Xinjiang and Tibet as “Internal Colonies” of China: Evidence from Official Data

Abstract

This study attempts to relate the discontent and occasional violence expressed by Tibetans in Tibet and Uyghurs in Xinjiang to the imposition of Internal Colonialism in Xinjiang and Tibet by the Chinese state, by drawing particularly on primary sources for analysis. Tibet and Xinjiang are the only provincial-level units in China where the majority Han Chinese constitute a demographic minority, and Tibetans and Uyghurs respectively comprise the majority and plurality. The discourse of Internal Colonialism focuses on three aspects: political domination, economic inequality and resource exploitation, and socio-cultural marginalization, by the core nation, of the periphery ethnic or cultural minorities and their territories, within a country. To test the applicability of Internal Colonialism in Xinjiang and Tibet, the paper posits several propositions containing these aspects, and employ evidences to affirm or refute, entirely or to some extent, their existence. Findings reveal that the paradigm is more convincingly sustained in the case of Xinjiang than Tibet.

Critical Han Studies Through the Lens of Internal Colonialism: China, Guangdong, and Hong Kong

“…Based on the internal colonialism framework, and in particular the concept of political dependency of racial/ethnic minorities on the dominant racial/ethnic group and their appointed administrators and representatives (Allen, 1969; Blauner, 1969; Tabb, 1970; see also Chung, 2018), the lack of fair political representation in Chinese state governance suggests that the Cantonese and the Teochew, like their ethnic minority counterparts, are also subject to internal colonialization by the Chinese regime. The political and cultural subordination of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the larger Lingnan region to China seems to have persisted into the present, despite the economic dynamism of those areas in recent decades.…”

“…For his part, Chien-peng Chung (2018) provides a comparative analysis of Xinjiang and Tibet along economic, political, and cultural lines, arguing that while Xinjiang and Tibet both fit into the model of internal colonialism, they differ in terms of how, and to what extent, they are colonized. The author suggests that Xinjiang has suffered more economic colonial imposition than Tibet due to its relative wealth of natural resources and exploitable labor.…”

“…To do so, we build upon the internal colonialism framework, deepening its notion of political dependency between racial/ethnic minorities and the dominant racial/ethnic groups, in particular. We bring Chung's (2018) study of ethnopolitical representation in Xinjiang and Tibet to the national level, examining the ethno-geographic representation among Chinese political elites as a whole. We also map a network of connections between each elite's ethnicity and the geographic locations of positions they have held over their career, which allows us to examine such matters as regional autonomy and self-governance by natives.…”

“…In addition to experiencing similarly aggressive Mandarin language policies in the ethnic minority schools of Xinjiang (Schluessel, 2007), the Uyghurs have been the primary target of China's Strike Hard Campaignsinitiatives originally aimed at combatting so-called terrorist activities by separatists, but which soon morphed into an overarching system for oppressing racial minority groups as manifested in the recent expansion of political re-education and labor camps facilitated by a rapidly built up, regional-specific, militarized police state in Xinjiang (Raza, 2019). It is therefore not surprising that scholars have applied the notion of internal colonialism to the study of ethnic minorities in China (Chung, 2018;Gladney, 1998Gladney, , 2004Herman, 2007).…”