Had an interesting dinner last night in Hong Kong with a few colleagues who have peers involved with human rights groups. Since the nature of our business involves alternative investments in 2nd and 3rd tier cities, Yunnan came up and the fact that the majority of ethnic minorities in China are located in Yunnan.

Not having much exposure to ethnic minorities in general, my colleagues and I learned a little about the general conditions of culture preservation, history and so forth. Some of our guests mentioned "ethnocide" and the potentially detrimental impact on local cultures, from either wider institutions or special interest groups. So I thought it would be interesting to hear from a few local Kunmingers. Just this morning I received an email with this link on Akha/Hani culture: www.akha.org/content/missions/index.html which has interesting information (personally, I'm unsure of validity and research).

Without going into a heated debate or moving into defamation because this topic could could get wildly out of hand and personal, does anyone have thoughts or opinions? Just as an interesting off topic discussion pertaining to our locale, Yunnan.

If you watch Star Trek then when you think of Han influence among the other minzu then think of the Borg, resistance is futile!

An over simplified view, maybe.

If I had any opinions on such matters I would be reluctant to post them on an open forum here.

Yunnan seems to still have its minorities...where's the ethnocide?

China has historically diluted troublesome areas with Han immigrants. Purists may complain (like Richard Gere) - the state values peace and harmony over cultures that lead to disharmony. While Yunnan is an incredibly integrated province - eight government controlled cities and eight autonomous cities - all must respect central party rule for the common good. They're not perfect - but after 5 millennia of civil wars and population decimations - pragmatism wins out over cultural preservation almost every time.

Since everyone's afraid to bring it up - Tibet was a caste society with all the inherent evils of oppression and human rights abuse. That the Nobel committee awarded the head of such a persecuting oppressive religion is utterly astonishing. That the USA continues to recognize and encourage this exiled nation of human rights abuse and oppression is incredibly offensive - but politics and national security rarely tread the higher path of righteousness. There's something inherently wrong with that kind of behavior and as history has shown - it ALWAYS comes back to bite - Iran being an extraordinary case-in-point of a egregiously disastrous foreign policy.

China is by far a perfect country - but history has shown the persistent general success of it's policy of obedience or dilution into obsolescence - genocide notwithstanding - in stabilizing its internal borders.

I read the website provided above and although many may disagree, this behavior has been going on for many centuries around the world. There is no doubt in my mind it still continues. Many of the young people involved in these organizations have no idea of the hidden agenda behind the veil of good.

Compartmentalization is the way it is achieved. The good people doing the work at the lower levels have no idea of the real agenda at the higher levels.

Many of these organizations - the list is very acurate - provide work for the locals but they do NOT receive all they create. Much of the profit goes somewhere else and in a sense they are being used for their labor and they are enslaved in the end. True love is to help others become autonomous and free. True love is to teach others to one day be free.

The excuse is always the same. Before these people had nothing but we gave them work and now they make some money. However, that money is never enough to allow them to be free and independent. The excuse is that We helped them earn some money that they did not have before.

Proof - Mission schools in US, Canada and Australia whose sole purpose was to wipe out the culture and make the indigenous people Anglo. The indigenous peoples all over the world have been destroyed by missionaries.

Freedom is relative, there is no such thing as true freedom.
Just ask people who have been 'slaves' to their mortgage, and still got foreclosed on.
As long as people believe they are free, then 'freedom' works. Even in an authoritarian state, as long as people can go about their daily lives, without interference from government, the people are generally happy.

I think the methodology mentioned on the site is interesting. Although it is commonly known that many not for profit groups move like for profit companies, it's pretty amazing that the structure and process seems very much like modern day sales strategies ie. commission on sales (or conversion of households to said religion).

However, some of the more drastic actions such as burning of traditional clothes and literature, I thought, was outdated and frowned upon, after the examples of colonization of the US and other countries with detrimental consequences. @seaforte03, I'm not sure if or to what extent "ethnocide" is happening but based on the Akha Human Rights groups, they state that "There is no single factor which so dramatically effects the children and cultural identity of the Akha people as missionaries." due to practices such as "7. Recitals and ceremonies which convey the history of the Akha to the children are banned. 8. Children are removed to in town boarding schools as a means of further seperating them from their culture and language." Then they just go on to list a "Missionary Watch List" for Thailand and China including some businesses which are familiar in Kunming.

For the Han, it seems like because of the pure magnitude of governing a country the size of China, which is still developing in many facets, maintaining harmony for the future is a priority. It seems like they support local cultures so long as they do not interfere with the stability of the whole nation.

In general, and I believe this is a global phenomenon, everyone and every group has their own special interest which they will try to exert on others who are susceptible. Perhaps we can only rely on societal development and education to restrain how infringing our actions are to those who may be vulnerable.

HFCAMPO - don't forget the missionaries in the Pacific nations who did/are often doing the same. They often came with the idea of "civilizing" the people - yeah right.

Laotou - you have a very unpopular (in the west) opinion of the Tibet issue, but one I share. I feel, the Dalai Lama is, now, a peace loving strongly Buddhist principled guy. But in his youth he made some rather idiotic and very un-Buddhist decisions in order to try and retain religious and caste based control of his country. It seems to me absolute power corrupted him and maybe he has learnt his lesson. The separation of church and state I believe is a fundamental necessity for a country to function properly and Tibet, pre China, didn't have that. Although you can argue Buddhism isn't really a religion, it is enough of one that Tibet experienced similar problems when it was run under his regime.

One would wonder, that if the Dalai Lama had done the Buddhist thing, welcoming a Chinese government into his country to run Tibets affairs instead of having monks do it (which most likely got in the way of their real goal - seeking enlightenment), asked all the monks to respect Chinese rule and law, what would Tibet be like today? Instead he raised an army and fought against the Chinese, was expelled because of it and forced China to crack down against all those that probably still follow him. Was this the actions of a Buddhist, who ideally would seek the path of least pain for his people, or was it the actions of someone wanting to retain power? For me the answer is obvious.

I am sure people will moan and complain that China could take over any country using the same idea - that they will govern better, so why should any country resist them? But when you have a country that has (arguably) been part of China for a few hundred years, that is governed terribly, that is being used by foreign powers (the British at the time) to do damage to your country... I think any super power would have done EXACTLY what China did at the time. Imagine a situation where the Ukraine descended into being run by Christians, badly managed with starvation of its people common and the government only caring about religious doctrine and religious law. Then it was used by the US to exert control on Russia. What would Russia do? You can damn well be sure it would involve tanks in the streets of Kiev.

I am very impressed with the level of independent thought with expats here, I could learn a thing or 10 I am sure listening to some of your opinions. Very enlightening comments so far.

Regarding minority ethnocide in Yunnan, from what I have seen it doesn't exist in recent times anyway. The minorities *seem* to be happy to be part of China and the Chinese govt *seems* to be happy (and proud even) to let them continue their culture and traditions - if only to make tourist dollars from them! But I don't know the history in the area, I suspect it may have been different during Mao's time for instance.

Is this sort of discussion way too sensitive to be put on a forum?

It's a credit to GoKunming and to China's increasing openness that this discussion can occur in a public forum.

While there have been definite integration policies in play during the latter part of the 20th century (re: languages available in mass media, languages available in education, questionably enforced script changes for some minorities, etc.) it makes sense to look at (mostly the same) minorities across the border in Vietnam, Laos and Burma to see some alternate versions of the potential present for traditional peoples of the greater Yunnan region ("Zomia").

While I certainly maintain some reservations regarding some of those recent policies, after spending time in all of those places (except Burma, where I have been to the Yunnan and Laos borders in multiple places over a decade period), I think it is fair to say that generally, those traditional peoples of the region who are based within Yunnan have greater access to education and technology, relative freedom of movement (socio-economically) and greater 'standard of living' by de-facto global perspective (though this, economically rationalized view, has serious limitations) than their peers over the borders. In this sense, it is fair to say that the government is definitely doing a good job. So, congratulations to the local authorities: I know I wouldn't want that burden!

Interestingly, it might be noted by other participants that the initial serious integration of Yunnan with the rest of China occurred under a Central Asia born Muslim from Bokhara in Turkmenistan, who was a personal bodyguard of the Khan at the dawn of the Yuan Dynasty and effectively retired to Yunnan to take up the historically very difficult task of attempting to govern and bring under control this formerly wild borderland. He is known to have advocated (personally, to the emperor) the careful application of unique policy exceptions within Yunnan, for example removing the requirement (which he claimed as untenable) that all commerce be conducted within Chinese money. Apparently the policies served their purpose, though the apparent anti-foreign sentiment at the dawn of the succeeding Ming Dynasty culled the family's size (through apparent murders) as well as their political influence. Despite this, his great (great?) grandson was Zheng He, the (vindictively Ming authority-enforced?) eunuch-admiral at the turn of the Ming Dynasty who took Chinese treasure fleets as far as here in Indonesia, India, the Middle East and East Africa. (Just yesterday I visited a mosque and cafe in eastern Java named after him.)