NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen alot of bumper stickers lately that say Free Tibet. I was just wondering if the wonderful NS community could offer some insight into this issue.

The stickers are a lie. It's definitely not free. Tibet costs $5.99.

I think that the Chinese invasion was wrong, and the lack of democracy there is as appalling as it is everywhere else in China...but to be honest I don't see an independent Tibet doing nearly as well economically. The Chinese have the money and the know-how to turn the place into something, the Dalai Lama probably hasn't.

Ideally China would keep ultimate control and the Dalai Lama could return and be the provincial governor, so to speak.

I heard that when the Dali Lama was in charge, Tibet was a fascist theocracy where a religious elite dominated the poor. I think their much better off with China in control. I mean, China could have just killed the Dali Lama, but they didn,t.

"There is no fourth option."

The stickers are a lie. It's definitely not free. Tibet costs $5.99.

Damn! Beaten to the punch!

I'd dismember the Dalai Lama. I've always wondered what llama steaks taste like...

Well, apparently tibet was taken over by the commies, and they ousted the Lama.

And now people are up in arms because of the horrible injustice, but really he is an over hyped asshole.

Feudal Tibet had a policy of serfdom that is really just polished slavery made acceptable for the cameras. They use corporal and capital punishment, and then he says "Oh, well, I was gonna change that, but, you know, those commies invaded."

And then there is this:

British journalist Christopher Hitchens criticised the Dalai Lama in 1998, questioned his alleged support for India's nuclear weapons testing, his statements about sexual misconduct, his suppression of Shugden worship, as well as his meeting Shoko Asahara, whose cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system.

I heard that when the Dali Lama was in charge, Tibet was a fascist theocracy where a religious elite dominated the poor. I think their much better off with China in control. I mean, China could have just killed the Dali Lama, but they didn,t.

You mean besides the brutal ethnocide, peasant relocation programs and a practically Eugenicist method of regional domination, the imported Han Chinese are better off than their Tibetan predecessors?

And, no, they didn't kill teh Dalai Lama, but they sacked thousands of Buddhist monasteries during the occupation, and destroyed countless priceless treasures, pieces of our shared human heritage lost forever to misguided political fervor.


More than that, I feel that the current Dalai Lama would be a substantially better leader than his predecessors have been.

I think that the Chinese invasion was wrong, and the lack of democracy there is as appalling as it is everywhere else in China...but to be honest I don't see an independent Tibet doing nearly as well economically. The Chinese have the money and the know-how to turn the place into something, the Dalai Lama probably hasn't.

Ideally China would keep ultimate control and the Dalai Lama could return and be the provincial governor, so to speak.

Yes, because feudal theocratic oligarchies are so much more democratic. At least with china the people are better off, and Tibet can try to join the modern world.

You mean besides the brutal ethnocide, peasant relocation programs and a practically Eugenicist method of regional domination, the imported Han Chinese are better off than their Tibetan predecessors?

And, no, they didn't kill teh Dalai Lama, but they sacked thousands of Buddhist monasteries during the occupation, and destroyed countless priceless treasures, pieces of our shared human heritage lost forever to misguided political fervor.


More than that, I feel that the current Dalai Lama would be a substantially better leader than his predecessors have been.

That's only because people care to watch him now. If it were still Nobodygivesaflyingfrickland he'd be cracking the whips same as ever. If he wants popular support abroad, he can't go around saying "We want the freedom to enslave our people!"

As a Westerner who lives in China I would like to see Tibet and Xingjian as separate countries, but Taiwan incorporated into China -- under whatever political system that country sees fit to implement.

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China. Ont he other hand, all Chinese (Han) people in Tibet should be given an option: to stay as loyal citizens in an independent Tibet (learn Tibetan, use mandarin only at home), or go back to where their ancestors came from.

The same should be done with Caucasians and African Americans once the territory of what the US and Canada today usurp is handed back to First Nations/Native Americans.

The same should be done with Caucasians and African Americans once the territory of what the US and Canada today usurp is handed back to First Nations/Native Americans.

Once it happens? That's ridiculous. Sure the tactics used by Caucasian settlers was wrong, but that's ancient history as far as any other nation is concerned. Nobody would force them back to Eurasia, least of all themselves.

As a Westerner who lives in China I would like to see Tibet and Xingjian as separate countries, but Taiwan incorporated into China -- under whatever political system that country sees fit to implement.

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China. Ont he other hand, all Chinese (Han) people in Tibet should be given an option: to stay as loyal citizens in an independent Tibet (learn Tibetan, use mandarin only at home), or go back to where their ancestors came from.

The same should be done with Caucasians and African Americans once the territory of what the US and Canada today usurp is handed back to First Nations/Native Americans.

Yeah, and Isreal should be handed back to the Palestinians.

Before damn dirty commies took over Tibet it was ruled by the religious king, the Dali Lama. Under the Lama's reign he and his priest buddies would get to live a life of pure luxury and had piles upon piles of slaves to boss around or torture and kill for the fun of it. The majority of Tibet consisted of what were technically serfs but were treated more horribly than the typical blue thing that was 3-apples-tall and expected to work the same plot of land till death. Eye-gouging, bone-breaking, tongue pulling, and death were all common punishments for even slight breaches of rules like failing to drop what you're doing and lick the ground Lama just walked on or something equally silly, though they'd probably do that because they were always starving.

Since the Chinese took over they've introduced secular education, running water, electricity, labor camps for political disidents, socialism, and have stomped on all forms of free speech including what little there was before.

The current Dali Lama, the 14th I think, used to have a training camp set up for Tibetan resistance fighters and if memory serves it was funded by the CIA. Then someone in the agency found out about the horrible crimes of past Lama and cut the cahs cow's tits off. Since then the Lama has moved onto even more gullible people than those in government, I am speaking on Hollywood celebrities of course. You will never find a more ignorant and maliable bundle of impossibly rich fools anywhere else on the planet and maybe not even in the rest of the universe. The Lama just wants his slaves back and will tour the world with a trite greeting card philosophy and a collection plate until he either loses all sources of money or he dies. The latter is looking far more likely at this point.

China is the lesser of two evils here but the lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Eye-gouging, bone-breaking, tongue pulling, and death were all common punishments for even slight breaches of rules like failing to drop what you're doing and lick the ground Lama just walked on or something equally silly, though they'd probably do that because they were always starving.

Source? I don't doubt what you're saying, but this is new to me.

Tibet wants to be free of Communist China pure and simple. Unfortunately that means that they'll get there land back just as soon as the Hawaiians get Hawaii back. If your country was taken over and demolished by some assholes of course you'd want it back. And newflash, a religious state is not unheard of even in our "advanced" day and age. Most middle eastern countries are muslim rule. America is christian rule. Every religious state has it's dark and deadly side. But it is not up to us to decide that because we dislike their history, they don't deserve a chance at freedom. America's history is drenched in blood, death, rape, murder, and torture. But that didn't mean we didn't deserve our independence and freedom from England.

As a Westerner who lives in China I would like to see Tibet and Xingjian as separate countries, but Taiwan incorporated into China -- under whatever political system that country sees fit to implement.
I thought the Chinese blocked access to sites like this?

Anyway, I can't say I really have an opinion since I don't know enough. Would Tibet be any better off without Chinese occupation? Or would the Dalai Lama just be a jerk like China? I don't know.

America is christian rule.
And here I was under the impression that there was a seperation of church and state in the United States.

And here I was under the impression that there was a seperation of church and state in the United States.


At one time there was supposed to be. It's not something that anyone comes out and admits but it's quite true.

I thought the Chinese blocked access to sites like this?

Only to sites that deal with Tibet (throughout) and to a lesser extent sites located in Taiwan (i.e. those which have .tw as extension -- except Taiwanese universities, which are usually OK).

They do block wikipedia though, which is easily circumvented by going through a proxy or accessing "answers.com" with wikipedia content. In 2006 access to wikipedia was possible for about 3 months and then it was blocked again.

Also BBC site in English is impossible to access -- even through a proxy -- but BBC news in French and a few other languages are not. Go figure...

The Tibetans can whine all they like, but now the Chinese build them homes so they don't have to be farmers. Before the Chinese came the Tibetans were dirt poor and all they had was yak milk while the Dalai Lama and his priest buddies sat in their palace in luxury with Western products while the populace starved, they were nothing better than slaves to the religious cliques who ran the country. The Dalai Lama has done the ultimately fooling act and the world has brought it, but do not be feel - he is a tyrant who wants his arbitrary power back. The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.

The Tibetans can whine all they like, but now the Chinese build them homes so they don't have to be farmers. Before the Chinese came the Tibetans were dirt poor and all they had was yak milk while the Dalai Lama and his priest buddies sat in their palace in luxury with Western products while the populace starved, they were nothing better than slaves to the religious cliques who ran the country. The Dalai Lama has done the ultimately fooling act and the world has brought it, but do not be feel - he is a tyrant who wants his arbitrary power back. The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.

So because your "civilizing" a culture makes it okay to go in there and murder and destroy and take away all civil rights? Trading one tyrant for another is okay in the name of civilizing?

The Tibetans can whine all they like, but now the Chinese build them homes so they don't have to be farmers. Before the Chinese came the Tibetans were dirt poor and all they had was yak milk while the Dalai Lama and his priest buddies sat in their palace in luxury with Western products while the populace starved, they were nothing better than slaves to the religious cliques who ran the country. The Dalai Lama has done the ultimately fooling act and the world has brought it, but do not be feel - he is a tyrant who wants his arbitrary power back. The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.

So because your "civilizing" a culture makes it okay to go in there and murder and destroy and take away all civil rights? Trading one tyrant for another is okay in the name of civilizing? Do you have any clue how dirt poor the peasants in China are? You honestly think their there helping out the Tibetans when there own people are starving to death and children are being sold into slavery?

All this assumes the Tibetans are actually whining at all as opposed to jumping onto the China gravy train.

The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.
You always find a way to worm Communist Party dogma into your posts, no matter the subject. Why? And why all this talk of reaction? Who are you to tell someone that their culture is backward? Seems kind of racist if you ask me, telling people you've probably never met that their culture is all wrong and should be abandoned for your ideal world. What if people choose to stick with their beliefs? what gives you the right to tell them that they can't?

I wouldn't mind the Dalai Lama resuming his position as head of Tibetan Bhuddism so long as people were free to choose whether or not to live with him, serve him, and follow that religion. You see if someone chooses something then they have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences. It's what seperates a man from a slave; a man chooses, a slave obeys.

You see if someone chooses something then they have no one to blame but themselves for the consequences. It's what seperates a man from a slave; a man chooses, a slave obeys.

Oh, you are SOOOOOO right, indrika!!!

Of course that if a hungry 12 year old from the slums CHOOSES to steal bread he alone is to blame, because he could have CHOSEN to die from starvation.

If survivors of a plane crash in the Andes CHOOSE to eat human flesh, for there is NOTHING else -- it is their own choice.

Oh, you are SOOOOOO right, indrika!!!

Of course that if a hungry 12 year old from the slums CHOOSES to steal bread he alone is to blame, because he could have CHOSEN to die from starvation.

If survivors of a plane crash in the Andes CHOOSE to eat human flesh, for there is NOTHING else -- it is their own choice.
In reality that's the kinda 'choice' that capitalists like.

Meh? Big Meh? China has no interest in handing back territory. Idealism aside, China does a damn good job of brainwashing its people, and I rather doubt that the issue is a cut-and-dry as we in the west would like to think, in Tibet at this point.

And to the fellow who said Taiwan should rejoin China: not only no, but hell no. The people of Taiwan have no interest in being ruled by a depraved, authoritarian one-party state which engages in agressive brainwashing. They have established a state of their own, and if they wanted the opression of China, I'm sure they would ask for it. Just because the people of China beleive that their opression is a paradise does not make it so.

sure there's a fourth option. divestiture of all super powers into regeonal autonomies to the point that NONE, of ANY idiology or culture, are EVER able to colonize any place else ever again.

and i support 100% the idea of giving an impartial international body the teeth to make and keep it so! an impartial international body, that represents real PEOPLE, places and things, not the inainity of super power soverignty, nor soverignty of an international economic corporate mafia either.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, because feudal theocratic oligarchies are so much more democratic. At least with china the people are better off, and Tibet can try to join the modern world.
Whatever would have become of the Dalai Lama had Mao not decided to invade, we know that he's not a brutal dictator today. He spent enough time in the western world to know democracy and that it's not a bad thing.

Not that anyone in Tibet would willingly run an opposition to him anyways. Except maybe all those Han Chinese that have been imported.

I think that the Chinese invasion was wrong, and the lack of democracy there is as appalling as it is everywhere else in China...but to be honest I don't see an independent Tibet doing nearly as well economically. The Chinese have the money and the know-how to turn the place into something, the Dalai Lama probably hasn't.

Ideally China would keep ultimate control and the Dalai Lama could return and be the provincial governor, so to speak.
Spoken like someone who obviously hasn't the faintest idea what's going on in Tibet and the PRC's policy towards it.

The Tibetans can whine all they like, but now the Chinese build them homes so they don't have to be farmers.
Build them homes only if they renounce Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. If they even have a photo of the Dalai Lama they'll confiscate the house and can (and will) imprison the owner into forced labour camps where they're beaten daily.
And you'll be surprised to know that most actually liked being farmers.
The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.
If by pulling them out you mean through fear, intimidation, brutal oppression and cultural genocide, then yes, you are right.

I am not saying that Tibet was a paradise before the occupation (which is what it is), but they are still their own nation, with their own language and culture. The occupation should be ended. It won't be though, authoritarian dictatorships aren't known for willingly giving up territory.

Yeah, and Isreal should be handed back to the Palestinians. you being sarcastic or do you mean it?:confused:

As Marxism says, you have to take out the bad aspects of a culture and leave the good.

Whatever would have become of the Dalai Lama had Mao not decided to invade, we know that he's not a brutal dictator today. He spent enough time in the western world to know democracy and that it's not a bad thing.

Not that anyone in Tibet would willingly run an opposition to him anyways. Except maybe all those Han Chinese that have been imported.

Ethnic religious dictatorship then?

The Tibetans can whine all they like, but now the Chinese build them homes so they don't have to be farmers. Before the Chinese came the Tibetans were dirt poor and all they had was yak milk while the Dalai Lama and his priest buddies sat in their palace in luxury with Western products while the populace starved, they were nothing better than slaves to the religious cliques who ran the country. The Dalai Lama has done the ultimately fooling act and the world has brought it, but do not be feel - he is a tyrant who wants his arbitrary power back. The Chinese are trying their best to pull the Tibetans out of their reactionary and backward culture.

Were reforms needed? God yes. Is ethnocide justified? Hell NO!

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China. Ont he other hand, all Chinese (Han) people in Tibet should be given an option: to stay as loyal citizens in an independent Tibet (learn Tibetan, use mandarin only at home), or go back to where their ancestors came from.


Actually, there is. The continued US support for Taiwan is an important element in the maintenance of US military power within a potential containment ring surrounding the People's Republic of China.

Not only that, though, but the people of Taiwan are relatively distinct, especially based off of their geography and their shared history, that separates them from the mainland Han. Sure, they have similarities, but since when does the artificial construct of nationality automatically mean you are required to belong to x state, whether you like it or not?

Hell, I speak German, my ancestry is German and my familial traditions are very German, but I have significantly different historical experiences and a geographic location. Does that mean I should be repatriated back to Das Vaterland? Nah, I'll stick with the US.

As Marxism says, you have to take out the bad aspects of a culture and leave the good.

It isn't China's culture to do so with. And that's not what they're doing, they basically want to annihilate the entire culture so that it can be fully absorbed as a province of China.

And China is hardly Marxist...

Tibet belongs to its people, not the foreign occupiers.

As Marxism says, you have to take out the bad aspects of a culture and leave the good.

Except this isn't an issue of Marxism, Communism or any other modern political theory. This is entirely a matter pertaining to traditional ethnic rivalries, Han nationalism, and traditional land claims of the Imperial and Nationalist governments.

Actually, there is. The continued US support for Taiwan is an important element in the maintenance of US military power within a potential containment ring surrounding the People's Republic of China.

Not only that, though, but the people of Taiwan are relatively distinct, especially based off of their geography and their shared history, that separates them from the mainland Han. Sure, they have similarities, but since when does the artificial construct of nationality automatically mean you are required to belong to x state, whether you like it or not?

Hell, I speak German, my ancestry is German and my familial traditions are very German, but I have significantly different historical experiences and a geographic location. Does that mean I should be repatriated back to Das Vaterland? Nah, I'll stick with the US.

When the Union surrenders the Confederate lands they invaded, we can start to talk about responsibility of China to allow secession, eh?

There seems to be some very retarded argument, that as Tibet was in rather primitive condition previously, then it automatically takes from Tibetians away right to be independent. You know, free Tibet would not neccesarily mean another religious theocracy.

You mean besides the brutal ethnocide, peasant relocation programs and a practically Eugenicist method of regional domination, the imported Han Chinese are better off than their Tibetan predecessors?

And, no, they didn't kill teh Dalai Lama, but they sacked thousands of Buddhist monasteries during the occupation, and destroyed countless priceless treasures, pieces of our shared human heritage lost forever to misguided political fervor.


More than that, I feel that the current Dalai Lama would be a substantially better leader than his predecessors have been.

QFT.

I believe rules prevent me from linking to the well known video of Chinese 'border control' in action in Tibet, as filmed by a few tourists.

When the Union surrenders the Confederate lands they invaded, we can start to talk about responsibility of China to allow secession, eh?

Besides the fact that that's a poor analogy due to its distance in time, and the fact that the North is hardly seeking to commit ethnocide in the South, we might also want to remember that the American Civil War was primarily an A.) Policing action against state governments that had broken the law by B.) Firing, unprovoked, on Federal troops and C.) Trying to unilaterally nullify the Constitution, something the Supreme Court had already decided was illegal.

When the Union surrenders the Confederate lands they invaded, we can start to talk about responsibility of China to allow secession, eh?

Besides the fact that that's a poor analogy due to its distance in time, and the fact that the North is hardly seeking to commit ethnocide in the South, we might also want to remember that the American Civil War was primarily an A.) Policing action against state governments that had broken the law by B.) Firing, unprovoked, on Federal troops and C.) Trying to unilaterally nullify the Constitution, something the Supreme Court had already decided was illegal.

Free Tibet!, Democratic Reforms!, Better Safety Regulations!, et al.

Damn! Beaten to the punch!


No you weren't. The Canonical Punch Line is "while supplies last".

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China.

Point of fact one: Taiwan didn't rebel. They just weren't conquered BY the rebellion. BIG DIFFERENCE. Saying Taiwan should unify with China is like saying Britain should become a US state*- we speak the same language, right? And we were once the same nation, right? And if one little island didn't go along with Revolution, it should join them later, right?

Point of fact two: Taiwanese people don't WANT to be part of China. Taiwan spent most of its history NOT as part of China. Most of the Taiwanese are ethnically distinct, and historically distinct.

And by speaking Chinese, do your mean Mandarin or Cantonese, which are mutually unintelligible despite Beijing's propaganda to the contrary? (Test it yourself, order in Mandarin in a restaurant where they speak only Cantonese.)


*Don't get any ideas. Britain, as a US state -or 4, actually- , would clearly tip the scales in the electoral college and give the Democrats a lock on US politics.

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China.

Point of fact one: Taiwan didn't rebel. They just weren't conquered BY the rebellion. BIG DIFFERENCE. Saying Taiwan should unify with China is like saying Britain should become a US state*- we speak the same language, right? And we were once the same nation, right? And if one little island didn't go along with Revolution, it should join them later, right?

Obviously you have no clue. Taiwan very much did rebel against the force that was by then already in power in Beijing, which city was the legitimate seat of government under Sun Yat Sen's Kuomintang and remained so when Mao seized power too, and that all happened as Chiang Kai Shek and his "remnants of the remnants" of governmet fled to the displaced outpost to establish a wayward puppet state under the US backing.


Point of fact two: Taiwanese people don't WANT to be part of China. Taiwan spent most of its history NOT as part of China. Most of the Taiwanese are ethnically distinct, and historically distinct.


David Koresh did not want to be a part of the US. His personal history was for the most part not a part of the US.

On the opther hand most Taiwanese are most certainly not ethnically distinct from the rest of China. A very small number of original pre-Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan have all but died out, just like the Ainu in Japan. All others are Chinese.

Mind you, Han are NOT the only Chinese. Hui are fully of Han origin and fully Chinese but for the Moslem religion, but are considered a separate ethnicity. Zhuang in here where I live have completely assimilated into the Han culture and consider themselves fully Chinese -- so that when offered the autonmous status which the p[rovince of Guangxi has today they refuysed it saying they did not need it and it was the Han minority in the province that insisted that the Zhuang got this autonomy.

And by speaking Chinese, do your mean Mandarin or Cantonese, which are mutually unintelligible despite Beijing's propaganda to the contrary? (Test it yourself, order in Mandarin in a restaurant where they speak only Cantonese.)

Who said I was "speaking Chinese"???? Did you mean to say what I meant "by saying [rather than "speaking"] Chinese"??

When I said (not "spoke") Chinese I meant Mandarin, the official language of both the Isle of Taiwan and the REST OF China.

Cantonese has official status only in Hong Kong. It is widely used in Guangdong, but certainly not in Taiwan, so your question is totally immaterial and indeed just a silly attempt at sidetracking discussion.

*Don't get any ideas. Britain, as a US state -or 4, actually- , would clearly tip the scales in the electoral college and give the Democrats a lock on US politics.

I certainly will not get any ideas from you, as your blabber does not qualify to be inspiring, and you are not even ridiculous enough to be funny, just a narrow minded, ill informed prejudiced bigot.



There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China.

Actually, there is. The continued US support for Taiwan is an important element in the maintenance of US military power within a potential containment ring surrounding the People's Republic of China.

And constructing such "containment rings" is illegal in international law and we Europeans think of it as despicable -- and most certainly not something commendable -- anyway.

Not only that, though, but the people of Taiwan are relatively distinct, especially based off of their geography and their shared history, that separates them from the mainland Han. Sure, they have similarities, but since when does the artificial construct of nationality automatically mean you are required to belong to x state, whether you like it or not?

Indeed, so Alaska, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Guam, the former independent states of Oregon (comprising also today's Washington State and a part of California), Texas etc. should go down the path Philippines took when they re-established sovereignty, as they all have distinct aboriginal population at the very least, today's population in some cases (e.g. preponderance of Japanese in Hawai'i) etc.

Hell, I speak German, my ancestry is German and my familial traditions are very German, but I have significantly different historical experiences and a geographic location. Does that mean I should be repatriated back to Das Vaterland? Nah, I'll stick with the US.

Of course you should, along with the rest of Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks -- unless you learn Comanche, or Apache, or Cherokee, or whatever the official language of the state it be when the government is handed back to those to whom it rightfully belongs and from whom ti was snatched through illegal means suck as trickery/deceit, occupation and confiscation of land without payment etc.

I'm confused by the people claiming the Dalai Lama would set down a theocratic dictatorship. He's never actually had real political power in Tibet and everything I've seen or heard about/from him leads me to believe he's fairly secular and, *gasp*, socialist, actually. I'm not saying he'd make a great leader, but, when it comes down to it, Tibet isn't anything more than a nearby colony to China, right now, and we've no idea how things would have gone had the 14th Dalai Lama been left to retain control over Tibet.

Of course you should, along with the rest of Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks -- unless you learn Comanche, or Apache, or Cherokee, or whatever the official language of the state it be when the government is handed back to those to whom it rightfully belongs and from whom ti was snatched through illegal means suck as trickery/deceit, occupation and confiscation of land without payment etc.

So what about Manhattan? We payed a fair $24 worth of trinkets, so why don't we all move there?

There is a book, The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee. It's a more journalistic approach, and is fairly balanced. It lists the atrocities on both sides, and tallies it up to 16,000 total (atrocities being the murder, torture, or mutilation of civilians, the wounded, and prisoners).

Surprisingly the native americans have a higher body count, with slightly under 2,000 more atrocities.

Spoken like someone who obviously hasn't the faintest idea what's going on in Tibet and the PRC's policy towards it.
Then educate me.

Ethnic religious dictatorship then?
Well, first of all the Dalai Lama would simply be a provincial governor like anywhere else in China. Beijing would have the last word on the significant issues.

Secondly, I wonder whether a Hong Kong-style system would be feasible, with an eventual commitment towards democracy but special laws protecting individuals from state power, unlike in the rest of China.

I just think that from Beijing's perspective, they'd only have to win from letting the guy come back home. It'd be a bonus in foreign relations, and they wouldn't really have to change their policies in Tibet at all.

I'm confused by the people claiming the Dalai Lama would set down a theocratic dictatorship. He's never actually had real political power in Tibet and everything I've seen or heard about/from him leads me to believe he's fairly secular and, *gasp*, socialist, actually. I'm not saying he'd make a great leader, but, when it comes down to it, Tibet isn't anything more than a nearby colony to China, right now, and we've no idea how things would have gone had the 14th Dalai Lama been left to retain control over Tibet.

He had the highest position one could hope for in tibet. One could liken him to a pope.

And one must ask, is the latest Dalai Lama really that great of a guy? Or is it just for the cameras? Why is it that he focuses on movie stars who have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to championing something that makes them look good?

We payed a fair $24 worth of trinkets

...from the wrong tribe....

...from the wrong tribe....

So then who was being deceitful?

So then who was being deceitful?

Who was too ignorant and arrogant to seek the truth? If a person fraudulently sells your house to someone else, does that someone else have the right to kick you out and claim it for herself?

Obviously you have no clue. Taiwan very much did rebel against the force that was by then already in power in Beijing, which city was the legitimate seat of government under Sun Yat Sen's Kuomintang and remained so when Mao seized power too, and that all happened as Chiang Kai Shek and his "remnants of the remnants" of governmet fled to the displaced outpost to establish a wayward puppet state under the US backing.

Bullshit. Mao had no legitimacy until he enforced it over a region, militarily. As he did not do so in Taiwan, he had no legitimacy there. Legitimacy is abstract, not concrete.

On the opther hand most Taiwanese are most certainly not ethnically distinct from the rest of China. A very small number of original pre-Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan have all but died out, just like the Ainu in Japan. All others are Chinese.

I fail to see how this is even relevant. It is Nationalism not Nationality that defines borders. The people of Taiwan may share ethnic roots with China, but they do not wish to be part of China. As they are currently their own distinct state, it is their right to remain that way.

And constructing such "containment rings" is illegal in international law and we Europeans think of it as despicable -- and most certainly not something commendable -- anyway.

Marxist-Leninism, even post Deng Xiaoping, as an ideology of opression and violence, should be discouraged from spreading. Hence, the frippery of what "you Europeans" think (and I rather suspect that the only European you represent is yourself) is immaterial.

Indeed, so Alaska, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Guam, the former independent states of Oregon (comprising also today's Washington State and a part of California), Texas etc. should go down the path Philippines took when they re-established sovereignty, as they all have distinct aboriginal population at the very least, today's population in some cases (e.g. preponderance of Japanese in Hawai'i) etc.

Never been to Washington, Oregon, California, Texas or Alaska have you? Well, let me disabuse you of your ignorance: the vast majority of the residents of the states in question consider themselves Americans and citizens of America. Similarly, the majority of Taiwan's residents consider themselves to be citezens of Taiwan, and not of the Chinese dictatorship. That is all that matters. Welcome to the global world.

Of course you should, along with the rest of Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks -- unless you learn Comanche, or Apache, or Cherokee, or whatever the official language of the state it be when the government is handed back to those to whom it rightfully belongs and from whom ti was snatched through illegal means suck as trickery/deceit, occupation and confiscation of land without payment etc.

Grow up. Seriously. You do not know anything that you are talking about. The United States may have once belonged to Native American tribes, but it does not any more. The ignorance nascent in claiming that the land can just be returned (millions of non-Natives live here, it's our home too, and we won't leave) is outstanding.

Or will you be volunteering to return Europe to its rightful Roman rulers as well?

First of all; while Tibet may have been de facto independent prior to 1950, I don't believe that the Republic of China ever granted it independence, similar with Mongolia. The only reason why Tibet was de facto independent between 1912 and 1950 was because the ROC had other rebellions to deal with, and the British had managed to convince the ROC not to turn Tibet into a province and were generally involved in Tibetan politics.

Personally, I am not in favour of Tibetan independence, nor am I in favour of its continued rule by Communists. Instead, I believe that Tibet, like the rest of China and Mongolia should return to the hands of the ROC.

Obviously you have no clue. Taiwan very much did rebel against the force that was by then already in power in Beijing, which city was the legitimate seat of government under Sun Yat Sen's Kuomintang and remained so when Mao seized power too, and that all happened as Chiang Kai Shek and his "remnants of the remnants" of governmet fled to the displaced outpost to establish a wayward puppet state under the US backing.

Sorry to seem picky, but Chiang Kai Shek's capital was not at Beijing - the capital of the ROC was at Nanking until they were booted out in 1949.

So, has nayone else here seen the Penn & Teller of the same subject.

Also, nobody seems to aknowledge that China is moving towards democracy much faster then Feudal Tibet ever was. Since both sides are basically evil, whoever can modernize should be the person in control, and right now that is China.

As a Westerner who lives in China I would like to see Tibet and Xingjian as separate countries, but Taiwan incorporated into China -- under whatever political system that country sees fit to implement.

There is NO reason for the US backing Taiwan's rebeliousness, as the population there speaks Chinese and should be a part of China. Ont he other hand, all Chinese (Han) people in Tibet should be given an option: to stay as loyal citizens in an independent Tibet (learn Tibetan, use mandarin only at home), or go back to where their ancestors came from.

The same should be done with Caucasians and African Americans once the territory of what the US and Canada today usurp is handed back to First Nations/Native Americans.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you aren't American or Canadian. That is quite an awful assessment of the situation.

Given that Taiwanese and Chinese people have completely different ideals and cultures, the fact that they should be one country is debatable (Personally, I'd like to see Taiwan as a different country, but that in itself is another debate for another time). Taiwan promotes democracy, while China doesn't (obviously) (I could get into more detail, but I'm only using the obvious difference for this example). The fact that they both speak the same language means nothing. Should Canada cease to exist because they speak english, as well as the English, and go back under their rule? Or perhaps Canada should finally become part of the USA?


Yea right.

Who was too ignorant and arrogant to seek the truth? If a person fraudulently sells your house to someone else, does that someone else have the right to kick you out and claim it for herself?

Looked it up, there is no proof that the Canarsees.

Furthermore, vast parts of the US were not inhabited. So the first nations there would be of the caucasians. And if this thread is any indication, they would be much more willing to allow blacks and asians into their part of the US. (note: I am not lumping all native americans together. I am simply stating that an extremist view that holds that caucasians are the metaphorical anti-christ is no better than the view that jews should have been expelled from germany.)

Here's my view of it. Most deaths by disease were accidental. Nobody can or should be blamed for it. Sure the Native Americans were treated like shit, but this is in the past. What matters now is that we move on. Claiming that all non-indians should be expelled is just as racist as a german wanting to expel black people and asians from germany. But at least the germans have enough ethnic germans to run the entire country almost as usual. By no stretch of the imagination can 2.4 million people run a country built for 300 million, and still maintain their modern way of life.

For the record, I have these last two things to say before I drop the topic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because your people were treated unjustly does not mean you should take an equally extremist view, even a hundred years after the act. Last, treating any race differently then how you would treat your own is wrong. In a modern society, the color of one's skin should never decide what rights they have, or where they should live.

Click Stand;13184218']So, has nayone else here seen the Penn & Teller of the same subject.

Also, nobody seems to aknowledge that China is moving towards democracy much faster then Feudal Tibet ever was. Since both sides are basically evil, whoever can modernize should be the person in control, and right now that is China.

Totally agree there. And seeing the Penn & Teller episode is the reason why I looked into tibet in the first place.


Or perhaps Canada should finally become part of the USA?


As if it wasn't already.

Yes, because feudal theocratic oligarchies are so much more democratic. At least with china the people are better off, and Tibet can try to join the modern world.

Sure, because religious oppression is so modern!

Sure, because religious oppression is so modern!

Okay, so instead of letting the chinese oppress the tibetans, lets let the tibetans oppress the tibetans while pushing them back into an ancient feudal system! At least the PROC has a chance of becoming democratic when a new generation of students who grew up under their oppressive system take to the government.

The reason that the PROC is totalitarian is purely ideological.

The reason that Feudal Tibet was totalitarian was spiritual. It's a lot harder to convince someone that their religion is wrong than to convince them that their political ideology is wrong.

Okay, so instead of letting the chinese oppress the tibetans, lets let the tibetans oppress the tibetans while pushing them back into an ancient feudal system! At least the PROC has a chance of becoming democratic when a new generation of students who grew up under their oppressive system take to the government.

The reason that the PROC is totalitarian is purely ideological.

The reason that Feudal Tibet was totalitarian was spiritual. It's a lot harder to convince someone that their religion is wrong than to convince them that their political ideology is wrong.

I'm not saying the the People's Republic is any better than the Lamas. All I'm saying is that trying to tell me that the PROC is going to bring Tibet into the modern era by slaughtering people for daring to worship or disagreeing with the Party line is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Death To The Communist Party Of China! Death To The Cpc!!! Long Live Chinese Culture!!!

I'm not saying the the People's Republic is any better than the Lamas. All I'm saying is that trying to tell me that the PROC is going to bring Tibet into the modern era by slaughtering people for daring to worship or disagreeing with the Party line is, to put it bluntly, stupid.

Not entirely. Either way innocent people die. But at least with PROC there will be an increase in technology.

Neither group is fit to lead, but in lieu of a third choice, I'd put my dollar on China.

Click Stand;13184218']So, has nayone else here seen the Penn & Teller of the same subject.

Also, nobody seems to aknowledge that China is moving towards democracy much faster then Feudal Tibet ever was. Since both sides are basically evil, whoever can modernize should be the person in control, and right now that is China.
moving towards democracy now. They definitely weren't 50 years ago when they invaded. Which means your point is totally invalid as you're comparing the state of a country as it was 1/2 a century ago to the state of another country as it is today. Who's to say what sort of governance Tibet would have today had it not been invaded?
You may as well say that Afghanistan is better than England cause Afghanistan is moving towards democracy much faster than Feudal England ever was.
Also that's ignoring the fact that the PRC can in no-way whatsoever be considered anything close to resembling a democracy, then or now. Moving towards a more capitalist society sure but not towards democracy (the two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand btw)
Or are you implying that whatever atrocities a country commits (and continues to commit) is a-ok as long as within a generation or two they start making noises about the idea of representation?

And...oohhhh...using the opinions of a couple of arrogant blowhard magicians as the basis of your argument: That's certainly going to sway me and others.

Not entirely. Either way innocent people die. But at least with PROC there will be an increase in technology.

Neither group is fit to lead, but in lieu of a third choice, I'd put my dollar on China.
how do innocent people die if Tibet was autonomous?
You've obviously decided that Tibet today would still be exactly as it was 50 years ago. Yet you don't afford the same myopic view upon China. The PRC caused the deaths of upwards of 100 million Chinese over the past 60 years.

Basically you're saying China should rule Tibet cause they've got LCD TVs which Tibet didn't have 50 years ago. And cause they've got LCDs in China today that makes it ok for them to have invaded Tibet 50 years ago, slaughtered thousands, oppressed 100s of thousands and embarked upon a state policy of cultural genocide.
That's a really strong argument there. Well done. Can't find flaw in that one, nosiree.

moving towards democracy now. They definitely weren't 50 years ago when they invaded. Which means your point is totally invalid as you're comparing the state of a country as it was 1/2 a century ago to the state of another country as it is today. Who's to say what sort of governance Tibet would have today had it not been invaded?
You may as well say that Afghanistan is better than England cause Afghanistan is moving towards democracy much faster than Feudal England ever was.
Also that's ignoring the fact that the PRC can in no-way whatsoever be considered anything close to resembling a democracy, then or now. Moving towards a more capitalist society sure but not towards democracy (the two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand btw)
Or are you implying that whatever atrocities a country commits (and continues to commit) is a-ok as long as within a generation or two they start making noises about the idea of representation?

And...oohhhh...using the opinions of a couple of arrogant blowhard magicians as the basis of your argument: That's certainly going to sway me and others.

Ugh, I don't feel like multi-quoting...so I won't.

From the beginning of communism in China it has been steadily progressing towards capitalism (which i would say eventually will lead to a democracy in some form). But if you look at Tibet, Throughout the time it has not been moving towards any form of democracy. So from that trend I can say that China had a better chance of moving forward.

Al I'm saying is if you have to choose between two evils, choose the one that is moving forward and not lying stagnant.

Finally: I never said that I got my opinions from two magicians, what they did do is call up the situation and put it in a different perspective from which I may research further.

would like tibet to be back as tibet not part of china ... but reading a few posts would like tibet to sort its self out and mordernise big time aswell

Okay, so instead of letting the chinese oppress the tibetans, lets let the tibetans oppress the tibetans while pushing them back into an ancient feudal system! At least the PROC has a chance of becoming democratic when a new generation of students who grew up under their oppressive system take to the government.

Nonsense. Go read River Town by Peter Hessler. Chinese students are indoctrinated from day one. Chinese Democracy will arrive as soon as Chinese Democracy.

On one hand I strongly support the PRC, but on the other hand an independent Tibet will weaken China.

On one hand I strongly support the PRC, but on the other hand an independent Tibet will weaken China.

O.o

Um... Look, authoritarian states are bad, mmkay?

Before damn dirty commies took over Tibet it was ruled by the religious king, the Dali Lama. Under the Lama's reign he and his priest buddies would get to live a life of pure luxury and had piles upon piles of slaves to boss around or torture and kill for the fun of it. The majority of Tibet consisted of what were technically serfs but were treated more horribly than the typical blue thing that was 3-apples-tall and expected to work the same plot of land till death. Eye-gouging, bone-breaking, tongue pulling, and death were all common punishments for even slight breaches of rules like failing to drop what you're doing and lick the ground Lama just walked on or something equally silly, though they'd probably do that because they were always starving.

Since the Chinese took over they've introduced secular education, running water, electricity, labor camps for political disidents, socialism, and have stomped on all forms of free speech including what little there was before.

The current Dali Lama, the 14th I think, used to have a training camp set up for Tibetan resistance fighters and if memory serves it was funded by the CIA. Then someone in the agency found out about the horrible crimes of past Lama and cut the cahs cow's tits off. Since then the Lama has moved onto even more gullible people than those in government, I am speaking on Hollywood celebrities of course. You will never find a more ignorant and maliable bundle of impossibly rich fools anywhere else on the planet and maybe not even in the rest of the universe. The Lama just wants his slaves back and will tour the world with a trite greeting card philosophy and a collection plate until he either loses all sources of money or he dies. The latter is looking far more likely at this point.

China is the lesser of two evils here but the lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Source? :eek:

Obviously you have no clue. Taiwan very much did rebel against the force that was by then already in power in Beijing, which city was the legitimate seat of government under Sun Yat Sen's Kuomintang and remained so when Mao seized power too, and that all happened as Chiang Kai Shek and his "remnants of the remnants" of governmet fled to the displaced outpost to establish a wayward puppet state under the US backing.

Sorry to seem picky, but Chiang Kai Shek's capital was not at Beijing - the capital of the ROC was at Nanking until they were booted out in 1949.

Obviously you didn't read carefully enough.

What you bring in as an alleged point of difference was MY point exactly:

Mao's legitimacy sprouts forth from the fact that he held the capital of both Pu Yi as the last emperor and of Sun Yat Sen as the first republic,

while Chiang Kai Shek did NOT,

and was therefore illegitimate even when he seized an island belonging to the government in Beijing (in that case Mao's).

Obviously you have no clue. Taiwan very much did rebel against the force that was by then already in power in Beijing, which city was the legitimate seat of government under Sun Yat Sen's Kuomintang and remained so when Mao seized power too, and that all happened as Chiang Kai Shek and his "remnants of the remnants" of governmet fled to the displaced outpost to establish a wayward puppet state under the US backing.
Bullshit. Mao had no legitimacy until he enforced it over a region, militarily. As he did not do so in Taiwan, he had no legitimacy there. Legitimacy is abstract, not concrete.

Nonsense (in "Kinda -- in a lunatic's way -- Sensible people"'s parlance: "Bullshit").

Mao held Beijing. Beijing is the capital of China. All provinces of China had to follow the orders from Beijing, just like Hawai'i cannot just proclaim independence until Was D.C. is ready to acknowledge it (which with the US$ becoming less valuable than toilet paper will not be too long in awaiting.)


On the opther hand most Taiwanese are most certainly not ethnically distinct from the rest of China. A very small number of original pre-Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan have all but died out, just like the Ainu in Japan. All others are Chinese.
I fail to see how this is even relevant. It is Nationalism not Nationality that defines borders. The people of Taiwan may share ethnic roots with China, but they do not wish to be part of China. As they are currently their own distinct state, it is their right to remain that way.

Yes, the same like Austrians DID want to be a part of Hitler's German Reich. What people want is immaterial. Things "people" do or do not, wish or do not wish for matter only when done in a legitimate way. The very establishment of Taiwan is illegal, just like the establishment of the United Statelets of a Belt Between Canada and Mejico (USBBCM, usually abbreviated to the US/USA) is illegal.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]
And constructing such "containment rings" is illegal in international law and we Europeans think of it as despicable -- and most certainly not something commendable -- anyway.
Marxist-Leninism, even post Deng Xiaoping, as an ideology of opression and violence, should be discouraged from spreading. Hence, the frippery of what "you Europeans" think (and I rather suspect that the only European you represent is yourself) is immaterial.

Actually, what you thinmk is immaterial and my opinion is ALL that matters. Furthermore, whether you like it or not MOST Europeans are quite fed up with the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) way of "handling" issues so that Europe has to clean up the "shite that the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) spews across the fan" -- to use a USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) expression, so you may grasp it.


Indeed, so Alaska, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Guam, the former independent states of Oregon (comprising also today's Washington State and a part of California), Texas etc. should go down the path Philippines took when they re-established sovereignty, as they all have distinct aboriginal population at the very least, today's population in some cases (e.g. preponderance of Japanese in Hawai'i) etc.
Never been to Washington, Oregon, California, Texas or Alaska have you? Well, let me disabuse you of your ignorance: the vast majority of the residents of the states in question consider themselves Americans and citizens of America. Similarly, the majority of Taiwan's residents consider themselves to be citezens of Taiwan, and not of the Chinese dictatorship. That is all that matters. Welcome to the global world.

It is none of your business whether I have or have not been to some specific location. That is not an argument permissible in a civilised discussion (but I guess no conversation with a citizen of the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) can be civilise, now can it? People I met in California and Washington, as well as Texans whom I have met, do want independence. Granted, I may be seeking to meet exactly such people, and they may not yetr be a majority -- but they will be, sooner or later.



Of course you should, along with the rest of Caucasians, Asians, and Blacks -- unless you learn Comanche, or Apache, or Cherokee, or whatever the official language of the state it be when the government is handed back to those to whom it rightfully belongs and from whom ti was snatched through illegal means suck as trickery/deceit, occupation and confiscation of land without payment etc.

Grow up. Seriously. You do not know anything that you are talking about. The United States may have once belonged to Native American tribes, but it does not any more. The ignorance nascent in claiming that the land can just be returned (millions of non-Natives live here, it's our home too, and we won't leave) is outstanding.


Telling someone to "grow up" is the most idiotic "argument" a genuinely mature person would use. The fact that one's ideas have changed in one direction is one thing. Expectation that the whole world will necessarily think the same and that would be the only way a "grown up" (or in your case more likely grown Alzheimer-debilitated) thinks is despicable.

Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Free Tibet!!!
Death To The Communist Party Of China! Death To The Cpc!!! Long Live Chinese Culture!!!

Mao! Mao! Mao Tse-Tung! Dare to struggle, dare to win!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Free Tibet!

Free Hawai'i!

Free Texas!

Free Scotland!

Free Catalunya!

Free Aaland Islands!

Free Basque Country!

Free Brittany!

Free Schleswig-Holstein!

Free Lusatia!

Free Serbian Kraina!

Free Nagorny Karabakh!

Free Transdnistria!

Free everything!!!

Free everything!!!

Fuck yeah!

Click Stand;13184512']Ugh, I don't feel like multi-quoting...so I won't.

From the beginning of communism in China it has been steadily progressing towards capitalism (which i would say eventually will lead to a democracy in some form). But if you look at Tibet, Throughout the time it has not been moving towards any form of democracy. So from that trend I can say that China had a better chance of moving forward.

Al I'm saying is if you have to choose between two evils, choose the one that is moving forward and not lying stagnant.
Yeah, cause the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were definite signs of a country steadily progressing forward towards capitalism and democracy.

Have you actually ever read any history of China?
Basically, they were a feudal kingdom for thousands of years, where the emperor was essentially viewed as a step down from a god, followed briefly by a corrupt dictatorship which was overthrown and had installed in it's place another corrupt dictatorship, albeit under the guise of communism. Said latter dictatorship, in order to control the masses, allowed itself to be portrayed within China as basically the same as the feudal kingdom (in that it too had a cult of personality whose views and ideas were considered irreproachable) it displaced because it realised that this was the best way to continue subjugating such a massive population.
It still does this to this day. It has no intention of installing any form of democracy and has only embraced capitalism (albeit state-controlled capitalism) because it can't do anything else but.

Free Tibet!

Free Hawai'i!

Free Texas!

Free Scotland!

Free Catalunya!

Free Aaland Islands!

Free Basque Country!

Free Brittany!

Free Schleswig-Holstein!

Free Lusatia!

Free Serbian Kraina!

Free Nagorny Karabakh!

Free Transdnistria!

Free everything!!!

You forgot Vermont.

Free Antarctica from foreign human colonialist occupation, long live the Penguins!

Nonsense. Go read River Town by Peter Hessler. Chinese students are indoctrinated from day one. Chinese Democracy will arrive as soon as Chinese Democracy.

roflcoptors. Ha ha ha.

(gets the joke).

Obviously you didn't read carefully enough.

What you bring in as an alleged point of difference was MY point exactly:

Mao's legitimacy sprouts forth from the fact that he held the capital of both Pu Yi as the last emperor and of Sun Yat Sen as the first republic,

while Chiang Kai Shek did NOT,

and was therefore illegitimate even when he seized an island belonging to the government in Beijing (in that case Mao's).

Mao's legitimacy only came from the fact that was de facto ruler of China (remember that the PRC was not recognised by most Western nations until the 1960s and 1970s, and not by the UN until 1971 - albeit by breaking the rules). It did not come from the fact that he ruled from Beijing. Also, Sun Yat-Sen's first capital was at Nanking; however, it was under pressure from Yuan Shikai that it became Beijing.

Also, Beijing was the capital of the Manchu Dynasty, and they were considered foreigners by the Chinese. The Ming Dynasty had used Nanking, and so had the Taiping Kingdom.

Therefore, Chiang Kai Shek ruled from the capital that the revolutionaries had desired, a capital that had been used by the last Chinese rulers of China and from the base of the Kuomintang. Also, Chiang Kai Shek "seized" the island of Taiwan from the Japanese after World War II, not from Mao who never had control over that island.

Also, I must correct my initial post; the capital of the ROC was at Nanking except for the 1937 to 1945 period when it was in Chongqing.

Free Tibet!

Free Hawai'i!

Free Texas!

Free Scotland!

Free Catalunya!

Free Aaland Islands!

Free Basque Country!

Free Brittany!

Free Schleswig-Holstein!

Free Lusatia!

Free Serbian Kraina!

Free Nagorny Karabakh!

Free Transdnistria!

Free everything!!!

Freeeeeeeeeee Willy~~~~!!!

Besides the fact that that's a poor analogy due to its distance in time, and the fact that the North is hardly seeking to commit ethnocide in the South, we might also want to remember that the American Civil War was primarily an A.) Policing action against state governments that had broken the law by B.) Firing, unprovoked, on Federal troops and C.) Trying to unilaterally nullify the Constitution, something the Supreme Court had already decided was illegal.

You say potato, I say glaring double standards of the new Roman Empire.

I'm not even going to get into whether or not firing on an occupying force is "unprovoked".

O.o

Um... Look, authoritarian states are bad, mmkay?

Says who?

Your opinion is just opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...

Free Tibet!

Free Hawai'i!

Free Texas!

Free Scotland!

Free Catalunya!

Free Aaland Islands!

Free Basque Country!

Free Brittany!

Free Schleswig-Holstein!

Free Lusatia!

Free Serbian Kraina!

Free Nagorny Karabakh!

Free Transdnistria!

Free everything!!!
Fuck that.

As to Tibet - meh.

Yeah, cause the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were definite signs of a country steadily progressing forward towards capitalism and democracy.

Have you actually ever read any history of China?
Basically, they were a feudal kingdom for thousands of years, where the emperor was essentially viewed as a step down from a god, followed briefly by a corrupt dictatorship which was overthrown and had installed in it's place another corrupt dictatorship, albeit under the guise of communism. Said latter dictatorship, in order to control the masses, allowed itself to be portrayed within China as basically the same as the feudal kingdom (in that it too had a cult of personality whose views and ideas were considered irreproachable) it displaced because it realised that this was the best way to continue subjugating such a massive population.
It still does this to this day. It has no intention of installing any form of democracy and has only embraced capitalism (albeit state-controlled capitalism) because it can't do anything else but.

Still, China has proven that it can change while Tibet hasn't done the same thing. And no I've never read any of the history of China, all I did was go through 9th grade world cultures. Even the fact that we have a poster on here in China with ideas that are against the government, so democracy is coming the way I see it.

Free Antarctica from foreign human colonialist occupation, long live the Penguins!

May the Great Penguinan Empire of Antartica Rule over us insignificant humans, we bow to the superior race!

Click Stand;13184512']Ugh, I don't feel like multi-quoting...so I won't.

From the beginning of communism in China it has been steadily progressing towards capitalism (which i would say eventually will lead to a democracy in some form). But if you look at Tibet, Throughout the time it has not been moving towards any form of democracy. So from that trend I can say that China had a better chance of moving forward.

Ironic, considering Marx's prediction that capitalism would progress to communism.

Many people have said that China is progressing more than Tibet. But how can you say that a free Tibet wouldn't have progressed? From what I understand, Tibet has been part of China since before modernization began, or was at least annexed around the same time. It seems people are basing 2007 China on 1937 Tibet, and I don't see how that's a fair comparison.

Ironic, considering Marx’s prediction that capitalism would progress to communism.
I doubt the PRC is what Marx had in mind...

I doubt the PRC is what Marx had in mind...

True. I doubt any Communist Party that ever actually came to power is what Marx had in mind. But funny, all the same.

Ironic, considering Marx's prediction that capitalism would progress to communism.

Many people have said that China is progressing more than Tibet. But how can you say that a free Tibet wouldn't have progressed? From what I understand, Tibet has been part of China since before modernization began, or was at least annexed around the same time. It seems people are basing 2007 China on 1937 Tibet, and I don't see how that's a fair comparison.

It isn't a fair comparison, it's just a bunch of hyperbole to validate what amounts to nothing more than an opinion based on feeling and intuition with no regard to facts. We honestly have no idea how Tibet might have progressed had it been allowed to maintain its sovereignty. Like I said, the current Dalai Lama so far has struck me as a good leader. Sure, it might be for the cameras, but we just don't know because he's never had the opportunity to show us otherwise. Unless you can provide evidence that the Dalai Lama is this theocratic fascist people keep claiming he would be without the cameras, saying so is just empty rhetoric.

It isn't a fair comparison, it's just a bunch of hyperbole to validate what amounts to nothing more than an opinion based on feeling and intuition with no regard to facts. We honestly have no idea how Tibet might have progressed had it been allowed to maintain its sovereignty. Like I said, the current Dalai Lama so far has struck me as a good leader. Sure, it might be for the cameras, but we just don't know because he's never had the opportunity to show us otherwise. Unless you can provide evidence that the Dalai Lama is this theocratic fascist people keep claiming he would be without the cameras, saying so is just empty rhetoric.

Well, the last time that the Dali Lama was a leader, he ran his country like a feudal monarchy from the dark ages. So use that as an example of what kind of leader he would be.

And what about all he money the Dali Lama gets when he travels around the world and makes speeches? Does he give that money to charity? I don't know, I'm asking.

Mao's legitimacy only came from the fact that was de facto ruler of China (remember that the PRC was not recognised by most Western nations until the 1960s and 1970s, and not by the UN until 1971 - albeit by breaking the rules). It did not come from the fact that he ruled from Beijing. Also, Sun Yat-Sen's first capital was at Nanking; however, it was under pressure from Yuan Shikai that it became Beijing.

Also, Beijing was the capital of the Manchu Dynasty, and they were considered foreigners by the Chinese. The Ming Dynasty had used Nanking, and so had the Taiping Kingdom.

Therefore, Chiang Kai Shek ruled from the capital that the revolutionaries had desired, a capital that had been used by the last Chinese rulers of China and from the base of the Kuomintang. Also, Chiang Kai Shek "seized" the island of Taiwan from the Japanese after World War II, not from Mao who never had control over that island.

Also, I must correct my initial post; the capital of the ROC was at Nanking except for the 1937 to 1945 period when it was in Chongqing.


No, you are wrong. Mao's legitimacy came exclusively from having had a hold of Beijing, while Chiang did not.

As for "recognitions" by others, they are irrelevant when it comes to sovereignty and legitimacy.

England did not recognise the independence of its rebel colonies when they assembled at Philadelphia, but the United States considers its independence from that very Independece Hall and Liberty Bell.

Eventually, you have a very poor grasp of China if you seriously claim that Manchu are not Chinese.

They are just not Han, but they are very much Chinese, as the Han are by no means all Chinese that there are in the world.

Indeed minorities are often more Chinese than the Han -- as in the example of Zhuang which I gave above, or indeed the Manchu who brought back parts of China that had been lost to Han emperors.

No, you are wrong. Mao's legitimacy came exclusively from having had a hold of Beijing, while Chiang did not.

We will agree to disagree on this one

As for "recognitions" by others, they are irrelevant when it comes to sovereignty and legitimacy.

I just pointed out that recognition is due to de facto rule over a place. De facto, being different to de jure where other nations recognise your rule. The Taleban's legitimacy came from the fact that they were de facto rulers of Afghanistan, although they were not the de jure rulers, as only Pakistan recognised them.

England did not recognise the independence of its rebel colonies when they assembled at Philadelphia, but the United States considers its independence from that very Independece Hall and Liberty Bell.

Yes, agreed - again, America was de facto independent from that point and later on become de jure independent when other nations recognised its independence.

Eventually, you have a very poor grasp of China if you seriously claim that Manchu are not Chinese.

I never said that they were not Chinese, I just said that the Chinese viewed them as foreigners. The Manchus themselves viewed the Han Chinese as a completely different race and even made them wear the queue to show they were a subject race.

They are just not Han, but they are very much Chinese, as the Han are by no means all Chinese that there are in the world.

Indeed minorities are often more Chinese than the Han -- as in the example of Zhuang which I gave above, or indeed the Manchu who brought back parts of China that had been lost to Han emperors.

However the Han are the main Chinese group and they tended to view other groups as foreigners. Also, look at the background to the Taiping Rebellion - it was partly caused because the Han Chinese viewed Manchu rule as "ineffective and corrupt foreign rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion).

Well, the last time that the Dali Lama was a leader, he ran his country like a feudal monarchy from the dark ages. So use that as an example of what kind of leader he would be.
Instead of criticizing the form of government, why not ask whether the Tibetan people suffered under the rule of the Dalai Lama? If that form of government gave them what they wanted in life, then it is not valid to simply declare it oppressive or backward just because it is not some other form of government.

And what about all he money the Dali Lama gets when he travels around the world and makes speeches? Does he give that money to charity? I don't know, I'm asking.
I don't know, either, but since you don't know, why do you mention it at all?

I think the question of whether the Dalai Lama would be the best leader for a free Tibet is beside the point of whether Tibet should be free of Chinese rule. In as much as China has been oppressing the Tibetan people for decades, I believe they should be free. Let them do with their freedom whatever they like, whether that means following the Dalai Lama or not.

You should read Lhasa the Open City: Journey to Tibet by Han Suyin (http://voices.cla.umn.edu/vg/Bios/entries/suyin_han.html) to get an insight into the Chinese perspective on Tibet, especially the immediate post-Cultural Revolution impact. It is really interesting actually, even though I still can't support that position.

Click Stand;13185332']Still, China has proven that it can change while Tibet hasn't done the same thing. And no I've never read any of the history of China, all I did was go through 9th grade world cultures. Even the fact that we have a poster on here in China with ideas that are against the government, so democracy is coming the way I see it.
Again, you comparing Tibet of 60 years ago to China of today. Tibet CAN'T prove it can change because over the past 60 years it's been a subjugated region. Would you be prepared to look at China of the Cultural Revolution and declare that this is proof that it can change into a better democratic society?
If anything, considering on how the Dalai Lama now talks about democracy and autonomy for Tibet it could be argued that he's changed a helluva lot more than anything the PRC have done over the past 60 years.

As for the poster in China, it shows more how bad their filtering system is, not how pro-democracy they are.
Aside from the filtering system (that looks for such terroristic words/phrases as, 'Freedom', 'Democracy', 'Free Tibet', 'Dalai Lama' and 'Tiananmen Square'), they also have over 100,000 people employed to scan internet sites to check for possible 'anti-PRC' statements. Last year, a blogger in Beijing was arrested and sentenced to 're-education through labour' (love the euphemism) for committing the most subversive offence of wishing the Dalai Lama a happy birthday.

Instead of criticizing the form of government, why not ask whether the Tibetan people suffered under the rule of the Dalai Lama? If that form of government gave them what they wanted in life, then it is not valid to simply declare it oppressive or backward just because it is not some other form of government.

To be fair, you must also ask this of the Tibetan people under the PRC then, regardless of policies put in place by the central government.

Again, you comparing Tibet of 60 years ago to China of today. Tibet CAN'T prove it can change because over the past 60 years it's been a subjugated region. Would you be prepared to look at China of the Cultural Revolution and declare that this is proof that it can change into a better democratic society?
If anything, considering on how the Dalai Lama now talks about democracy and autonomy for Tibet it could be argued that he's changed a helluva lot more than anything the PRC have done over the past 60 years.


Not only in the last 60 years but throughout history China has had a tendency to rebel and set up a new government while Tibet does not.

As for the poster in China, it shows more how bad their filtering system is, not how pro-democracy they are.
Aside from the filtering system (that looks for such terroristic words/phrases as, 'Freedom', 'Democracy', 'Free Tibet', 'Dalai Lama' and 'Tiananmen Square'), they also have over 100,000 people employed to scan internet sites to check for possible 'anti-PRC' statements.

Source?

However the Han are the main Chinese group and they tended to view other groups as foreigners. Also, look at the background to the Taiping Rebellion - it was partly caused because the Han Chinese viewed Manchu rule as "ineffective and corrupt foreign rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion).

Actually, Taiping Uprising started in Guangxi-ZHUANG region, in a town inhabited by 85% Zhuangs.

The later leader was a Hakka (NOT Han) lunatic who proclaimed himself a god on the basis of the so-called "Bible" and very much in the manner of one rabbi Yehoshuah ben Myriam, founder of Christianity.

Nonsense (in "Kinda -- in a lunatic's way -- Sensible people"'s parlance: "Bullshit").

From a Maoist, I consider that a compliment.

Mao held Beijing. Beijing is the capital of China. All provinces of China had to follow the orders from Beijing, just like Hawai'i cannot just proclaim independence until Was D.C. is ready to acknowledge it (which with the US$ becoming less valuable than toilet paper will not be too long in awaiting.)

You only have legitimacy you can enforce, bucko. If Hawaii wanted to leave the Union they coud try, but we could enforce dominance. If China had had legitimate rule of Taiwan, they would have been able to hold it. They had no legitimacy or authority in the minds of the people. And THAT is all that matters. Statecraft depends on a monopoly of force. Mao did not have that monopoly of force.

Yes, the same like Austrians DID want to be a part of Hitler's German Reich. What people want is immaterial. Things "people" do or do not, wish or do not wish for matter only when done in a legitimate way. The very establishment of Taiwan is illegal, just like the establishment of the United Statelets of a Belt Between Canada and Mejico (USBBCM, usually abbreviated to the US/USA) is illegal.

Legitimacy is abstract, not concrete. States have only the rule that they have the capacity and autonimacy to support. Rulership extends only as far as their capacity and autonomy allows them to enforce the monopoly of force. China has no legitimacy in Taiwan, because the RoC has legitimate authority over the island, and has the autonomy and capacity to defend it. That autonomy and capacity is a product of its people's democratic choice.

Actually, what you thinmk is immaterial and my opinion is ALL that matters. Furthermore, whether you like it or not MOST Europeans are quite fed up with the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) way of "handling" issues so that Europe has to clean up the "shite that the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) spews across the fan" -- to use a USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) expression, so you may grasp it.

Dear, arrogance is a fault. Furthermore, you, as a supporter of a violent Marxist-Leninist hellhole are hardly representative of the population of Europe, which is primarily Social Democratic. Most Europeans would concur that preventing the spread of Chinese ideology is important. Authoritarianism is wrong when it is supported by Marxist-Leninists, and it is wrong when advocated for by American Dominionists.

It is none of your business whether I have or have not been to some specific location. That is not an argument permissible in a civilised discussion (but I guess no conversation with a citizen of the USBBCM (usually abbreviated to the US/USA) can be civilise, now can it? People I met in California and Washington, as well as Texans whom I have met, do want independence. Granted, I may be seeking to meet exactly such people, and they may not yetr be a majority -- but they will be, sooner or later.

child, you know nothing of either Washington or California. I have resided in Washington state for my whole life. The people of Washington state are quite happy involved in the federal government of the United States of America. Your immaterial snide comments (indicative more of your innability to produce a real argument than of any reality) aside, we are happy being part of the US, even if we are not happy with it's current direction. You do not know anything you are talking about. Accusing one's opponent of suffering from rectal insertion of the head is a legitimate argument, when supported by evidence.

Telling someone to "grow up" is the most idiotic "argument" a genuinely mature person would use. The fact that one's ideas have changed in one direction is one thing. Expectation that the whole world will necessarily think the same and that would be the only way a "grown up" (or in your case more likely grown Alzheimer-debilitated) thinks is despicable.

When you begin behaving like an adult, I will stop asking you to behave like one. Until that time, you are behaving like a child, and I will call you on it. Your next two sentences are meaningless and irrelevant. Rewrite them if you want a response.

I have family members dying of Alzheimers, and I'll thank you to shut your trap about it.

Interestingly enough, you spend no time responding to my real arguments (are straw-men easier?) and you haven't responded to my question. When will you be learning latin and rejoining the Roman Empire, or returning to the lands held by the barbarian tribes?

You only have legitimacy you can enforce, bucko. If Hawaii wanted to leave the Union they coud try, but we could enforce dominance. If China had had legitimate rule of Taiwan, they would have been able to hold it. They had no legitimacy or authority in the minds of the people. And THAT is all that matters. Statecraft depends on a monopoly of force. Mao did not have that monopoly of force.Legitimacy derives from force? Not the will of the people?

Legitimacy derives from force? Not the will of the people?

Well, yes. If you can't defend it, you can't hold it, and you do not have power to have legitimacy for. Legitimacy requires power to deem legitimate; if there is no power, there can be no justification of legitimacy, because it is unnecessary.

Traditionally, the 3 sources of legitimacy are, however:

- Charismatic Legitmacy: the legitimacy of a government though force of ideas or personality: personality cults are an example of this.

- Rational-legal Legitimacy: Legitimacy stemming from the beleif in the rule of law.

- Traditional Legitimacy: Legitimacy through "It's always been that way"

However, legitimacy is just a justification for using power. If you have no power, you need no legitimacy. However, outside of the definitions of political science, the word is a weasel-word. That's how he used it, and responding by trying to bring the P&G definition in was a little silly.

Click Stand;13187288']Not only in the last 60 years but throughout history China has had a tendency to rebel and set up a new government while Tibet does not.
rebel when?
You mean for example during the Sui Dynasty where it's megalomaniac emperor slaughtered thousands?
Or maybe during the Tang Dynasty when Huang Chao razed Guangzhou, killing an estimated 200,000.
Or maybe during the Song Dynasty where they fought and annihilated the Liao.
Or maybe the Jin Dynasty which was wiped out by the Mongols who then went on to a years-long war and eventual destruction of the southern Dynasties. During those twenty years of war, it's estimated that war and pestilence killed around 1/2 the Chinese population - 60 million out of 120 million.
Possibly do you mean the Machus who invaded and destroyed the Ming Dynasty, killing an estimated 25 million.
Then there's Taiping Tianguo whose rebellion caused the deaths of between 20 million and some estimates of up to 50 million (making it 2nd only to WWII in total deaths).
Perhaps you mean the military warlords that set themselves up after the death of the last emperor, Yuan Shikai, culminating in Chiang Kai-shek seizing control and installing himself as emperor in all but name.
Finally of course is Mao Zedong, who overthrew the KMT and then, under the guise of Communism, ruled over China as much the most ruthless of emperors had done before him - except in Mao's case he managed to top them all and cause the deaths of upwards of 100 million Chinese.


So I ask again - rebel when? Cause I can't see much in the way of rebellion by the people there. Just a few megalomaniacs setting themselves up as warlords or emperors and ruthlessly crushing all who oppose them. And at any rate when has rebellion been viewed as a better form of government over stability?

Source?
google is your friend:
Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China
...is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.
...an internet police task force, estimated at more than 30,000, has been known for some time, attention is mostly focused on their work as censors and monitors. Countless critical comments appearing on Internet forums, bulletin boards, blogs, vlogs or any major portals such as Sohu and Sina are usually erased within minutes.

Some commonly used methods for censoring content are:
* IP blocking.
* DNS filtering and redirection.
* URL filtering.
* Packet filtering.
* Connection reset.


Research into mainland Chinese Internet censorship has shown that censored websites include:
* Websites belonging to groups such as Falun Gong
* News sources that often cover some taboo topics such as police brutality, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, freedom of speech, democracy, and Marxist sites. These sites include Voice of America, BBC News, and Yahoo! Hong Kong
* Sites related with Taiwan government, media, or other organizations, including sites dedicated to religious content, such as CBETA, a site that provides the complete Chinese Buddhist canon
* Web sites that contain obscenity, pornography and criminal activity
* Sites linked with the Dalai Lama and his International Tibet Independence Movement, including his teachings

Although blocking foreign sites has received much attention in the West, this is actually only a part of the PRC effort to censor the Internet. Although the government rarely practices this, much more effective is the ability to censor content providers within mainland China, as the ISPs and other service providers are restricting customers' actions for fear of being found legally liable for customers' conduct. The service providers have assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers.
Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China (http://www.answers.com/topic/internet-censorship-in-the-people-s-republic-of-china)
Censorship from the Great Firewall of China (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bi-directional_Censorship_from_the_Great_Firewall_of_China)

List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China:
General concepts
* 民主 (democracy)
* 人权 (human rights)
* 独裁 (dictatorship)
* 专政
* 专制
* 反共 (anti-communist)
* 反人类 (Crime against humanity)
* 共匪 (communist bandits) — this was the term used by the Kuomintang to refer to the communists
* 卖国 (selling out one's country)
* 屠杀 (massacre)
* 群体灭绝 (genocide)
* 镇压 (oppression)
* 封锁 (Blocking)
* 劳改 (laogai)
* 劳教 (Reeducation through labor)
* 红色恐怖 (Red Terror)
* 邪恶 (evil)

Events
* 中俄边界 (Sino-Russian border) - refers to the Sino-Russian Border Treaty, which has been attacked by nationalists and dissident groups as a betrayal of Chinese sovereignty and dignity
* 六四 (June 4) - "June 4th" is the usual Chinese name for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. In contrast, "Tiananmen" refers to a geographical place and does not usually have the same connotations.
* 一塌糊涂 (YTHT BBS)
* 汕尾 (Shanwei) - refers to the Dongzhou protests of 2005.

Xinjiang & Tibet
* 疆独 (Xinjiang independence)
* 藏独 (Tibetan independence)
* 流亡 (exile) - e.g. Government of Tibet in Exile
* 达赖 (dalai, as in Dalai Lama)
* 根敦·确吉尼玛 (Gedhun Choekyi Nyima), 根敦·确吉 (Gedhun Choekyi-), and 确吉尼玛 (Choekyi Nyima)
o not blocked: 额尔德尼·确吉杰布 (Erdini Qoigyijabu), 班禅喇嘛 (Panchen Lama - mainly because the PRC kidnapped and most likely killed the real one and have replaced him with their own), 西藏 (Tibet).
* tibetalk - 西藏论坛, Tibet Talk, http://www.tibetalk.com/

Dissident groups
* Since 民主 (democracy) is blocked, any political group with that name is also blocked. This includes both dissident groups like 中国民主正义党 (Chinese Democracy Justice Party) [1], 民主中国 (China Democracy) [2] and government-sanctioned groups like 中国民主同盟 (China Democratic League)
* 天安门母亲 (Tiananmen Mothers)

Dissidents
* 魏京生 (Wei Jingsheng)
* 王丹 (Wang Dan)
* 吾尔开希 (Wu'er Kaixi)
* 柴玲 (Chai Ling)
* 封从德 (Feng Congde)
* 丁子霖 (Ding Zilin)
* 王若望 (Wang Ruowang)
* 刘宾雁 (Liu Binyan)
* 吴弘达 (Harry Wu)
* 司徒华 (Szeto Wah)
* 方舟子 (Fangzhouzi, Nickname of Fang Shimin, but his real name 方是民 is not blocked)
* 张戎 (Jung Chang, author of Mao: The Unknown Story)

Politicians
* 江泽民 (Jiang Zemin)
* 江贼, 贼民, 江流氓 (all three describe Jiang Zemin as a bandit)
* 江罗 (Jiang Luo, refers to Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan)
* 赵紫阳 (Zhao Ziyang)
* 鲍彤 (Bao Tong)

Dissident news
* 大参考 (Dacankao)
* 博讯 (Boxun)
* 华夏文摘 (China News Digest)
* 多维 (Chinese News Net)
* 纪元 (Epoch), the second and third characters of 大纪元 (Epoch Times)
* 自由亚洲, first four characters of 自由亚洲电台 (Radio Free Asia)
* 人民报 (Renminbao),
* peacehall — same as Boxun
* 美国之音 (Voice of America)

Falun Gong
* 法轮 (falun, or "dharma chakra")
* 法伦 (falun)
* 轮功 (lun gong, the second and third characters of Falun Gong)
* 轮大 (lun da, the second and third characters of Falun Dafa)
* 大法 (dafa, or "Great Law")
* 洪志 (hongzhi, given name of Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi)
* 弟子 (disciple)
* 真善忍 (Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance) — the principles of the Falun Gong practice
* 明慧 (Minghui, official website of Falun Gong)
* falun
* hongzhi
* minghui

Taiwan
* 民进党 (Democratic Progressive Party)

Pornography
* 花花公子 (Playboy)

Others
* 东方红时空
* 九评共产党 (The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party)
* 不为人知的故事 (The Unknown Story) - refers to the book "Mao: The Unknown Story"
* 李志绥 (Li Zhisui, author of the controversial book "The Private Life of Chairman Mao")
List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China (http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-words-censored-by-search-engines-in-the-people-s-republic-of-china)

To make it short:

Tibet should be independent. It's every peoples ad nations right to govern themselves if they want to.

So free Tibet.

So Black Foot, Apache, Comanche, Cree, Lakota/Dakota, Navajo, Nadene and all the other peoples have the right to independence from the occupying so-called USofA.

Good to see some Yanks coming to their senses.

To make it short:

Tibet should be independent. It's every peoples ad nations right to govern themselves if they want to.

So free Tibet.


Yep.

So Black Foot, Apache, Comanche, Cree, Lakota/Dakota, Navajo, Nadene and all the other peoples have the right to independence from the occupying so-called USofA.

Good to see some Yanks coming to their senses.

well firstly that would be plain dumb as there to few of them.. but one could give them the same rigths as other americans maybe make them form their own counties..

If you refer to me as a yankie :D I'm not, i'm danish... Bare så du ved det...

Free tibet? Of course. Hand it back to religious authority? No.

rebel when?

You forgot about the Nien Rebellion of 1851 through 1868; the Panthay Rebellion of 1856 through 1873; the Dungan Revolt of 1862 through 1877.

In fact, here is a list of rebellions within China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_in_China

What did surprise me though is that with all this chaos, no Western power even attempted to colonise China. The British Empire could have colonised China extremely easily and solidified its name further into world history

Actually, Taiping Uprising started in Guangxi-ZHUANG region, in a town inhabited by 85% Zhuangs.

The later leader was a Hakka (NOT Han) lunatic who proclaimed himself a god on the basis of the so-called "Bible" and very much in the manner of one rabbi Yehoshuah ben Myriam, founder of Christianity.

So what if the leader was Hakka (which by the way is a Han subgroup)? Their followers at their height were mostly Han Chinese who were sick of the incompetence of the "foreign" Manchu. The Nien Rebellion gained a lot of Han support as well, again because of the incompetence of the "foreign" Manchu in dealing with the floods of the Yellow River.

Also, so what if the rebellion started in Guangxi-Zhuang region? They mostly used Nanking as their capital and that was pretty much where the rebellion ended (yes, it did continue but not to the extent that it had been)