I agree, sometimes there is a time and place for an ethnostate(Kurdistan is my go to example) but in this case I think it would be more pragmatic to try and build a more inclusive East Turketstan
Yeah. I mean it's up to them. And it all depends on the situation. In the case of China, there is definitely a case to be made for civic separatism.
I think they are trying to play the long game and trying to build international support so that when the opportunity arises they won't be alone. That professor I mentioned said that he doesn't think China as it exists today is sustainable and he expects that it could break up into multiple states or at least actually autonomous regions within the century. So I think in his mind the game is to lay the plans out and wait for that moment.
China's ethnic and cultural composition certainly is not a recipe for long-term stability. I tend to agree with your professor. I say wait until China fully collapses (economically, and militarily) before waiving a new flag though, because that government is ruthless. IMO China is perfectly capable of doing anything the Nazis did if it means preserving power.
I do not think fighting back with guns and bombs would benefit that long game, it would make it too easy for China to justify the crackdown on the basis of fighting terrorism. Tbh I am kind of surprised there hasn't been more separatist violence, Muslims are not really known for taking things like this lying down.
Well, I mean we are talking about
Asian Muslims (peaceful, quiet, hard-working, good at math, etc.)
Maybe violence is not in the Uihgur's nature.
The thing is the Uighurs don't even enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Those outside the camps face numerous forms of discrimination and surveillance which is why the idea of independence is gaining traction. But I do get your point though to an extent I disagree. I think allowing culturally distinct regions some level of autonomy while allowing them to exist under the wider umbrella of the state is a good idea at times, a fair middle ground between secession and total assimilation. But I doubt the Chinese would allow that so in this case I think you are right, its either face the extinction of your culture or break away.
So you want East Turkestan to be like Hong Kong or Macau? That would be nice. I don't think China can resist imposing itself in the long term, or even short term (I doubt Hong Kong maintains its current semiautonomy until 2047). After all, we're talking about a government with grandiose imperial ambitions. And like you said, China would probably never allow it in the first place.
When it comes to disputes like this, I don't see the point in moralizing. In the modern USA, we like to talk about history in terms of whether it's "right" or "wrong," because it's ingrained into our psyche (you might even say we are "privileged" to see the world that way). But nations are not moral actors. China certainly is not a moral actor.
Should China "allow[ ] culturally distinct regions some level of autonomy"? Is it a "fair middle ground?" Yeah, I guess. If it were up to me, sure. But if history teaches us anything, it's that the laws of conquest care nothing for morality. "Kill the men, rape the women, enslave the children, and pillage the villages." Those are the rules, always have been. The
winners write the history books, and they are the heroes. The
losers die, and are usually forgotten. If they're lucky, they'll be written about as valiant warriors who fought to the death, like the Carthaginians. If they're
really lucky, they live long enough to complain about their history being erased, like the American Indians or Hawaiians.
And that's why I think the Uihgurs have a tough choice to make. Living under Chinese rule is probably bad, but is it
that bad? Is it worse than giving up their history / culture? Is it worse than not existing? Only if they can answer "YES" should they follow through on this separatism thing. Otherwise, it's just not worth it.