewer system, little sanitation, and indeed may be vulnerable to earthquakes - and perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to lament a bit of modernization in these people's lives. I've spent some time in Beijing's hutongs - a similar setup to what exists in Old Kashgar- and although they are certainly quaint, they are also dirty, cramped, odiferous, and overcrowded. Historical and rustic neighborhoods are not always great to actually live in.
In this instance, though, I'm not sure the "stay out of their bidness" arguments holds much water. Judging from my vastly limited knowledge, the Uighurs seem rather happy with their Old City and would rather not move into the apartment blocks the Chinese have thoughtfully set aside for them. They want to stay in their 500 year old houses and do whatever the hell it is they've been doing for the past 2000 years, which seems to me a legitimate desire.
But the Chinese Borg aren't interested in sentimentality or preserving culture beyond what drives the tourist trade - and the added perk of weakening the Uighurs made the destruction of the Old City almost inevitable. The Chinese are laser-focused on bringing their economy up to world standards and their profile up to that of a superpower, and the preservation of charming little mud cities is extremely low on their priority list - we may recall the Three Gorges Dam controversy. For my part, I'm sad as hell that I'll never get to see Kashgar's Old City, but in the end it isn't my battle. I can, as always only spectate and complain.
No comments:
Post a Comment