Tibet VS China VS The World

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Papaya

TBH anyone that thinks the Dalai Lama is behind this is smoking some crazy ass stuff.

This isn't "organized" in any way. It's disheveled rioting. It's crazy. Both sides are being victimized, though obviously the Tibetans are being victimized more so.

Asking for independence is stupid. Won't happen. They don't deserve being killed, though.

Either way, of the two sides to trust, you're correct, both are not trustable. But you can bet your ass people are dying out there!

Never said the Dalai Lama was behind this so please refrain second guessing of my words.
I don't think the riot in Lasa itself was organized but coordination of various demonstration across China were not sporadic either.
Trying to control a riot's movement at a certain location is meaningless and it would look very phony but agitating multiple demonstrations are far less revealing unless you check the timeline thoroughly. In case you didn't know there was also a bombing in Bejing the same day the monks did their protest in Sichuan.

This riot itself will not bring independence towards Tibet but it certainly made a large hole in CCP's prestige not to mention a concern over investment in mainland China.
Yes people are dying but there are people who are probably making a fortune over this also which sickens me the most.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Never said the Dalai Lama was behind this so please refrain second guessing of my words.
I don't think the riot in Lasa itself was organized but coordination of various demonstration across China were not sporadic either.
Trying to control a riot's movement at a certain location is meaningless and it would look very phony but agitating multiple demonstrations are far less revealing unless you check the timeline thoroughly. In case you didn't know there was also a bombing in Bejing the same day the monks did their protest in Sichuan.

This riot itself will not bring independence towards Tibet but it certainly made a large hole in CCP's prestige not to mention a concern over investment in mainland China.
Yes people are dying but there are people who are probably making a fortune over this also which sickens me the most.

Was referring to Chinese leadership, not anyone in this thread.

[NG_Zhang]

China mainland’s accesses to youtube has been resumed yesterday.

[Ledgem]

I think that the most interesting thing to consider about this issue is the overall picture. Determining what is right and what is wrong is not so easy.

From the outset I think that most of us feel that China's actions with Tibet are wrong. Nobody's made mention of it here but on Slashdot it frequently comes up that Tibet's culture will be wiped out by China. This regarded as being a horrible thing that shouldn't happen yet would be inevitable if China absorbed Tibet, and thus Tibet must have independence.

Someone teaching in Japan wrote a very insightful remark. He asked his students to imagine that they were in America, but that the Native Americans were still prominent. What could be done to deal with these people while maintaining national interests? The students didn't mention conquering them or anything of that sort, but of elevating them to the current society. Someone else chimed in that this was how many Chinese viewed the issue with Tibet.

Is it for the better of the Tibetan people to cede independence to China? They may lose elements of their culture and they will be put under the control of the Chinese government, but in turn they'll contribute back to China and will receive support from the government (for what it's worth). If China can really elevate the society and bring all the benefits that modern technology has to offer to them, is it so wrong?

Of course, I've become disenfranchised with the prospect of aiding foreign societies by taking control of them thanks to the "war on terror" and America's dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq. China has big issues with the territories that make it up. I don't believe that people should easily be able to dismiss China's actions in Tibet by stating that China can help the Tibetans so greatly by putting them under Chinese society. Independence is a nice thought, but it's meaningless if the independent society would be better served by joining with a larger society. Again, it isn't clear that Tibet would benefit from being free or not. Lastly, culture... perhaps not so big of an issue. People like to believe that culture should be preserved and not change, but culture is ever-changing. Tibetan culture won't be completely lost, but it won't be the same - just as it won't be the same even if Tibet remains independent and begins developing as a modern society.

[karasuma]

Sometimes, it is better to be independent. Sometimes, it is better not to be independent. Quebec has been debating over and over whether to go independent or not. I think Canada do gave them a choice. Even if Quebec goes independent, the relationship between Canada and Quebec will still be very close.

If Tibetan suffer from cultural persecution, that can be a very attractive reason for them to ask for independent.

Someone mentioned that they get some special right like they can have 2 children, but in exchange for that, you are also asked to lose your identitiy as a tibetan. Then, it might not be such a good deal.

Let's take US as a example. If everyone can have 1/2 million but you have to give up Christianity as a religion, guess what will happen?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by karasuma

Let's take US as a example. If everyone can have 1/2 million but you have to give up Christianity as a religion, guess what will happen?

Probalby half of them would declare they given up the faith, collect the half a million an go to church to confess the sin they had commited.
Not much of a example I am afraid.

In any case, from what I hear it is not just spiritual freedom there are protesting for but also a feeling of injustice comparing the economic status of the coastal cities with their own situation and the Han people moving in with all their funds to capitalize on the growing tourism economy while they sit in the dust with prices for goods rise through inflation again due to flourishing coastal cities.

[karasuma]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Probalby half of them would declare they given up the faith, collect the half a million an go to church to confess the sin they had commited.
Not much of a example I am afraid.

In any case, from what I hear it is not just spiritual freedom there are protesting for but also a feeling of injustice comparing the economic status of the coastal cities with their own situation and the Han people moving in with all their funds to capitalize on the growing tourism economy while they sit in the dust with prices for goods rise through inflation again due to flourishing coastal cities.

Ha, what I mean is if you take the money, Christianity is illegal to you That means no church, no bible allowed, no bible study, and if they catch you doing anything related to Christianity, you are subject to prosecution. That will make a lot of people think twice.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

To be completely honest I wouldn't believe either side's story as the whole truth since each side will tell you their version of the story.

Should always be the rule of thumb when dealing with media. (I must know ... we have so much biased tabloids and media in general here in Germany)

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I think that the most interesting thing to consider about this issue is the overall picture. Determining what is right and what is wrong is not so easy.

From the outset I think that most of us feel that China's actions with Tibet are wrong. Nobody's made mention of it here but on Slashdot it frequently comes up that Tibet's culture will be wiped out by China. This regarded as being a horrible thing that shouldn't happen yet would be inevitable if China absorbed Tibet, and thus Tibet must have independence.

Someone teaching in Japan wrote a very insightful remark. He asked his students to imagine that they were in America, but that the Native Americans were still prominent. What could be done to deal with these people while maintaining national interests? The students didn't mention conquering them or anything of that sort, but of elevating them to the current society. Someone else chimed in that this was how many Chinese viewed the issue with Tibet.

Is it for the better of the Tibetan people to cede independence to China? They may lose elements of their culture and they will be put under the control of the Chinese government, but in turn they'll contribute back to China and will receive support from the government (for what it's worth). If China can really elevate the society and bring all the benefits that modern technology has to offer to them, is it so wrong?

These questions point in the right direction imo. And I think, that is where the chinese governments' Tibet-politics actually failed.
Well, I think we are not in the position to say what China or Tibet should do. But I suppose if one asked the tibetan people, they would not necessarily want independence from China, but more freedom and more equality when it comes to sharing the wealth. Its not a secret that the economical rise in Tibet bypasses ethnic Tibetans.
I guess it is a double edged sword when the chinese government tries to lure Tibetans away from religion with the promise of a new modern society, but then excludes them from the modern society economically. In their own home, they are not only ruled by Han-chinese, Han-chinese also run most of the business, rather choosing a Han-chinese as an employee over a local Tibetan.
If I was a Tibetan, this racial biasedness is what would hurt most. In that case, I'ld say the major impetus for seeking independence is unfair living conditions.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Of course, I've become disenfranchised with the prospect of aiding foreign societies by taking control of them thanks to the "war on terror" and America's dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq. China has big issues with the territories that make it up. I don't believe that people should easily be able to dismiss China's actions in Tibet by stating that China can help the Tibetans so greatly by putting them under Chinese society. Independence is a nice thought, but it's meaningless if the independent society would be better served by joining with a larger society. Again, it isn't clear that Tibet would benefit from being free or not. Lastly, culture... perhaps not so big of an issue. People like to believe that culture should be preserved and not change, but culture is ever-changing. Tibetan culture won't be completely lost, but it won't be the same - just as it won't be the same even if Tibet remains independent and begins developing as a modern society.

Now Hu is known for using force when something like this happens, but I think this would make China more unstable as a whole on the long run. He and the Politburo Standing Committee must remain strong in the public oppinion though - that includes the Han-chinese as well as all the opposing minorities. But maybe with the help of the state controlled media it is possible to please both sides. It could be possible to appeace the local Tibetans by forcing equal economical conditions in the region and not being overly draconian on the Tibetans after the riots, but stay hardline in the state media. (Mainly for the sake of consistency, one cannot sell the soft approach to the majority of chinese people, when years of anti-seperatist media made Tibetans to be looked on as unworthy). But this sort of PR management, to do one thing and advertise the other is not an too uncommon practice, so it actually could succeed. Of'course this would require to not allow foreign journalists into the region.
This is a very difficult situation. Intimidation by force or Independence to Tibet, imo both will harm China and predictably make it a very instable region and thus do more bad than good. The best way out of the conflict is to win the hearts of the Tibetans as subtle as possible.
The worst case scenario is, when the tensions between poor and rich people become an ethnic matter in China.

[grey_moon]

Please keep in mind I am not for or against the actions of China as I mostly believe that most governments and world leaders including the Dahli Lama are power hungry self centred and selfish. I have yet to be shown actions that would convince me otherwise, but hey I understand that self interest is an important part in leading a group against the rest of their race. Shame after so many years as humans we still can't understand that race, culture, religion and all the rest of that c**p doesn't really make us different from each other and we would do so much better if we could learn from our past mistakes and aim towards to future together as a single race.

Now that rant aside here is my on topic rant...

I've noticed during the reporting of this that the BBC seem to show the Chinese army vs the protesters, kinda TS part 2. The HK news showed a more unbiased view on the events as did the Times online. When I chatted to my friends in the UK they were all very angry at China due to BBCs reporting. I pointed out the Times reports and they all were pretty shocked at the one sided reporting. This was a few days ago and I just got back online so I don't know if the BBC have changed their reporting.

So personally I am not for or against China or the protesters as I believe as humans surely there is a better way to move forward which does not involve violence or blaming each other, but how many of you were influenced by BBCs reporting and how many looked around for other news stories?

Got to say China should also learn to stop trying to control the media, and all news agencies should try to report the news instead of influencing it with their own political agendas.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by grey_moon

Please keep in mind I am not for or against the actions of China as I mostly believe that most governments and world leaders including the Dahli Lama are power hungry self centred and selfish.


So personally I am not for or against China or the protesters as I believe as humans surely there is a better way to move forward which does not involve violence or blaming each other, but how many of you were influenced by BBCs reporting and how many looked around for other news stories?

Got to say China should also learn to stop trying to control the media, and all news agencies should try to report the news instead of influencing it with their own political agendas.

lets start by calling him the dalai lama..

you certainly have a point. most of us do immediately jump to attack china as soon as this news gets out, but its highly possible that the news we get from bbc and what not is skewed as well.. on the other hand the chinese also control the media to an extent.. so whose to say?

the underlying fact, which there can be no question about, is that tibet was annexed by china , against the will of the tibetan people, - the dalai lama left china for a reason, and people can say whatever about him, but he is a representative of them, and not a half bad one either. there is absolutely no doubt, that there is some amount of supression, if we take the fact that all news we get is skewed. evidence? what about the dissapearance of the panchan lama?

its easy to understand why the tibetans want independence.. but what people just completely, and i mean completely, ignore, is that there are a lot of benefits from remaining within china. the real issue is not independence, but its the protection and preservation of tibetan culture. once that is achieved then there should be talk of independence. the next question that arises is can tibetan culture be protected while remaining in china?

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

They are taking away their rights, destroying their way of life, denying them of their relgion, eradicating their culture, and trying to replace it with the Chinese way of life. They are oppressing these people. The Tibetans never started this conflict, they were never the aggressors, they are victims in this. The Chinese gov't is oppressing them, beating and jailing civilians who protest, beating and jailing monks for peaceful protests (who are pacifists), are trying to eradicate Tibetan culture, and to this date, have demolished well over 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monastaries. That is like if some country invaded another country and destroyed over 6,000 churches or mosques.

Come on, if you really think that the PRC goverment only targets tibetians, what about the cultural revolution, when every religion and culture was banned and people locked away? And what about those people living in inner china, that are being treated like crap? IMO the tibetian region were better off.
To think this demonstration is all about tibet, is just wrong. It is about injustice in PRC.

[LiberLibri]

Such type of logics as "both side might have some faults, we should refrain from judging any more" are, in this case, not neutral. Silence and time benefit Beijing. Chinese persons here, please refute the westerners through providing more precise knowledge, not through just blaming their arrogance and leading total discussion into stalemate. Foreign reporters were shut out, so it is only native who could survery and transmit the truth.

Originally Posted by Papaya

Chinese here, not a fan of Chinese government either.
Look, here's a fact: China is not handling this properly.
On the other hand...
Like when Japan invaded China!
I mean, that's a bit besides the point, but the bullshit surrounding global perceptions of China and the rest of Eastern Asia is trash. While the rest of Asia was plundered and was suffering, the Western powers decide to help rebuild the aggressor instead of the victims. Nevermind that the Communists first took power because of Japanese aggression and the Western indifference to it.

Oh well, WWIII, I'm ready for ya. Reap what you sow, etc.

It was the choice of Han people. They supported Communists rather than Nationalists. And today, many Han individuals cherish and are willing to help Beijing governance (as we have seen anywhere in the Web). Very few people oppose the Party's ruling. You should not attribute your government's behaviour to other nations. Or, would you really be happy if McArthur had interfered into the Communist-Nationalist war 1946-49?

And, even speaking modestly, I was surprised to see you define yourself as conservative.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by LiberLibri

Such type of logics as "both side might have some faults, we should refrain from judging any more" are, in this case, not neutral. Silence and time benefit Beijing. Chinese persons here, please refute the westerners through providing more precise knowledge, not through just blaming their arrogance and leading total discussion into stalemate. Foreign reporters were shut out, so it is only native who could survery and transmit the truth.



It was the choice of Han people. They supported Communists rather than Nationalists. And today, many Han individuals cherish and are willing to help Beijing governance (as we have seen anywhere in the Web). Very few people oppose the Party's ruling. You should not attribute your government's behaviour to other nations. Or, would you really be happy if McArthur had interfered into the Communist-Nationalist war 1946-49?

And, even speaking modestly, I was surprised to see you define yourself as conservative.

That's because the Nationalists were in cohorts with the Japanese government up until the actual fighting. Denying the foreign link to the rise of Communism in China is just bad history.
You should not consider people who live in Mainland China and receive the full effect of its propaganda to be anything BUT biased towards their own government.

And yes, I would've been happy if MacArthur interfered, though no, I don't think he should've used the bomb.

And yes, I am conservative... very conservative ;O
Meaning, my political views are shifted very much so to the far right!

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by LiberLibri

It was the choice of Han people. They supported Communists rather than Nationalists. And today, many Han individuals cherish and are willing to help Beijing governance (as we have seen anywhere in the Web). Very few people oppose the Party's ruling. You should not attribute your government's behaviour to other nations. Or, would you really be happy if McArthur had interfered into the Communist-Nationalist war 1946-49?

And, even speaking modestly, I was surprised to see you define yourself as conservative.

in all honesty, i think it was the right decision to support the communists. look at where china is today - its in no small part due to smart governance.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

in all honesty, i think it was the right decision to support the communists. look at where china is today - its in no small part due to smart governance.

It was the right decision to support the Communists, but not the right decision to support communism.

[Astrana]

honestly, when i lived in China I never think my self as han-chinese or some one else as other race chinese. If I see monoglia-chinese, tibetan-chinese I only think them as people from that region, I never thought about race untill reaing some of your post in this thread.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

in all honesty, i think it was the right decision to support the communists. look at where china is today - its in no small part due to smart governance.

What is this supposed to mean? China is in a better place now than it would have been otherwise? Isn't that a straw man argument?

As I recall the communist party led to a ton of suffering within China. Wasn't there mass starvation in China during the reign of Mao? Didn't the breakdown of the Red Guard cause a ton of violence and strife within China? I'm not a history buff so anyone who knows more, feel free to jump in and clarify. But that reasoning would be like saying "I'm glad George Bush is in charge of the United States - we're in a better place now than we'd be otherwise. (Look, no terrorist attacks, and we only had to give up a bit of our freedoms - all thanks to George Bush, amirite?!)" Who can really say that?

As for what's going on in China now, there are loads of problems. Partly due to the restrictive nature of the government corruption and public suffering occur, but the people can't speak out against it. Industries are flourishing but it's coming heavily at the expense of China's environment. That massively hurts the population and is arguably government negligence. China's growth doesn't seem sustainable unless they view their entire population and land as expendable, and they're going to be feeling the impacts of their current activity in the near future.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What is this supposed to mean? China is in a better place now than it would have been otherwise? Isn't that a straw man argument?

As I recall the communist party led to a ton of suffering within China. Wasn't there mass starvation in China during the reign of Mao? Didn't the breakdown of the Red Guard cause a ton of violence and strife within China? I'm not a history buff so anyone who knows more, feel free to jump in and clarify. But that reasoning would be like saying "I'm glad George Bush is in charge of the United States - we're in a better place now than we'd be otherwise. (Look, no terrorist attacks, and we only had to give up a bit of our freedoms - all thanks to George Bush, amirite?!)" Who can really say that?

As for what's going on in China now, there are loads of problems. Partly due to the restrictive nature of the government corruption and public suffering occur, but the people can't speak out against it. Industries are flourishing but it's coming heavily at the expense of China's environment. That massively hurts the population and is arguably government negligence. China's growth doesn't seem sustainable unless they view their entire population and land as expendable, and they're going to be feeling the impacts of their current activity in the near future.

I think what he meant was more that the post Commie China > pre Commie China in almost every way, and that if they did what the Nationalists failed to do.

[Astrana]

Originally Posted by Sides

Come on, if you really think that the PRC goverment only targets tibetians, what about the cultural revolution, when every religion and culture was banned and people locked away? And what about those people living in inner china, that are being treated like crap? IMO the tibetian region were better off.
To think this demonstration is all about tibet, is just wrong. It is about injustice in PRC.

Ok, cultural revolution is the past, and for being chinese we all know what happened back then and most of us are not proud for what our government have done. even thou it did have it's benefit.( force people working in certain region help reconstruct city and agriculture)

Originally Posted by LiberLibri

It was the choice of Han people. They supported Communists rather than Nationalists. And today, many Han individuals ...
[/i].

Communists party was formed by farmers and slaves, and just because the majority member are han, doesnt mean there aren't any other race in it. sorry I just don't like to see people separating chinese into different races. kinda racist in a way

Originally Posted by Jinto

Should always be the rule of thumb when dealing with media. (I must know ... we have so much biased tabloids and media in general here in Germany)


These questions point in the right direction imo. And I think, that is where the chinese governments' Tibet-politics actually failed.
Well, I think we are not in the position to say what China or Tibet should do. But I suppose if one asked the tibetan people, they would not necessarily want independence from China, but more freedom and more equality when it comes to sharing the wealth. Its not a secret that the economical rise in Tibet bypasses ethnic Tibetans.

as for tibet booming and wealth issue, I don't think the Chinese government lured tibetans to booming cites, i beleive it is the city lured them. But it is hard to explore some of the regions in China. with tibet's weather agriculture is hard almost impossible to explore, and we do not want to explore the minerals because of the himalayas and we want to perserve environment (glad chinese government fight against the evil cooperations to perserve historical sites sometimes.) living standards are different throught out the regions in any larger countries. Canada, US, Brazil... it's like compare living standard of Winnipeg and Vancourver...Chinese government did want develope tibet, thats why they opened the rail road to bring in more tourists. I was in China when the railroad opened, it was the hotest tour in China, all the tickets sold out instantly because people's curiosity towards the region, I personaly beleive if tibetan really got hold of this opportunity it will really help tibet in a lot ways. But seems like they didn't, instead Chinese from other regions did, and that angered them to spark the riot(part of the reseaon.)

[Astrana]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What is this supposed to mean? China is in a better place now than it would have been otherwise? Isn't that a straw man argument?

As I recall the communist party led to a ton of suffering within China. Wasn't there mass starvation in China during the reign of Mao? Didn't the breakdown of the Red Guard cause a ton of violence and strife within China? I'm not a history buff so anyone who knows more, feel free to jump in and clarify. But that reasoning would be like saying "I'm glad George Bush is in charge of the United States - we're in a better place now than we'd be otherwise. (Look, no terrorist attacks, and we only had to give up a bit of our freedoms - all thanks to George Bush, amirite?!)" Who can really say that?

As for what's going on in China now, there are loads of problems. Partly due to the restrictive nature of the government corruption and public suffering occur, but the people can't speak out against it. Industries are flourishing but it's coming heavily at the expense of China's environment. That massively hurts the population and is arguably government negligence. China's growth doesn't seem sustainable unless they view their entire population and land as expendable, and they're going to be feeling the impacts of their current activity in the near future.

Red army did liberate China and defended the country against Japanese Invasions. As for Mao's Reign, we are not proud what government has done, same thing as racism in werstern society, it's a shameful past I dont know why people still like to bring it up. Chinese government went through different stages within the history, some good some bad...

Also China does have corruption problems, but do you guys know there is special organization in the government to fight corruptions? Government personel caught with bribing can receive capital punishment and life sentence. I remember one of my friends dad became a refugee in US because chinese government are hunting him in China for bribing...

Talking about environment issue, who are the people behind all the heavy industrial factories??