NationStates Jolt Archive

The government of the PRC says that the population of Tibet in 1737 was about 8 million, and that due to the backward rule of the local theocracy, there was rapid decrease in the next two hundred years and the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan, according to the 2000 census. The increase is viewed as the result of the abolishment of the theocracy and introduction of a modern, higher standard of living. Based on the census numbers, the PRC also rejects claims that the Tibetans are being swamped by Han Chinese; instead the PRC says that the border for Greater Tibet drawn by the government of Tibet in Exile is so large that it incorporates regions such as Xining that are not traditionally Tibetan in the first place, hence exaggerating the number of non-Tibetans.

The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and says that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; it has 22,500 km of highways, all built since 1950; all secular education in the region was created after integration into the PRC; there are 25 scientific research institutes, all built by the PRC; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries. The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators (in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four) have been brought to justice and whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.

Yeah... I know I copy and pasted wikipedia... but most of this is true...

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Yes I knew This??? very well. He was a competent if a little excentric fly half, a great aid to all those at school who needed help with their latin declinations, and an all around spiffing bloke.

He will be greatly missed, mostly by opposing flankers it must be admitted.

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Then let them charge for those services while letting Tibet have its independency, or else fuck the Chinese politicians with a turned-on chainsaw. Forced colonialism is wrong, PERIOD.

And as a response to that rhetorical question: Raped women? Destroyed cultures? Do you have any idea how many polytheistic religions were lost because of Roman imperialism? ALL imperialism is WRONG. Get that through your head.

Aye did you post that from Propaganda in Chinese Society or something?

Chinese rule of Tibet probably has been beneficial in certain aspects to the Tibetan population. But that article plays a rather one-sided view of things.

It's a wikipedia article... lol...

It's not forced colonialism... It's not imperialism... That place BELONGS to China. Saying Tibet should be free is somewhat similar to saying Hong Kong should be a free country...

Besides, Darfur and the DRC are in trouble. Why aren't we talking about that?

Besides, Darfur and the DRC are in trouble. Why aren't we talking about that?
Because that's been done, and people have the same viewpoint on those - "aww how sad".

Then let them charge for those services while letting Tibet have its independency, or else fuck the Chinese politicians with a turned-on chainsaw. Forced colonialism is wrong, PERIOD.


Meh. Independence is over-rated.

Overthrowing a government is an arguable evil - even when the government is an oppressive theocracy... but stopping things like slavetrading and child-brides?

It looks like China has gone out of it's way to protect Tibetan interests - in terms of culture, preservation, education. Hell, just the reduction in infant mortality looks like it should be worth it.

I think people have far too narrow a view, sometimes - especially when it comes to China, who seem to be this generation's bogeyman.

It's a wikipedia article... lol...

It's not forced colonialism... It's not imperialism... That place BELONGS to China. Saying Tibet should be free is somewhat similar to saying Hong Kong should be a free country...

Besides, Darfur and the DRC are in trouble. Why aren't we talking about that?

Both should if that's the will of their population, and guess what, that IS their will.

Both should if that's the will of their population, and guess what, that IS their will.
Why would Hong Kong want to break away? They basically are a separate country at the moment...

Then let them charge for those services while letting Tibet have its independency, or else fuck the Chinese politicians with a turned-on chainsaw. Forced colonialism is wrong, PERIOD.

And as a response to that rhetorical question: Raped women? Destroyed cultures? Do you have any idea how many polytheistic religions were lost because of Roman imperialism? ALL imperialism is WRONG. Get that through your head.

Haven't you never seen "The Life of Brian"? I wasn't being even remotely serious.

I know you were coming into the thread just hoping for someone to argue in favour of imperialism but that's not what you found, sorry to disappoint. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along soon enough against whom your vitriol will be accurate.

It's funny because that's definitely the first time I've ever been accused of supporting imperialism as I support self determination for all peoples everywhere who may want it, Tibetans, Basques, Quebecois, Scots, Kurds, and so on, even to include the part of my own state that has periodically expressed such an interest.

Meh. Independence is over-rated.

Overthrowing a government is an arguable evil - even when the government is an oppressive theocracy... but stopping things like slavetrading and child-brides?

It looks like China has gone out of it's way to protect Tibetan interests - in terms of culture, preservation, education. Hell, just the reduction in infant mortality looks like it should be worth it.

I think people have far too narrow a view, sometimes - especially when it comes to China, who seem to be this generation's bogeyman.

I stand up for Tibet so someone will stand up for me should MY country be the target of imperialism, in a much more direct way than in '64. They want the Chinese out, the Chinese should get out. That this is even being discussed is absurd.

Haven't you never seen "The Life of Brian"? I wasn't being even remotely serious.

I know you were coming into the thread just hoping for someone to argue in favour of imperialism but that's not what you found, sorry to disappoint. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along soon enough against whom your vitriol will be accurate.

It's funny because that's definitely the first time I've ever been accused of supporting imperialism as I support self determination for all peoples everywhere who may want it, Tibetans, Basques, Quebecois, Scots, Kurds, and so on, even to include the part of my own state that has periodically expressed such an interest.

To be sure, it was a mistaken impression, rather than malice. Sorry.

To be sure, it was a mistaken impression, rather than malice. Sorry.

No worries. Mistaking humour for seriousness is NSGs favourite passtime.

Some people want the caucasians out of America... but that's obviously not going to happen.

(in response to Heiko's comment)

EDIT: Well... some native americans want their land back.

I stand up for Tibet so someone will stand up for me should MY country be the target of imperialism, in a much more direct way than in '64. They want the Chinese out, the Chinese should get out. That this is even being discussed is absurd.

Do you know this for a fact?

PS- You have failed to address human rights failures in Darfur and the DRC.

The government of the PRC says that the population of Tibet in 1737 was about 8 million, and that due to the backward rule of the local theocracy, there was rapid decrease in the next two hundred years and the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan, according to the 2000 census. The increase is viewed as the result of the abolishment of the theocracy and introduction of a modern, higher standard of living. Based on the census numbers, the PRC also rejects claims that the Tibetans are being swamped by Han Chinese; instead the PRC says that the border for Greater Tibet drawn by the government of Tibet in Exile is so large that it incorporates regions such as Xining that are not traditionally Tibetan in the first place, hence exaggerating the number of non-Tibetans.

The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and says that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; it has 22,500 km of highways, all built since 1950; all secular education in the region was created after integration into the PRC; there are 25 scientific research institutes, all built by the PRC; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries. The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators (in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four) have been brought to justice and whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.

Yeah... I know I copy and pasted wikipedia... but most of this is true...

I've heard a very different story. The number I usually hear is that ethnic Tibetans only comprise a fourth of all the people in Tibet and that they usually live in poor conditions. That comes from my uncle, who spent most of his adult life in China, but I'm uncertain about the reliability of those figures. Then again I'm also just as uncertain about the reliability of that Wikipedia page.

The stab at Tibetan theocracy and the portrayal of the PRC as a purely benevolent force makes me wonder if this was written as Chinese propaganda.

Meh. Independence is over-rated.

Overthrowing a government is an arguable evil - even when the government is an oppressive theocracy... but stopping things like slavetrading and child-brides?

It looks like China has gone out of it's way to protect Tibetan interests - in terms of culture, preservation, education. Hell, just the reduction in infant mortality looks like it should be worth it.

I think people have far too narrow a view, sometimes - especially when it comes to China, who seem to be this generation's bogeyman.

Thank you...

Besides...

The lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to assemble, and etc. are all prevalent throughout China.

Millions dead? Women raped? Same throughout China... Basically the Free Tibet people are quoting the Cultural Revolution.

PS- Agree that the PRC is not perfect.

and I was only citing part of the article.

I've heard a very different story. The number I usually hear is that ethnic Tibetans only comprise a fourth of all the people in Tibet and that they usually live in poor conditions. That comes from my uncle, who spent most of his adult life in China, but I'm uncertain about the reliability of those figures. Then again I'm also just as uncertain about the reliability of that Wikipedia page.

The stab at Tibetan theocracy and the portrayal of the PRC as a purely benevolent force makes me wonder if this was written as Chinese propaganda.

Again... Poverty is prevalent throughout most of China... Either you're slaving in the fields in poor conditions or you're slaving in a sweat shop in poor conditions. Either way, you barely make enough money to survive.

EDIT: On the dilution of Tibetan culture and their ethnicity and such, I personally believe that such arguments against the integration of cultures is unfounded. This is because cultures have merged and been assimilated in the past... why not now?

Oh yeah... back in the 1860s, the majority of the southern states wanted independence.

Again... Poverty is prevalent throughout most of China... Either you're slaving in the fields in poor conditions or you're slaving in a sweat shop in poor conditions. Either way, you barely make enough money to survive.

Or you're in the government, secretly laughing at everyone else.

Or you're in the government, secretly laughing at everyone else.

There is a growing middle class... I'm not surprised since we're getting a HUGE trade deficit from them (the Chinese)...

Because that's been done, and people have the same viewpoint on those - "aww how sad".

It's not been done... it's still going on and apparently, almost no one cares. The only reason we care about Tibet is because of the Dalai Llama.

Again... Poverty is prevalent throughout most of China... Either you're slaving in the fields in poor conditions or you're slaving in a sweat shop in poor conditions. Either way, you barely make enough money to survive.

EDIT: On the dilution of Tibetan culture and their ethnicity and such, I personally believe that such arguments against the integration of cultures is unfounded. This is because cultures have merged and been assimilated in the past... why not now?

Oh yeah... back in the 1860s, the majority of the southern states wanted independence.

So China, through it's imperialistic desires, expanded its poverty to Tibet? And why have you found the stories of dilution of Tibetan culture to be unfounded? Have you been to Tibet? Do you know what's there?

And the issue with the South is that much of the population of the South was enslaved, an equally large portion poor yeomen. Much of the South, including areas like the whole of Appalachia wished to remain with the Union. The word "majority" fails to do the situation justice when the decision to secede was largely the decision of a small group of elite, wealthy plantation owners. Can the same be said of Tibet?

Hmmm...sounds like Chinese rule could be regarded as a beneficial stage that Tibet needs to go through to modernise technology and social relations. It sounds a bit like the arguments some British Empire apologists make for their colonial rule. I don't know much about Tibet. Is it likely that it would revert to a feudal backward society, or could it manage a modern democracy if left free from foreign control? Thats the key question for me.

I stand up for Tibet so someone will stand up for me should MY country be the target of imperialism,


Ah. So, basically a 'slippery slope' argument, then.


...in a much more direct way than in '64. They want the Chinese out, the Chinese should get out. That this is even being discussed is absurd.

Not really. I know people that want 'the Americans' out of America.

Ain't gonna happen though - that's just not the way it (the world... history...) works. But, you can have the discussion... why do you find that concept absurd?

I'm not trying to argue that China has been totally in the right, or that what they've done is beyond reproach... but if their overall impact has been SO positive, why be so confrontational?

I'm not trying to argue that China has been totally in the right, or that what they've done is beyond reproach... but if their overall impact has been SO positive, why be so confrontational?

Because they invaded a people whose majority does not want them there. Ergo, they should leave. It's that simple.

I'm not trying to argue that China has been totally in the right, or that what they've done is beyond reproach... but if their overall impact has been SO positive, why be so confrontational?

With the exception of a seemingly biased Wikipedia article, there is a lack of solid evidence that China's impact has been so positive. Their recent crackdowns in Tibet seem to indicate otherwise.

It's not been done... it's still going on and apparently, almost no one cares. The only reason we care about Tibet is because of the Dalai Llama.

This is true. The Dalai Lama is like the baby seal of international politics.

Because they invaded a people whose majority does not want them there. Ergo, they should leave. It's that simple.

By extension then, if only a 49% minority wanted them gone, they should stay?

With the exception of a seemingly biased Wikipedia article, there is a lack of solid evidence that China's impact has been so positive. Their recent crackdowns in Tibet seem to indicate otherwise.

I'm not basing my opinion on just that one wiki article, but on things I've read in a variety of places, over a number of years.

That aside, however, merely claiming bias in a wiki article (even just being a wiki article) isn't actually proof that the information is false.

Can you actually provide evidence to materially contradict any of the positivity?

Saying that Tibet BELONGS to China is like saying that Canada BELONGS to the US and France BELONGS to Andorra.

It's a wikipedia article... lol...

It's not forced colonialism... It's not imperialism... That place BELONGS to China. Saying Tibet should be free is somewhat similar to saying Hong Kong should be a free country...

Besides, Darfur and the DRC are in trouble. Why aren't we talking about that?

. . . Or like Japan Belongs to the Chinese or hell how bout the whole world . . .you know . . .cause that makes sense too. Also the Chinese have a "communist" government with 0 checks and balances. So those number . . .suspicious much? I'd say just a little

So China, through it's imperialistic desires, expanded its poverty to Tibet? And why have you found the stories of dilution of Tibetan culture to be unfounded? Have you been to Tibet? Do you know what's there?

And the issue with the South is that much of the population of the South was enslaved, an equally large portion poor yeomen. Much of the South, including areas like the whole of Appalachia wished to remain with the Union. The word "majority" fails to do the situation justice when the decision to secede was largely the decision of a small group of elite, wealthy plantation owners. Can the same be said of Tibet?

You generalize the South to be elite, wealthy plantation owners... they were generally poor farm workers, who wanted freedom from the Union and more power for individuals States...

I just think dilution of cultures is part of society... it's rather racist to try to keep one culture "pure".

Tibet was poor... China just raised it a little higher. Basically, you're saying China was spreading poverty to a poor country.

. . . Or like Japan Belongs to the Chinese or hell how bout the whole world . . .you know . . .cause that makes sense too. Also the Chinese have a "communist" government with 0 checks and balances. So those number . . .suspicious much? I'd say just a little

The whole world belongs to the human race. China did not belong to Japan, because it had the capacity to resist Japanese control. Japan is made up of people from China a few thousand years ago... not the other way around.

The ends do not justify the means. I do not see how China's seizure of Tibet will ever be considered good or moral, any more than the United States' extermination of Native Americans will ever be good. But, as time goes on, things change. Tibet today doesn't sound much worse than rest-of-China today, and independence shouldn't be considered the only moral choice just because it was fifty years ago.

Hmmm...sounds like Chinese rule could be regarded as a beneficial stage that Tibet needs to go through to modernise technology and social relations. It sounds a bit like the arguments some British Empire apologists make for their colonial rule. I don't know much about Tibet. Is it likely that it would revert to a feudal backward society, or could it manage a modern democracy if left free from foreign control? Thats the key question for me.

It'll probably go back to a feudal backward society, if the Dalai Llama is reestablished with former powers. Best case scenario would be a Great Britain-like Tibet.

Well, the difference is that the British did not look alike with the people they attempted to colonize, nor did they respect their culture.

Saying that Tibet BELONGS to China is like saying that Canada BELONGS to the US and France BELONGS to Andorra.

The more powerful country wins... but the US and Canada seem to have a good relationship.

Because they invaded a people whose majority does not want them there. Ergo, they should leave. It's that simple.

The 'Americans' did the same thing. I guess everyone should pack up their stuff and buy a ticket to England.

The more powerful country wins...

In the same way the bigger bully wins on the playground. That may be how it plays out but that doesn't mean the world should just accept it.

In the same way the bigger bully wins on the playground. That may be how it plays out but that doesn't mean the world should just accept it.

Not really... it's not just the bigger country... it's the bigger driving force behind it. The idealogy, the leaders, the people (their will not genetics), and etc.

MY OPINOIN: Well, I'd feel more comfortable with less countries in this world...

The whole world belongs to the human race. China did not belong to Japan, because it had the capacity to resist Japanese control. Japan is made up of people from China a few thousand years ago... not the other way around.

And the majority of nations of the world were made up from people in Africa several hundred thousand years back. Does that mean the world belongs to Africa?

The argument is a bit moot anyway. There might have been some benefits of PRC rule. Modernized roads, utilities, etc, etc. But there have also been downsides. One can't really say that we aren't seeing a colonialist approach to matters from China to Tibet, which has resulted in more of the same poverty as well as increased Han Chinese pushing out the Tibetans.

That being said, if the lot of the Tibetans is to be improved, China itself must be improved in terms of human rights records and corruption. Actually, scratch that. Just corruption alone. If China can weed out its corruption at the upper levels, a lot of the abuses we see would just evaporate, which by extension would mean better treatment of the Tibetans.

Protesting China and threatening it? Not going to help anyone. All it will do is make PRC rule harder.

China's claim on Tibet is just as legitimate as the US's ownership of Texas and most of the Southwestern US (not to mention the territorial claims of every single other nation on Earth that has ever obtained land from another power) and its cultural policies no different from those that have been the standard for nations since the beginning of civilization and long before. In fact, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a country invading and annexing another. If you can do it, and the benefits exceed the costs, by all means do so because if you don't someone else will and it won't be long before they turn their eyes towards your territory. Every single nation on Earth with a military would no doubt be more than happy to expand their territory by invading weaker neighbors, and the only thing keeping them in check is the system of international law devised and implemented by the major powers with the underlying goal of maintaining their supremacy.

China invaded and annexed Tibet, the international community did nothing at the time, a treaty was signed and now the region has been thoroughly incorporated in to their nation. This might have been a valid point 50 years ago, but now it's as valid as the Germans demanding the return of East Prussia or the Pakistanis demanding Bangladesh be reincorporated in to their nation. The only way it will be returned is through force or negotiation, and I doubt that the Chinese would be willing to risk another unfriendly nation encircling their territory out of some hopelessly naive notion of "fairness".

Frankly, it is a waste of time to attempt to do anything on a diplomatic scale about Tibet other than perhaps some perfunctory protests and gentle encouragement towards negotiation. We should only act on it if it aids our national interest to do so. Anything else will jeopardize the relationship between the United States (in my case) and the world's foremost emerging economic and military superpower. At a time when this country desperately needs to rebuild its relationships and its credit rating in the wake of the Iraq War and Bush's wasteful spending, the last thing we need is to piss off our biggest creditor.

And the majority of nations of the world were made up from people in Africa several hundred thousand years back. Does that mean the world belongs to Africa?

The argument is a bit moot anyway. There might have been some benefits of PRC rule. Modernized roads, utilities, etc, etc. But there have also been downsides. One can't really say that we aren't seeing a colonialist approach to matters from China to Tibet, which has resulted in more of the same poverty as well as increased Han Chinese pushing out the Tibetans.

That being said, if the lot of the Tibetans is to be improved, China itself must be improved in terms of human rights records and corruption. Actually, scratch that. Just corruption alone. If China can weed out its corruption at the upper levels, a lot of the abuses we see would just evaporate, which by extension would mean better treatment of the Tibetans.

Protesting China and threatening it? Not going to help anyone. All it will do is make PRC rule harder.

Pressure on the government is okay. Just not too much. The pressure will make it change it's policies. But attempts to stamp out the Olympic Torch will only piss off Chinese people.

China's changing... but slowly. It'll have to come to acceptance of a free world.

Yeah... I wish it were as simple as sending in Special Forces to assassinate the CCP leaders.

The world should belong to Africa. Considering how screwed up everyone made it.

Not really... it's not just the bigger country... it's the bigger driving force behind it. The idealogy, the leaders, the people (their will not genetics), and etc.

What exactly do you mean by that? That the victor in a military conquest deserves to win?

MY OPINOIN: Well, I'd feel more comfortable with less countries in this world...

Odd, I'd feel comfortable with more. In a world of smaller, more interdependent countries it'd be a lot harder to convince people that the "other" is going to eat their babies. "Down with South Dakota" is a much harder sell than "Down with Russia".

China's claim on Tibet is just as legitimate as the US's ownership of Texas and most of the Southwestern US and its cultural policies no different from those that have been the standard for nations since the beginning of civilization and long before. In fact, there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a country invading and annexing another. If you can do it, and the benefits exceed the costs, by all means do so because if you don't someone else will and it won't be long before they turn their eyes towards your territory. Every single nation on Earth with a military would no doubt be more than happy to expand their territory by invading weaker neighbors, and the only thing keeping them in check is the system of international law devised and implemented by the major powers with the underlying goal of maintaining their supremacy.

China invaded and annexed Tibet, the international community did nothing, and now the region has been thoroughly incorporated in to their nation. The only way it will be returned is through force or negotiation, and I doubt that the Chinese would be willing to risk another unfriendly nation encircling their territory out of some hopelessly naive notion of "fairness".

Frankly, it is a waste of time to attempt to do anything on a diplomatic scale about Tibet other than perhaps some perfunctory protests and gentle encouragement towards negotiation. We should only act on it if it aids our national interest to do so. Anything else will jeopardize the relationship between the United States (in my case) and the world's foremost emerging economic and military superpower. At a time when this country desperately needs to rebuild its relationships and its credit rating in the wake of the Iraq War and Bush's wasteful spending, the last thing we need is to piss off our biggest creditor.

This is a very intelligent post... I haven't been able to post such long responses due to lack of time and the lateness of hour.

On another note, I feel that Tibet is just the world's way of trying to make up for their failure to stop imperialism in China, they must now stop imperialism from China.

What exactly do you mean by that? That the victor in a military conquest deserves to win?

No. I mean that the victor in will. The driving force behind their idealogy and in human spirit, will succeed.

Odd, I'd feel comfortable with more. In a world of smaller, more interdependent countries it'd be a lot harder to convince people that the "other" is going to eat their babies. "Down with South Dakota" is a much harder sell than "Down with Russia".

Nah... If there was just one country, one language, and one culture the whole world would be a better place.

Anything can be sold. We invaded Iraq, remember?

On another note, I feel that Tibet is just the world's way of trying to make up for their failure to stop imperialism in China, they must now stop imperialism from China.

Not true. The reason I, like many people, support Tibetan independence is because the "Free Tibet" bumper sticker is the only one that seamlessly covers my now embarrassing "LaRouche '76" sticker.

Not true. The reason I, like many people, support Tibetan independence is because the "Free Tibet" bumper sticker is the only one that seamlessly covers my now embarrassing "LaRouche '76" sticker.

Lol

You know... the ultimate irony would be if Free Tibet stuff was made in China.

You generalize the South to be elite, wealthy plantation owners... they were generally poor farm workers, who wanted freedom from the Union and more power for individuals States...

I just think dilution of cultures is part of society... it's rather racist to try to keep one culture "pure".

Tibet was poor... China just raised it a little higher. Basically, you're saying China was spreading poverty to a poor country.

I generalized the South as poor farm workers (yeomen) or slaves. How you got that I generalized them as elite, wealthy plantation owners is beyond me. The decision to secede came not from popular referendum but from state conventions, owned and occupied by the wealthy elite. The decision to secede is entirely a product of the wealthy elite, backed in many instances by the yeomen and not backed in other instances. And it is to be noted that slaves were not consulted at all, even though they comprised a very significant portion of the population. Contrary to popular belief, secession was not an expression of independence or democracy, just wealthy hacks on both sides of the border attempting larger control in their respective areas.

It's racist to keep one's culture pure? I'm not sure you know what racism is. At any rate, does this mean you no longer believe what you said earlier, that Tibetan culture was not being diluted by China?

And can you prove that the Tibetans were worse off before 1959?

This is a very intelligent post... I haven't been able to post such long responses due to lack of time and the lateness of hour.

On another note, I feel that Tibet is just the world's way of trying to make up for their failure to stop imperialism in China, they must now stop imperialism from China.

I think it's an easy way to attack China without attacking China, to be honest. Sinophobia is easily concealed within the legitimate concerns over some actions by the PRC in that autonomous region. The Chinese people are deeply proud of the accomplishments of their nation over the past three decades which has culminated in its Olympic honor, and to attempt to address this issue with acts of disrespect for the Chinese people is insulting.

Is China perfect? No. It is a nation with deep structural problems that will need to be addressed before they can achieve the goals their government desires. That being said, attempting to force an issue that is not pressing and which does nothing but fan tensions at a critical juncture is foolish. You will never see meaningful reform in a China staring down the barrel of a foreign gun. Isolating problems never solves them, and never has and we need to realize this.

Perhaps China will be willing to talk when the rest of the world is willing to talk regarding Taiwan.

No. I mean that the victor in will. The driving force behind their idealogy and in human spirit, will succeed.

That's a very optimistic statement. A people can only be expected to carry on the fight for so long. It takes a lesser investment in "will" for a large country to occupy a smaller one. People will only fight against oppression so long before they tire of it and submit.

Do you honestly think that a nation that can conduct a brutal and lengthy occupation of a country and grind its people into the dust deserves to win?

Nah... If there was just one country, one language, and one culture the whole world would be a better place.

Personally I think that'd be a tragedy on an unprecedented scale. Imagine the works of literature and art that wouldn't exist without the plethora of cultures that have existed throughout history.

Anything can be sold. We invaded Iraq, remember?

True, but it'd be a lot harder for the aforementioned independent South Dakota to invade Iraq, wouldn't it?

True, but it'd be a lot harder for the aforementioned independent South Dakota to invade Iraq, wouldn't it?

No, but they'd have no problems invading North Dakota if they could pull it off.

Not to mention our experiences in the Balkans have shown tiny nations that are based around a single culture often end up shooting and gassing those poor fools who have the misfortune of possessing insignificant cultural and historical difference.

Pressure on the government is okay. Just not too much. The pressure will make it change it's policies. But attempts to stamp out the Olympic Torch will only piss off Chinese people.

China's changing... but slowly. It'll have to come to acceptance of a free world.

Yeah... I wish it were as simple as sending in Special Forces to assassinate the CCP leaders.

The world should belong to Africa. Considering how screwed up everyone made it.

Pressure by foreign force never works when you want willing change. All you will get is grudging change that will revert back the moment it is possible, or a smokescreen.

Pressure to have real change must come from soft power. We're not talking about robots or rocks or some sort of natural obstacle you can hammer away here, but people with minds and brains who will do their damnedest to resist what they perceive as unwanted conversion attempts.

Soft power, trade, improved diplomatic relations, encouragement of an opening up of the government to the idea of change, these are all things that you can't do from the barrel of a gun, but they will have much longer lasting effects than pressure through force.

Lol

You know... the ultimate irony would be if Free Tibet stuff was made in China.

It is. Those "Free Tibet" flags? They were made in China.

Not to mention our experiences in the Balkans have shown tiny nations that are based around a single culture often end up shooting and gassing those poor fools who have the misfortune of possessing insignificant cultural and historical difference.

No, our experience in the Balkans has taught us that trying to force multiple separate ethnic groups into a single nation will probably fail. Kurdistan, Chechnya, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Pakistan/Bangladesh, the Basques, Darfur, and Rwanda have all taught us similar lessons.

Soft power, trade, improved diplomatic relations, encouragement of an opening up of the government to the idea of change, these are all things that you can't do from the barrel of a gun, but they will have much longer lasting effects than pressure through force.

Exactly. Ultimately, nations change when it benefits them to do so; rarely, if at all, does meaningful change stem from idealistic goals rather than pragmatic economic and political considerations. If anything, the history of the communist states itself should warn us of what happens when idealistic movements gain power.

It is. Those "Free Tibet" flags? They were made in China.

No one ever let an ideological opposition to capitalism get in the way of making a quick buck.

No, our experience in the Balkans has taught us that trying to force multiple separate ethnic groups into a single nation will probably fail. Kurdistan, Chechnya, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Pakistan/Bangladesh, the Basques, Darfur, and Rwanda have all taught us similar lessons.

It was those single nations that prevented war and genocide from happening and brought them peace and stability unseen both before and after. They weren't peaceful and happy little states prior to that; they all fought between each other in bloody conflicts that picked up their genocidal streak during this century.

No, but they'd have no problems invading North Dakota if they could pull it off.

That's a big if.

Not to mention our experiences in the Balkans have shown tiny nations that are based around a single culture often end up shooting and gassing those poor fools who have the misfortune of possessing insignificant cultural and historical difference.

Is it because they're tiny nations based around a single culture or something else? Also, the Balkans states weren't as economically interdependent as the West is, were they? For example, if Michigan were to go to war with any of its neighbors imagine the havoc that would be wrought upon its economy (havoc above and beyond that which is already occuring).

That's a big if.

It is, although you never know what a country might do when unchecked by others. International law wouldn't exist if it weren't for nations powerful enough to enforce it.

Is it because they're tiny nations based around a single culture or something else? Also, the Balkans states weren't as economically interdependent as the West is, were they? For example, if Michigan were to go to war with any of its neighbors imagine the havoc that would be wrought upon its economy (havoc above and beyond that which is already occuring).

I think an isolated economy and culture are grounds for breeding those sentiments.

That being said, there's a lot more to it than that; certainly the Balkans, the Sudan, or Rwanda are economically isolated, but the Ottoman Empire, the USSR or Nazi Germany (certainly the role model for modern genocide) were by no means any of those. As scary as it is, genocide appears to have two different forms that reflect different goals for those involved.

It was those single nations that prevented war and genocide from happening and brought them peace and stability unseen both before and after. They weren't peaceful and happy little states prior to that; they all fought between each other in bloody conflicts that picked up their genocidal streak during this century.

Virtually all the nations I mentioned didn't have their own nation before their violent civil wars. Kurdistan and Chenchnya have never been independent states at any point in their history. Bangladesh was not a small nation fighting other nations before it was fused into Pakistan. 1971 was the first time an independent Bengali nation-state appeared in history. I understand (or at least think I do) your belief that unity is better than disunity, but not at the expense of disenfranchising smaller ethnic groups, which giant multi-ethnic nations tend to do (thus leading to violent, inter-ethnic civil wars)

Virtually all the nations I mentioned didn't have their own nation before their violent civil wars. Kurdistan and Chenchnya have never been independent states at any point in their history. Bangladesh was not a small nation fighting other nations before it was fused into Pakistan. 1971 was the first time an independent Bengali nation-state appeared in history. I understand (or at least think I do) your belief that unity is better than disunity, but not at the expense of disenfranchising smaller ethnic groups, which giant multi-ethnic nations tend to do (thus leading to violent, inter-ethnic civil wars)

You're right. I think the difficult thing is to find the point where they balance; unlimited self-determination is not desirable, but neither is clamping down on minorities until they develop the kind of nationalism that leads to the disintegration of their parent state and quite likely war and genocide.

China's policies on Tibet are pretty debatable; they've refrained from mass migrations of Han Chinese or other ethnicities in to Tibet, but at the same time retain tight control over the region's culture. I fully feel Tibet is rightful territory of China and that it has done good for that region compared to its previous rulers, but that they risk a lot in maintaining their current policy. We need to get away from attempting to take Tibet from China towards a policy of respecting its territorial claims in return for meaningful progress on issues important to our own goals. If China wants to realize its territorial goals (which at present amounts to reincorporating Tibet and likely nothing more), they need to give us suitable compensation in the form of further economic and political reform.

It is, although you never know what a country might do when unchecked by others. International law wouldn't exist if it weren't for nations powerful enough to enforce it.

True, which is why I'm not entirely opposed to trade organizations such as the current EU, which could be used to punish members if necessary.



I think an isolated economy and culture are grounds for breeding those sentiments.

I agree, but if your state is too small to even maintain the illusion of self sustainment its not really isolated, is it? Also, in today's increasingly globalized world it's getting rather difficult to isolate one's culture.

That being said, there's a lot more to it than that; certainly the Balkans, the Sudan, or Rwanda are economically isolated, but the Ottoman Empire, the USSR or Nazi Germany (certainly the role model for modern genocide) were by no means any of those. As scary as it is, genocide appears to have two different forms that reflect different goals for those involved.

I agree in that genocide isn't caused by the size or scope of the state but by ideologies.

True, which is why I'm not entirely opposed to trade organizations such as the current EU, which could be used to punish members if necessary.

The only problem is that most (except the EU, which is really the new gold standard for comprehensive international government) lack enough backbone to achieve anything. All of the major members of the WTO and the UN commit or have committed flagrant violations of organizational laws and yet nothing has come of it other than endless rounds of negotiation or flat out ignoring the problem.

I don't know what to do, however. We need to realize nations act in their interests and will do whatever they can to maximize those interests even at horrific human and economic cost, but that's not a basis for any kind of internationalist policy or organization.

As a realist proponent of the democratic peace theory and a big fan of peace and prosperity, I'd say we have little choice but to act towards making freedom and human rights a mutually beneficial situation that maximizes national self-interest rather than attempting to impose them based upon laughable moral platitudes. For better or for worse, ethics exist only in the private sphere.

I agree, but if your state is too small to even maintain the illusion of self sustainment its not really isolated, is it? Also, in today's increasingly globalized world it's getting rather difficult to isolate one's culture.

It is, which also means soft power is much more potent than it was in years past. This is why most modern extremist movements have a very strong anti-globalist and protectionist streak to them (as opposed to the autarkic national security aims of fascism, for example); it's much easier to achieve those goals without foreign influences "corrupting" your people or "stealing" their economic livelihood.

I agree in that genocide isn't caused by the size or scope of the state but by ideologies.

Genocide is probably the biggest human failing...wars can achieve good things (at least for the victor) or enhance national well-being, but genocide just destroys and it leaves an entire generation shattered by the moral outrages of that decision.

I think it's an easy way to attack China without attacking China, to be honest. Sinophobia is easily concealed within the legitimate concerns over some actions by the PRC in that autonomous region.

Whatever the motives of the critics, the argument still stand on their own.

Does China have the right to dominate Tibet and suppress its culture, against the will of the people living there? No. Whether I make this argument because I actually hold by it or because I have a racist fear of the Yellow Peril is immaterial.

The Chinese people are deeply proud of the accomplishments of their nation over the past three decades which has culminated in its Olympic honor, and to attempt to address this issue with acts of disrespect for the Chinese people is insulting.

Nationalism is a ridiculous and destructive human affliction. I don't participate in it and I refuse to pander to it. If some Chinese think attacking their government's policies is an attack upon them, that's their own problem.

You will never see meaningful reform in a China staring down the barrel of a foreign gun.

Well, it's good that no one's proposing invasion then, isn't it?

The point is that our standards for international esteem should be more principled than they are now. China clearly wants the respect of the world--fine, then it should have to abide by certain international norms of behavior. The same goes for any Western power. It's not like I hesitate to criticize them too.

"Down with South Dakota" is a much harder sell than "Down with Russia".

You really think so?

You really think so?

Yes.

Jeez, folks, if you don't know the place, lay off.

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Life of Brian, FTW. You want wolf's nipple chips with that?

Aye did you post that from Propaganda in Chinese Society or something?

Chinese rule of Tibet probably has been beneficial in certain aspects to the Tibetan population. But that article plays a rather one-sided view of things.

Just like actors(!) paint the others' side.

The Dalai Lama comes off as a sagacious teddy bear, but the Lama class were living in luxury in a feudal system where the peasants were much worse off than they are now. Just because even a small improvement in living conditions after the invasion doesn't look like much, it is a vast comparative improvement and therefore at least mildly beneficial when compared to feudalism.

There are two sides to this story, if not four or more. Lighting off fireworks in praise of either Tibet or China ignores an awful lot of reality. I'm not prepared to swallow China's take on the matter, however I'm not swallowing the rantings of actors and former oligarchs, either.

Well, it's good that no one's proposing invasion then, isn't it?

No. Just quietly supporting groups that go "Bad China! Evil China! Free Tibet! thisflagbroughttoyoubyGuangzhoumanufacturing"

The gun is a metaphor, and it need not necessarily involve the threat of military force.

The Chinese people have a long and justifiably proud history. This does not mean that they are willing to stand in support of outright slaughter or oppression of people, but when it comes to who to believe in such matters, they are more likely to believe their own government than the likes of foreign powers who have humiliated China the last 200 years in regards to the PRC's actions.

You've seen the protests, the noisy ones at the least. They don't really distinguish between the PRC and China, or for that matter, the Chinese people. Certain very visible people have even given their own Phelpian twist on how the Chinese people deserved the Sichuan earthquake.

This is not the sort of thing that encourages the everyday Chinese people to look at themselves and their government for problems.


The point is that our standards for international esteem should be more principled than they are now. China clearly wants the respect of the world--fine, then it should have to abide by certain international norms of behavior. The same goes for any Western power. It's not like I hesitate to criticize them too.

However, the rest of the world isn't exactly doing a bang up job of keeping to said standards. The PRC certainly sees it, and so do most average people. It's when they get unsolicited demands to fix problems, which they might not even believe are happening, by outsiders that they get riled up.

China wants the prestige of a first world power, much like what it had for so many centuries before, that's understandable. But at the same time, they don't want the Western world, which has mostly given them grief, to interfere. It's a mostly South East Asian viewpoint, where most have long memories, combined with cultural tendencies towards a more insular view and rejection of interference of outsiders.

In either case, change won't come by the sort of ranting you see protesters and the like have. The support of China by transplanted Chinese communities around the world should be more than sufficient proof that such acts only harden attitudes against these criticisms, no matter how valid they are.

Real change will come from dialogue, not rants favored by protesters and world leaders, with the PRC, encouraging better treatment of its people and by extension, the Tibetans.

Exactly. Ultimately, nations change when it benefits them to do so; rarely, if at all, does meaningful change stem from idealistic goals rather than pragmatic economic and political considerations.


Internally, economic and political considerations are one of the best leverages towards encouraging a nation towards better treatment of its citizens, although it is tied into things such as education levels and how effectively corruption is dealt with. Externally brought economic and political considerations? Not so much.


If anything, the history of the communist states itself should warn us of what happens when idealistic movements gain power.

They get taken over by power hungry despots willing to use established machinery to fulfill their ambitions, an inherent weakness in all political systems, just more so in communist states.

The government of the PRC says that the population of Tibet in 1737 was about 8 million, and that due to the backward rule of the local theocracy, there was rapid decrease in the next two hundred years and the population in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan, according to the 2000 census. The increase is viewed as the result of the abolishment of the theocracy and introduction of a modern, higher standard of living. Based on the census numbers, the PRC also rejects claims that the Tibetans are being swamped by Han Chinese; instead the PRC says that the border for Greater Tibet drawn by the government of Tibet in Exile is so large that it incorporates regions such as Xining that are not traditionally Tibetan in the first place, hence exaggerating the number of non-Tibetans.

The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and says that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950. Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; it has 22,500 km of highways, all built since 1950; all secular education in the region was created after integration into the PRC; there are 25 scientific research institutes, all built by the PRC; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries. The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators (in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four) have been brought to justice and whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.

Yeah... I know I copy and pasted wikipedia... but most of this is true...

Just because the Tibetan theocracy was a bad government does not mean that the PRC is a good one. And what makes those claims at all viable? The PRC will doubtlessly have its propaganda. If you want us to believe that the Free Tibet movement is lying, and even more if you want us to believe that the PRC's account is accurate, you're going to have to do a lot better than one source quoting the PRC's own statements, and on Wikipeedia no less. If your only source is a brutal regime with a massive ulterior motive, don't expect to be taken seriously.

If on the other hand you are simply reporting what they said, I apologise. It was the "most of this is true" bit that provoked this response.

The gun is a metaphor, and it need not necessarily involve the threat of military force.

I realize it's a metaphor. The point is that all means are not created equal. Certain kinds of international pressure may be bad; certain other kinds may not be.

when it comes to who to believe in such matters, they are more likely to believe their own government than the likes of foreign powers who have humiliated China the last 200 years in regards to the PRC's actions.

I don't expect a popular revolution to overthrow the PRC over Tibet. I do think it's plausible that international criticism could influence the PRC, which is interested considerably in its global image, into modifying its behavior somewhat.

You've seen the protests, the noisy ones at the least. They don't really distinguish between the PRC and China, or for that matter, the Chinese people.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'll admit to having mostly ignored the protests, but I've been to my share of political demonstrations and I'm familiar with the form. What exactly do you expect them to say? Their message has nothing to do with the Chinese people, or the particular political structure China has. It has to do with Tibet.

Certain very visible people have even given their own Phelpian twist on how the Chinese people deserved the Sichuan earthquake.

This is disgusting, but not representative.

However, the rest of the world isn't exactly doing a bang up job of keeping to said standards.

Actually, in many respects it is... there's India in Kashmir, I guess, but the situation there is much more ambiguous, and Israel in the West Bank and Gaza gets far more international criticism than the PRC.

More to the point, you don't see countries like France and Germany engaging in this sort of behavior anymore, and when the US does anything even remotely close, it gets criticized severely at home and abroad.

It's when they get unsolicited demands to fix problems, which they might not even believe are happening, by outsiders that they get riled up.

Any kind of criticism riles people up. Often, the most effective kind riles people up most. That's life.

China wants the prestige of a first world power, much like what it had for so many centuries before, that's understandable. But at the same time, they don't want the Western world, which has mostly given them grief, to interfere.

The Western world is not interfering. The "Free Tibet" movement is not even remotely imperialist. This is just nationalist dogmatism, the same kind of thinking that gets US neocons to whine about how liberals want the rest of the world to mess with our national security. (Note how, despite this stubborness and the US's own long tradition of nationalism, the loss of international credibility brought about by Iraq has still pretty definitely moderated our foreign policy.)

In either case, change won't come by the sort of ranting you see protesters and the like have.

Actually, the general lesson is that change never comes without "protesters and the like"... regardless of who actually ends up implementing the changes.

Apparently some people seem to think these things happen by magic, that if we just shut up China will have a change of heart. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It may be that the protesters will never change anyone's mind... but at the very least they will bring the issue to attention, and allow people with a more moderate approach to say "Look, we're trying to be reasonable, we're not as crazy as them."

The support of China by transplanted Chinese communities around the world should be more than sufficient proof that such acts only harden attitudes against these criticisms, no matter how valid they are.

Why should it be sufficient proof of anything? Generally people identify with their government, and defend it when it is criticized. So? If this were sufficient proof, it would be the case that international pressure doesn't work, ever, which is clearly false.

So... how exactly reliable is this source then?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

But what of Tibetan Buddhism? Is it not an exception to this sort of strife? And what of the society it helped to create? Many Buddhists maintain that, before the Chinese crackdown in 1959, old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La. The Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.” 4

A reading of Tibet’s history suggests a somewhat different picture. “Religious conflict was commonplace in old Tibet,” writes one western Buddhist practitioner. “History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” 5 In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet.

So... how exactly reliable is this source then?

Michael Parenti's a fairly dogmatic leftist with Leninist inclinations... so "not very", but he's not wrong here.

Odd, I'd feel comfortable with more. In a world of smaller, more interdependent countries it'd be a lot harder to convince people that the "other" is going to eat their babies. "Down with South Dakota" is a much harder sell than "Down with Russia".

I'd disagree with this point, I think history shows it takes very little to demonize someone, but that having little to gain form attacking someone is a much better disincentive. Therefore larger countries that are somewhat balanced in power is better.

I realize it's a metaphor. The point is that all means are not created equal. Certain kinds of international pressure may be bad; certain other kinds may not be.

You have to realize that from a cultural standpoint, one sort of pressure may be as bad as the threat of force or less effective than it would be on another. How people view things alters radically as you move across the different regions.


I don't expect a popular revolution to overthrow the PRC over Tibet. I do think it's plausible that international criticism could influence the PRC, which is interested considerably in its global image, into modifying its behavior somewhat.

Not this sort of open "in your face" type criticism that the West is throwing at the PRC. All that will do is put their backs up.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'll admit to having mostly ignored the protests, but I've been to my share of political demonstrations and I'm familiar with the form. What exactly do you expect them to say? Their message has nothing to do with the Chinese people, or the particular political structure China has. It has to do with Tibet.

It has quite a bit to do with China and the Chinese people, since China is the one that annexed Tibet, and as a result, is the target of protester vehemence.

You say you ignored the protests, so that is understandable, but know that there were protesters and counter-protesters as well, communities transplanted from China who still remember when the West walked all over their ancestral lands with impunity who feel that what is happening now is a revival of that.

The protesters and counter-protesters were involved in quite a few scuffles, and bad blood all around.

One thing you mustn't forget is that the Chinese, transplanted for generations or not, still have strong ties to their ancestral lands, often with relatives still living there. Even if they loathe the PRC, China is still their country.


This is disgusting, but not representative.


Certainly, but that doesn't mean it does not create bad impressions and rile people up.


Actually, in many respects it is... there's India in Kashmir, I guess, but the situation there is much more ambiguous, and Israel in the West Bank and Gaza gets far more international criticism than the PRC.

The events only serve to prove my point no? Abuses around the world, but no lack of bile to throw when it's someone else's abuse.


More to the point, you don't see countries like France and Germany engaging in this sort of behavior anymore, and when the US does anything even remotely close, it gets criticized severely at home and abroad.

There was that whole France protecting Darfur genocide masterminds bit a while back I believe, and Germany was implicated in the extraordinary renditions was it not? Although I could be wrong on that last point.


Any kind of criticism riles people up. Often, the most effective kind riles people up most. That's life.

The most effective criticism is one that makes people look at it objectively, and realize that it might have some common ground. Not criticism delivered at the end of a sledgehammer.


The Western world is not interfering. The "Free Tibet" movement is not even remotely imperialist. This is just nationalist dogmatism, the same kind of thinking that gets US neocons to whine about how liberals want the rest of the world to mess with our national security.

Maybe not openly, but the movement is suspected by the Chinese to be done so with the tacit approval of their respective governments. And even those who do not believe so think that at the very least, these protesters have no business telling China what to do.

China still remembers when the Western world did just that, often at the barrel of a gun.

This is not to say that such sentiments are factually accurate or not, but it is representative of the sentiments that have sprung up.


Actually, the general lesson is that change never comes without "protesters and the like"... regardless of who actually ends up implementing the changes.

Change can certainly come from a variety of ways. Even with more extreme versions of protesters.

The question is whether it is a change you want China to embrace willingly, or a change you want them to surrender to.


Apparently some people seem to think these things happen by magic, that if we just shut up China will have a change of heart. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It may be that the protesters will never change anyone's mind... but at the very least they will bring the issue to attention, and allow people with a more moderate approach to say "Look, we're trying to be reasonable, we're not as crazy as them."


How many times do I have to say it? The soft approach will do far more than the hardline approach the protesters favor. The protesters do not change anyone's minds, only harden attitudes and force sides.

Dialogue, the opening of friendly ties, the exchange and acceptance of ideas, these are the engines of lasting change. Not raw faced screaming from behind fences.


Why should it be sufficient proof of anything? Generally people identify with their government, and defend it when it is criticized. So? If this were sufficient proof, it would be the case that international pressure doesn't work, ever, which is clearly false.

The proof comes from the fact that many of these communities have spent generations living in their host countries, identify themselves as residents of their host countries, are even natural born citizens, have contemporary education of their host country's, many never even setting foot in China their entire lives, but still hold on to their Chinese identities and heritage.

You make a logical fallacy of assuming that if one solution fails to work on a country, it will not work on any others and vice versa. This clearly is not the case in the real world.

Saying that Tibet BELONGS to China is like saying that Canada BELONGS to the US and France BELONGS to Andorra.

Errr... no it's not.

It's MORE like saying Normandy belongs to France, maybe. Or... Alaska belongs to America. No - even better - TEXAS.

It isn't as cut-and-fried as 'it didn't always'.

No, our experience in the Balkans has taught us that trying to force multiple separate ethnic groups into a single nation will probably fail. Kurdistan, Chechnya, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Pakistan/Bangladesh, the Basques, Darfur, and Rwanda have all taught us similar lessons.

I don't think that's the lesson. The Balkans are an example of the countercurrent to globalisation, a trend towards fragmentation. The same trend exists just about everywhere. Look at the US where different states rail for independent power, or different political groups look for some kind of divisive claim (like some of the more rabid libertarians and their 'Free State Wyoming' mantra).

The Balkans are the product of centuries of ongoing conflict. The big difference in a lot of these conflict zones ISN'T that there is violence - that's always been there. It's that - when the violence happens - it's much more effective with 20th century weapons.

Does China have the right to dominate Tibet and suppress its culture, against the will of the people living there? No.


Yes.


Nationalism is a ridiculous and destructive human affliction. I don't participate in it and I refuse to pander to it. If some Chinese think attacking their government's policies is an attack upon them, that's their own problem.


Is it?

So, calling someone a prick is okay, and if they 'take it wrong' and get upset, it's because there's something wrong with them? People take insult in the ways they take insult. Knowing what someone will find insulting, and going straight ahead and doing it isn't 'refusing to pander' - it's going out of your way to spark a conflict.

But I didn't. I only knew that you'd know that I knew. Did you know THAT?

Just because the Tibetan theocracy was a bad government does not mean that the PRC is a good one. And what makes those claims at all viable? The PRC will doubtlessly have its propaganda. If you want us to believe that the Free Tibet movement is lying, and even more if you want us to believe that the PRC's account is accurate, you're going to have to do a lot better than one source quoting the PRC's own statements, and on Wikipeedia no less. If your only source is a brutal regime with a massive ulterior motive, don't expect to be taken seriously.

If on the other hand you are simply reporting what they said, I apologise. It was the "most of this is true" bit that provoked this response.


It wasn't a brutal regime... It was a PART of a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a credible source. I've confirmed it myself (I attempted to edit a wikipedia article, which was subsequently reedited a few seconds later.).

NO... I do not believe that the PRC is a good government, but for a country that's been abused and placed under a feudalistic government for centuries, it is a good government for CHINA.

Did people seriously expect a democratic government to take over China after the chaotic beginning of the 20th century? No. Kuomintang failed to gain the popular support of peasants who had been abused by warlords and landlords. It used to be that peasant and ruler were equal. Both could hold swords and both could have the same chance of killing each other. That changed with the west bringing in the gun. The Chinese people had been led to think that they were an inferior people by the West.

That was a little off-topic. Just saying a little something about the government of China.

I don't think that's the lesson. The Balkans are an example of the countercurrent to globalisation, a trend towards fragmentation. The same trend exists just about everywhere. Look at the US where different states rail for independent power, or different political groups look for some kind of divisive claim (like some of the more rabid libertarians and their 'Free State Wyoming' mantra).

The Balkans are the product of centuries of ongoing conflict. The big difference in a lot of these conflict zones ISN'T that there is violence - that's always been there. It's that - when the violence happens - it's much more effective with 20th century weapons.

I agree...

Though... throughout history, the existence of more nations/governments has created more violence, it has also created more weapons. I can come to the conclusion that the more fighting nations there are, the greater the rate in increase of weapons technology.

I've not read the rest of this thread, so appologies if this point had already been made. The original post focuses purely on material benefits. It is evident from the tibetian people that they don't want that.

Regardless of if they have better healthcare and education, they were happy before the chinese invaded, and now they want them gone. Progress for progress' sake is not a good thing, if they want to live on small isolated poor farms and stay true to their buddhist ideals, then they should be allowed to do that, rather than have a noisy road and railway station running through their village, and having people come along and tell them what to do.

Personally, I think they are crazy to want that kind of life, but it is their choice and they should be allowed to do what they want. Also, its impossible to compare the tibet of the 1950's with the tibet of now, you can't say how the country would have evolved without the Chinese, so making such comparisons is irrelevant.

I've not read the rest of this thread, so appologies if this point had already been made. The original post focuses purely on material benefits. It is evident from the tibetian people that they don't want that.

Regardless of if they have better healthcare and education, they were happy before the chinese invaded, and now they want them gone. Progress for progress' sake is not a good thing, if they want to live on small isolated poor farms and stay true to their buddhist ideals, then they should be allowed to do that, rather than have a noisy road and railway station running through their village, and having people come along and tell them what to do.

Personally, I think they are crazy to want that kind of life, but it is their choice and they should be allowed to do what they want. Also, its impossible to compare the tibet of the 1950's with the tibet of now, you can't say how the country would have evolved without the Chinese, so making such comparisons is irrelevant.

The goal of government is to protect the people from themselves. Yes... perhaps there is a need for a third party to protect the people from the government, but taking your general idea that people should get what kind of life they want.

A lot of people want to smoke crack and weed, but that's illegal. People in Africa want to stone people for adultery. The goal of government is to STOP this and modernize people.