Some scholars and activists are making the case that the “mingong” - migrant workers who gravitate to the wealthy cities from poor inland provinces - are subjected to a form of apartheid in the People’s Republic of China enabled by the hukou system.
Around 7,000 of these workers, incidentally, built the Bird’s Nest stadium, the centerpiece of the Beijing Olympics. As Marxist activists Vincent Kolo and Chen Lizhi write:
“These migrant workers are the backbone of the ‘new working class’, drawn together by the process of capitalist globalisation. From around 30 million in 1982, their numbers rose to 53.5 million in 1995 and 140 million in 2004. Today, there are an estimated 200 million in this ‘floating population’ – the largest mass migration in world history…China’s mingong are discriminated and strictly policed under a residential permit system resembling South Africa’s now defunct apartheid. The hukou or household registration system was introduced by Mao Zedong in 1958, during his ill-fated Great Leap Forward. It was designed to keep the peasants on the collective farms and thereby guarantee food production, preventing an exodus to the cities. Under this system, Chinese society is divided into two groups – “the haves (urban households) and the have-nots (rural households),” as China Daily put it. Without a ‘city’ hukou you are not entitled to housing, healthcare, education, or other services under the control of a city government, even if you pay taxes and have lived in the city for years. There is little flexibility in this system – people retain their ‘agricultural’ or ‘non-agricultural’ status throughout their lifetimes.”
This is not the first time that the term “apartheid” has emerged in the Chinese context. A 2004 paper by Peter Alexander and Anita Chan (subscribers only) made a similar point. Here’s the abstract:
“This article makes and defends the claim that China’s contemporary household registration system can reasonably be described as a quasi-apartheid pass system. The historical and ideological underpinnings of the two systems vary greatly, and the racial core of the South African system, lacking in China, led to its eventual demise. Nevertheless, the essence of both systems lies in the use of passes to control the influx of rural migrants into urban areas, thereby buttressing cheap-labour economies. Possible explanations for this similarity are presented. Finally, it is argued that in China, as in apartheid South Africa, the pass system is associated with massive abuses of human rights, and that its retention should be opposed.”
A fascinating and disturbing report by the Committee for Asian Women argues that there have been some changes in the hukou system since the 1990s, but that it remains a foundation for what they call “social apartheid”:
“The permanent mark of being an outsider and second class citizen remains, and prevents migrant workers from achieving significant upward mobility in cities. Most decent jobs are still reserved for people who possess local hukou. Migrants can only get badly paid jobs. They still have no future in the cities, and may only work there for some years and then return to their home village.”
There are a number of points which flow from all this:
- In the Chinese case, the use of the apartheid analogy is much more nuanced than in the case of Israel and the Palestinians. There is an emphasis on the functional, rather than ideological, similarities. As Kolo and Lizhi say, “unlike the South African system, the hukou is not based upon ethnic categorisation, and its operation is therefore less transparent.” Given that, one can debate the appropriateness of invoking the term “apartheid,” in the light of its association with a legal system of racism based upon an ideology of racial supremacy. For our purposes, what matters is that there is no attempt here - in contrast with PACBI and the other pro-Palestinian boycott groups - to paint China as a faithful reincarnation of apartheid South Africa.
- Clearly, Israel is not the only country in the world where the apartheid analogy has emerged. The boycott campaign would have us believe that not only does Israel replicate apartheid, but that it is the only country in the world to do so. The reason for this has very little to do with analysis of the situation on the ground, and everything to do with the agenda of stigmatizing Israel through the use of a word which is particularly grating on liberal ears.
- While the apartheid analogy with Israel has become an acceptable line of argument in the western mainstream (think of the title of Jimmy Carter’s book), it remains largely unknown in other contexts. I would argue that it is in the interests of the boycott movement to keep it that way. Portraying Israel as uniquely malevolent is a key aspect of their demonization strategy. That means keeping a jealous eye on how the “A” word is deployed.
I’m a commenter formerly known by another nickname, which I’ve changed to meet criteria suggested to me by the author of the present post. (Ben thought that my former nick was deceitful, but I think it would be just as deceitful to change it without warning.)
The boycott campaign would have us believe that not only does Israel replicate apartheid, but that it is the only country in the world to do so.
The boycott campaign does not claim that. And China is apartheid just in the same way that the US is apartheid towards the illegal foreign workers it welcomes to keep its food prices down. That’s a long way from the oppressor-oppressed relationship in the West Bank.
Portraying Israel as uniquely malevolent is a key aspect of their demonization strategy
South Africa was also “portrayed as uniquely malevolent.” Everybody talked about South Africa, no one talked about the much worse human rights violations elsewhere in Africa. Should we conclude that it was wrong to boycott South Africa; that there was some element of demonization in combatting apartheid; that it would be better if South Africa were still an apartheid country today, because in that case it wouldn’t have been treated unfairly?
While the apartheid analogy with Israel has become an acceptable line of argument in the western mainstream (think of the title of Jimmy Carter’s book)
Give me a break; Carter was machine-gunned by the American media!!! And he’s now avoided like the pest by “mainstream” intellectuals, and only taken seriously by the “loony leftitsts.”
That means keeping a jealous eye on how the “A” word is deployed.
How about keeping a jealous eye on how the “A-S” word is deployed?
“Argentinian”
You have a tendency to twist the facts. I made it very clear that there is no objection to your using a pseudonym - what is not permissible is for you to pass yourself off as an Arab and speak as an Arab when you are not one. We don’t say you can’t write under the name Ibrahim. You cannot, however, assume an Arab identity and pretend that you represent an authentically Arab voice.
As far as your response here goes:
You are saying there is no oppressor-oppressed relationship in China. Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution? Or does oppression only become worthy of the name if you can finger Zionism or imperialism behind it?
South Africa was not portrayed as uniquely malevolent. It was portrayed - accurately so - as enforcing a legal system based on racial separation founded, in turn, upon racial superiority. There were plenty of other human rights abusers in Africa during the apartheid period whose misdeeds were in the public eye. Like, for example, Amin in Uganda. Indeed, for our purposes here, Amin is very interesting, because Israel contributed to his overthrow with its successful operation to free Israelis and Jews kidnapped by him during the Entebbe hijacking.
Poor Jimmy Carter. His freedom of speech has really suffered. The silencing was merely compounded when Oscar-winning director Jonathan Demme - who works in Zionist-controlled Hollywood - made a documentary devoted solely to Carter. And when an obscure newspaper called the International Herald Tribune rejected the suggestion that Carter is antisemitic (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/05/arts/idbriefs6C.php), they, too, must have been joining in the plot to muzzle Jimmy. Come on, Argentinian person! It really is time for a reality check.
As to jealously guarding the A-S word, when we see it, we say it. We call Hitler antisemitic, you see. And Ahmadinejad. And Nasrallah. It’s amazing what you can achieve once you remove the ideological blinders.
I made it very clear that there is no objection to your using a pseudonym - what is not permissible is for you to pass yourself off as an Arab and speak as an Arab when you are not one.
I was about to respond to this charge on the relevant post, but comments were suddenly disabled. Never mind; after we crushed Brazil in Olympics soccer today I understood that my only identity had to be Argentinian.
There were plenty of other human rights abusers in Africa during the apartheid period whose misdeeds were in the public eye.
But not to the same extent as South Africa: Idi Amin’s Uganda’s athletes were not banned from participating in international competitions, for instance.
Do you agree that South Africa was unfairly treated, taking into account that many other much more tyrannical regimes were not boycotted?
an obscure newspaper called the International Herald Tribune rejected the suggestion that Carter is antisemitic
Actually, they said “his book is a piece of crap, but an antisemite he is not,” which is a far cry from “the apartheid analogy with Israel” becoming “an acceptable line of argument in the western mainstream.” The apartheid analogy is clearly rejected in the piece you cite.
Jonathan Demme - who works in Zionist-controlled Hollywood - made a documentary devoted solely to Carter
The US relies heavily on illegal Vietnamese workers to pick its strawberries, which helps keep the fruit’s price down. The day they need someone to pick cherries, I know who they can hire: you.
The Demme documentary does not counterbalance the very unusual move by the Carter Center’s advisors to resign after the book’s publication. I.e. he was avoided like the pest by the very people who the day before yesterday had been working with him. Or the scandalous behavior of Brandeis donors who withheld USD 5M in funds to punish Carter’s lecture there. Do I need to make a list of the humiliation and vituperation Carter has been subjected to?
As to jealously guarding the A-S word, when we see it, we say it.
Same here; we have no doubt what to call an ethnic segregation system aimed at taking the natural resources from the oppressed and giving them to the oppressors. As Yossi Sarid said, “what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid.” And he was not talking about South Africa.
Yes, the IHT review said the Carter book was crap. Because it is. And what I have discovered over several years is that too many Palestine advocates cannot take criticism. When they are told their arguments are faulty, or morally bad, or plagued by double standards, they cry foul. Mearsheimer and Walt famously did this, because they believe their specious arguments are self-evidently true, so anyone who argues otherwise must have an ulterior motive.
It’s vain nonsense. And it provides an excuse to look for conspiracies, rather than accepting the unglamorous truth that someone has written a bad (in Carter’s case, laughably bad) book.
Before we begin to drift from subject to subject, let’s remember that our topic re Carter’s book is not whether it is good or bad; it’s whether the analogy he makes is acceptable to the mainstream, as you suggest, or not. And it is not.
Other than that, your post’s thesis seems to be that, while there have emerged apartheid analogies for other countries, like China, only Israel has been singled out for a boycott.
Very much on-topic, I replied that the same was true for apartheid South Africa. Back in the days of Pik Botha, South Africa was subjected to sanctions, even though you had at least some freedom there, while other countries that had no freedom got no sanctions.
So my question is: do you think South Africa was unfairly treated during the Apartheid years?