100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 14, 2019 - Image 3

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
3A — Thursday March 14, 2019

Emma Chang

Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Elias Khoury

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola

Ashley Zhang

Erin White

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

I

n 1982, Chinese citizens
who had been forced to
move to the countryside

under
Chairman
Mao

Zedong’s Cultural Revolution
fled back to China’s urban
centers. However, as this
mass
exodus
occurred,

one young Chinese official
requested
a
position
in

Zhengding, Hebei Province,
far away from the rapidly
growing urban power centers:
Xi Jinping. This seemingly
strange request from the low-
level government worker was
the first notable move by Xi,
who built his career through
shrewd, power-consolidating
moves. Thirty years later, Xi
has become China’s president
and
general
secretary
of

the Communist Party, and
appears
to
have
grand

ambitions for China on both
domestic and international
fronts. However, as China
becomes a dominant player in
world affairs, Xi’s oppressive
government
promotes
a

vision
that
disregards

basic liberties, rights and
international
principles,

making its ambitions a threat
to its own citizens.

The
most
prominent

example of China’s disregard
for human rights is the Xi
government’s
abhorrent

treatment of the Uyghurs, a
primarily-Muslim
minority

ethnic group who live in
the far western province of
Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, the
Chinese
government
has

established
a
surveillance

system
rivaling
the
one

George
Orwell
describes

in
his
novel
“1984”.
In

order to keep tabs on the
Uyghurs, thousands of video
cameras are in place along
streets
in
Xinjiang,
and

policemen are stationed in
front of nearly every major
building. China has recently
even
begun
administering

“physical exams” in order
to non-consensually gather
identification
information

from Uyghur citizens, such
as DNA samples, fingerprint
scans and retinal scans.

However, surveillance is

only the tip of the iceberg in
Xinjiang. Under Xi, China
has also introduced a policy
called “de-extremification,”
which
includes

“re-education”
camps,
to

which over a million Uyghurs
have been sent. The camps
are designed to indoctrinate
Uyghurs through promoting
Chinese
values
and

destroying Uyghur culture.
Treatment
in
the
camps

ranges from things such as
forcing Uyghurs to drink beer
and eat pork (both of which
are forbidden in Islam) to
more extreme human rights
violations, including torture,
the
banning
of
certain

Muslim names and extreme
political
indoctrination.

Politically, China has also
worked
to
limit
Uyghur

rights through the passage
of religious regulations and
counterterrorism laws.

China’s
dedication
to

denying
its
own
citizens

human
rights
is
perhaps

matched
only
by
its

dedication to denying it has
ever done anything wrong.
In response to the Uyghur
controversy, China initially
denied
the
re-education

camps even existed. Once
that was proved verifiably
false, the government shifted
its position, saying the camps
were necessary for fighting
religious
extremism,
and

likened them to boarding
schools
(ironically,
it’s

already illegal for Uyghurs
in Xinjiang to not send their
children
to
government-

run schools). The Chinese
government
has
also

deliberately
spread
false

information about life in the
camps in order to make it
more difficult to accurately
understand conditions there,
and at one point dismissed
criticism of the camps as the
West baselessly criticizing
China’s human rights record.

Though this may seem

awful, it is hardly outside
of the norm for China, a
country that has consistently
opposed human rights. In
addition to cracking down
on
dissenting
journalists,

lawyers and activists within
China, Xi has also worked
tirelessly
to
weaken
the

United
Nations’
ability

to investigate and punish
nations for human rights
violations. In 2017, Human
Rights Watch exposed the
Xi government’s attempts to
prevent critical actors from
contributing to reviews of
China’s human rights record.
In 2018, China introduced a
U.N. bill aimed at limiting
human
rights
oversight,

which suggested replacing
punishments and sanctions
with “dialogue.”

In addition to violating

human rights, Xi has also
worked to strengthen his
personal power as president
at
the
expense
of
both

electoral
fairness
and

previously established rules
and norms. After the death of
Mao Zedong, China shifted
away from focusing on the
power of individual leaders,
implementing
term
limits

which shifted the focus to
party power, a development
many cite as a factor in
China’s subsequent economic
growth. Xi, however, has
reverted strongly away from
this policy. In 2017, the
Communist Party added “Xi
Jinping Thought” to their
Constitution, putting him on
the same level as Mao Zedong.
In 2018, Xi’s Communist
Party, which controls most
of the National Assembly,
voted 2,958 in favor (three
abstained and two opposed)
to
remove
presidential

term limits, allowing him
to
serve
indefinitely.
Xi

has
also
engaged
in
an

anti-corruption
campaign,

which
has
largely
been

used to ensure important
party
positions
are
held

by loyalists. Outwardly, Xi
also preaches party loyalty
above all else to citizens and
had his government issue a
directive that all Chinese
citizens
studying
abroad

“always follow the Party.”

While these developments

may
seem
disheartening,

they reflect a fundamental
difference in governmental
and
geopolitical
attitudes

between China and the West,
something which the West
has consistently failed to
fully comprehend. Unlike the
prevailing Western ideology,
which prioritizes individual
liberties and freedoms as the
essential building blocks of
society, China believes that
strengthening the state is
the highest priority. This
cultural
difference
helps

explain why the Chinese
government takes such a
dim view of human rights —
the rights of the individual
are not of crucial concern,
and they can interfere with
the processes that help the
state. For Xi, consolidating
power is primarily about
attempting
to
run
the

country
as
efficiently
as

possible, something which
democratic norms interfere
with.
Sadly,
this
state-

strengthening approach is
incredibly destructive to the
rights of Chinese citizens,
especially ethnic minorities
like the Uyghurs and those
who
disagree
with
Xi’s

policies.

Ultimately, while China’s

economic and political rise
has been astonishing, the
United
States
and
other

nations
should
be
wary

about China’s policies. Xi
is a politically savvy leader
with lofty goals, but those
goals must be accomplished
without sacrificing human
rights
or
disregarding

international law.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the

editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300

words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.

Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation

to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

I

’ve
been
thinking
a

lot lately about what I
want to be doing when

I leave college for the real
world. As a freshman, I’m
going to have to decide soon
which undergraduate degree
to pursue so I can have an
idea of the classes I will
need to take in the upcoming
semesters. Just the other
day, things started to click.
I
finally
conceptualized

what
my
ultimate
career

goals are, but at the cost of
informing myself about a
phenomenon that is on its
way to tear our communities
apart:
environmental

gentrification, which is when
policies that are intended to
service the climate drive up
property costs.

Today,
the
lawmakers

of
many
metropolitan

areas
are
seeking
to

improve
the
quality
of

life by urbanizing sectors
that
are
underdeveloped.

For
instance,
Detroit’s

Planning and Development
Department
has
created

several
initiatives
to

improve
infrastructure,

economic opportunity and
neighborhood
relations

over recent years. Federal
and
local
lawmakers

have
also
demonstrated

their
awareness
for
the

need
to
execute
green

urban development in the
process,
making
strides

toward
the
construction

of
more
greenways
and

conservancies
within
the

heart of the downtown area.

Despite these strides, I

fear that Detroit politicians
are
conducting
urban

development
in
a
way

that
prioritizes
profit

for corporations over the
needs of the populations
who live near these new
projects.
Whether
these

projects feature impressive
man-made
infrastructure

or
large-scale
natural

attractions, the possibility
of creating an attraction
just to draw people into the
metropolitan area seems to
promote gentrification. If so,
the actions of our authorities
would contribute more to
the capitalistic side of the
economy rather than the
health of the environment

or
the
wellbeing
of
the

people living in that area.
As a result, I fear that
perpetual
gentrification,

whether
it
occurs
due

to
the
development
of

commercial areas or natural
preservations,
will
create

further economic and social
turmoil for Detroit.

In New York City, the

High Line, a former railroad
line, was renovated to serve
as
greenway
on
which

pedestrians can walk for
miles throughout the city.
Having completed its final
renovations
in
2014,
the

High
Line
has
attracted

nearly five million residents
and tourists for its walkway,
artistic
commissions
and

events.
As
a
result,
the

greenway has undoubtedly
caused
an
increase
in

economic
activity,
profits

for businesses that surround
it and thus in the price
of
the
surrounding
real

estate.
Unfortunately,

this has caused those on
the disadvantaged side of
gentrification
to
feel
its

effects: Many have had to
leave their home in nearby
neighborhoods
or
been

forced to give up their small
businesses due to the growth
of commercial demand.

In an effort to create

a piece of infrastructure
that would make the city
appear greener both visually
and
characteristically,

authorities
in
New
York

utilized
wealthy
and

resourceful
benefactors

to create a monument to
receive
more
money
and

unintentionally
transform

the socioeconomic character
of the area. Greenways like
the High Line that defeat
the
purpose
of
greener

metropolitan areas are being
constructed
in
numerous

locations
worldwide.
I

fear that ours in Detroit,
the
Dequindre
Cut,
will

have a similar fate. These
gestures
to
renovate

current
infrastructure

into
green
infrastructure

mean
well,
but
to
what

extent should we demand
that
they
also
help
the

surrounding
environment

and populations?

For
one,
I
think
it’s

absolutely possible for us to
demand better from project
developers, lawmakers and
monetary
contributors
to

create more mindful urban
developments
than
the

greenways. These projects
can prioritize success for
a
sector
of
society
that

needs it more. In essence,
authorities with control of
metropolitan areas should
adopt a progressive method
deemed
as
“conscious

anti-gentrification”
when
pursuing
green

urban
development.
This

process would consist of
renovating
technology

and
infrastructure

incrementally, allowing the
public to maintain a lifestyle
they’re
comfortable
with

while making small changes
to mitigate the consequences
of peoples’ typical impact on
the environment. As a result,
our neighborhoods should
benefit from improvements
made to the quality of the
environment as well as to
the well-being of the general
public
without
making

drastic changes to its own
socioeconomic character.

In
hearing
about
the

downfalls of green urban
development, I felt within
myself a burning passion to
prevent this type of economic
flourishing that occurs at the
degradation of the lives of
people in my community and
that occurs with ignorance
towards
our
environment.

In essence, I found meaning
in a type of career directed
towards the development of
disadvantaged communities
by
way
of
incremental

change. Therefore, I believe
authorities
should
fulfill

their
intentions
of
urban

growth by designing methods
of change that specifically
address the needs and utilize
the advantages of that area
rather
than
diminishing

it by some overwhelming
economic feat. In doing so,
I foresee these authorities
achieving a society balanced
by the rise of all of the people
it encompasses.

Kianna Marquez can be reached at

kmarquez@umich.edu.

Zack Blumberg can be reached at

zblumber@umich.edu.

As China grows, so does their list of human rights abuses

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

How seeking a meaningul life starts with incremental change

China believes that
strengthening the
state is the highest

priority

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-
8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All
are welcome to come discuss national, state and

campus affairs.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan