WORLD NEWS: "Uighurs Lose Economic Ground to Han," by Ian Johnson, Wall Street Journal, 21 July 2009.

WORLD NEWS: "China Defends Ethnic Policy as Data Illustrate Growing Gap," by Ian Johnson, Wall Street Journal, 22 July 2009.

No question that Xinjiang is booming: GDP more than doubles since 2002. Also clear that oil and gas dominates to the tune of 60%.

But the tourism provides a glimpse: Uighur goods and images in Han-run markets.

Most of the O&G workers are Han too.

Meanwhile, the Uighurs tend to be concentrated in the countryside, so--by definition--not doing as well.

But there's the trick, isn't it? You want Uighurs to do well, but you want the culture preserved. Guess what? To do well is to go urban and largely lose the culture.

So some hypocrisy here, because nobody gets to stay the same while getting rich. The Han in Xinjiang have made the choice. Do they enjoy some unfair advantages? To the extent that is true, and there's plenty of evidence, then the government must step in to level the playing field.

But this comment from the first piece is telling: a Uighur says the Han dominate markets because "we are not so well organized like the Han."

That organization = social revolution of the sort most outside sympathizers of "lost" Uighur culture loathe.

Larger stats show two things: minorities haven't done that badly compared to the average Han in the past (in the range of 85-90% of the wages earned, on average, by the Han), but they're losing ground (now more in the 70-80% range).

Of course, the rich-poor gap is exploding in China in general, as so often happens in a rapid climb (the 1870s and 1880s saw rising America suffer its worst income/wealth inequality in its history). But if the odds seem unusually stacked against you as a group, you've got a right to get pissed.

Just remember that the solution involves a distinct loss of the culture you cling to in your righteous anger.