Tibet VS China VS The World

[Papaya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7NUNwq2MGc

Massive lulz ensues in NYC.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Papaya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7NUNwq2MGc

Massive lulz ensues in NYC.

I dunno, being in Los Angeles maybe I've been a bit desensitized to police brutality (check out some of the videos of LAPD in action - they even went after news reporters and broke cameras, that one event evoked comments from the higher-ups) but I was pretty impressed by NYPD there. They were courteous for 95% of that video, not to mention that it looked like some of the protestors attempted to fight back. But police brutality is a whole big topic in and of itself

[Papaya]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at though.

The entire thing is extremely sensationalized. The guy filming the protest was being a self-righteous ass looking for trouble, and on top of it all, the protesters did not have a permit, so basically they were obstructing justice by disobeying police orders to stop causing a ruckus.

[Vexx]

Agreed... bah, that is basically a "Thanks a Lot, Idiots." moment. Meh.

[Tri-ring]

Well since we have no vids on how PRC riot police treated the Tibeteans in Lahsa, I don't think it has any meaning on posting on how other nations treated a similar situation.
We can talk, making comments based on rumors but I don't think that will be a constructive either.

[Vexx]

Aye, its basically very simple. When independent press are not allowed to stand ready - the credibility of the government version falls like a paralyzed falcon. It doesn't matter *who* or what kind the government is.

Until the PRC government *gets* that -- they can expect no change in the attitude of other nations (not that other nations aren't also guilty of trying to manipulate a message away from reality but most of them at least pretend to be embarrassed and whack a few scapegoat officials).

In other news, the BBC English channel has been mysteriously unblocked into the PRC - no explanation, but then they never acknowledged blocking it in the first place (ever since they first started broadcasting in that direction a couple of decades ago).

[Alleluia_Cone]

The issue of Tibet aside, I do not feel there exists that much public unrest in China to a degree that would force the government to either become more repressive or, in a best case scenario, begin systematically reforming the social sphere along a more liberal agenda. Perhaps this is much too broad a generalization, especially when considering that I am speaking for 1,400,000,000 people when I use the word 'China,' but I say that in an attempt to highlight several key points that get lost among discussions taking place about the PRC in liberalized Europe and the United States.

Namely, that despite what one thinks about China in comparison to other modern societies, the fact remains that at this moment in time, China is freer, more affluent and more developed than at any time in human history. This is a nation that was literally being carved into economic and cultural pieces in the nineteenth century by European imperial powers, then had to suffer the indignity of invasion and conquest by their Japanese rivals in the first half of the last century, only to have that followed by civil war, famine, and the untold millions lost in the economic programs initiated under the regime of Mao Zedong. Seen in this perspective, you could hardly blame the Chinese for feeling that things are looking up.

As to the current situation with Tibet, I see this as the proverbial lost cause. Even by exploiting the focus that is directed at China by the media of the world as a consequence of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, what do the people of Tibet or even the Dali Lama hope to achieve? Worldwide condemnation is all well and good, except for the fact that it most certainly will not lead to action on the part of foreign nations. China is not the Soviet Union of the nineteen-eighties; it is not a multinational empire in decline, there is no groundswell of support for the adoption of western conceptions of nationhood and so on. And, beyond that factor, China is also not a country that can be bullied with. It is far too powerful economically and increasingly politically for nations, the United States included, to even contemplate interfering with their internal affairs of state.

Lastly, this being an important point, I would like to add that all this Western condemnation of their country, coming as it does in the year in which they host the Olympics, does not exactly endear the Chinese citizenry to us. There is also an ever widening gap between what the Western world perceives the Beijing Olympics to be about and what the Chinese feel on the subject. This is not a question of politics, but about national pride - the pride of a people who no longer feel like the second-class citizens of the world and a testament to their progress and achievement. Perhaps there is a way to go for the development of China into a modern nation, or at least the Western concept of one, but I say let the Chinese have their moment in the sun without having us jeering at them.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

but I say let the Chinese have their moment in the sun without having us jeering at them.

The problem is, it's hard to do that while NOT condemning the PRC.

[Vexx]

I don't equate the government of the PRC with its citizens anymore than I equate the actions of the US government with the average citizen. There are a lot of people working very hard to put on a "good Olympics". I agree that Tibet's more aggressive elements may have shot themselves in the foot (which is why the Lama is counseling them to stop and threatening resignation if they continue to use violence) by using the Olympics as a protest conduit. We've seen that the PRC government officials simply get more stubborn and intransigent (good lord, the name-calling and outright nonsense coming out of them and their mouthpieces over the last few days).

The *people* of China I want to applaud and cheer on.... the *government* I treat like all governments in the world... warily.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

The issue of Tibet aside, I do not feel there exists that much public unrest in China to a degree that would force the government to either become more repressive or, in a best case scenario, begin systematically reforming the social sphere along a more liberal agenda. Perhaps this is much too broad a generalization, especially when considering that I am speaking for 1,400,000,000 people when I use the word 'China,' but I say that in an attempt to highlight several key points that get lost among discussions taking place about the PRC in liberalized Europe and the United States.

Namely, that despite what one thinks about China in comparison to other modern societies, the fact remains that at this moment in time, China is freer, more affluent and more developed than at any time in human history. This is a nation that was literally being carved into economic and cultural pieces in the nineteenth century by European imperial powers, then had to suffer the indignity of invasion and conquest by their Japanese rivals in the first half of the last century, only to have that followed by civil war, famine, and the untold millions lost in the economic programs initiated under the regime of Mao Zedong. Seen in this perspective, you could hardly blame the Chinese for feeling that things are looking up.

As to the current situation with Tibet, I see this as the proverbial lost cause. Even by exploiting the focus that is directed at China by the media of the world as a consequence of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, what do the people of Tibet or even the Dali Lama hope to achieve? Worldwide condemnation is all well and good, except for the fact that it most certainly will not lead to action on the part of foreign nations. China is not the Soviet Union of the nineteen-eighties; it is not a multinational empire in decline, there is no groundswell of support for the adoption of western conceptions of nationhood and so on. And, beyond that factor, China is also not a country that can be bullied with. It is far too powerful economically and increasingly politically for nations, the United States included, to even contemplate interfering with their internal affairs of state.

Lastly, this being an important point, I would like to add that all this Western condemnation of their country, coming as it does in the year in which they host the Olympics, does not exactly endear the Chinese citizenry to us. There is also an ever widening gap between what the Western world perceives the Beijing Olympics to be about and what the Chinese feel on the subject. This is not a question of politics, but about national pride - the pride of a people who no longer feel like the second-class citizens of the world and a testament to their progress and achievement. Perhaps there is a way to go for the development of China into a modern nation, or at least the Western concept of one, but I say let the Chinese have their moment in the sun without having us jeering at them.

To simplify are you saying that the people of PRC suffered enough in the past that they some how get a pardon card for whatever suffering they cause?
Sorry but the world does not work that way.

If CCP is going to maintain governance over Tibet then they should show the same responsibility to govern equally with equal representation not occupy and rule as if it was a colony. Give them some autonomy if they demand giving them a chance for them to develop their own industry by their own.
The citizens of PRC should also show more interest towards the matter not as a ethnical problem but as a political problem. It's not them agaisnt us, it's citizens against the overshadowing possibility of a corrupt government.

Having pride and being arrogant is two different things not to be confused. If there are such thing as "second-class" citizenry it is what is created within their own heads. A true citizen of the world should consider not what is good for them but what will benefit for all the people on this planet not to be conserned with petty differences such as race, creed and/or nation.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

western conceptions of nationhood

Which are? I'm honestly confused here. If you're thinking about the (admittedly vague) classical definition of a nation state, China is much more like that than most western states.

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Which are? I'm honestly confused here. If you're thinking about the (admittedly vague) classical definition of a nation state, China is much more like that than most western states.

Huh?

China has never been a nation-state.
France is a nation-state. Germany is a nation-state.

[Alleluia_Cone]

I only point out that unless the citizenry of China becomes passionate about Tibet, which at this point, they are not, all of these protests are just spectacles that serve little real-world value. I am particularly disgusted with Western leaders such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Nancy Pelosi exploiting the Olympic games to drive down political points that they would never have the courage to speak about during a normal year in world affairs. And the thing is, I agree with most on this board that the government of the PRC has clearly treated Tibet unfairly for well over fifty years now, but the truth of the matter is that little can be done about this. No country or organization on earth that carries any weight, whether it be the United States, or the European Union, or god forbid, Russia and India, will ever risk conflict of any kind with China in a dispute over the interests of Tibet. If there were to be a change in the situation, it would have to develop as a consequence of internal developments within China itself, which as has been proven, take a long time.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

I only point out that unless the citizenry of China becomes passionate about Tibet, which at this point, they are not, all of these protests are just spectacles that serve little real-world value. I am particularly disgusted with Western leaders such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Nancy Pelosi exploiting the Olympic games to drive down political points that they would never have the courage to speak about during a normal year in world affairs. And the thing is, I agree with most on this board that the government of the PRC has clearly treated Tibet unfairly for well over fifty years now, but the truth of the matter is that little can be done about this. No country or organization on earth that carries any weight, whether it be the United States, or the European Union, or god forbid, Russia and India, will ever risk conflict of any kind with China in a dispute over the interests of Tibet. If there were to be a change in the situation, it would have to develop as a consequence of internal developments within China itself, which as has been proven, take a long time.

I will add this. Whether the PRC is right or wring any foreign interfernece is only going to make the support for the PRC tighter within the general Chinese population. The more the western countries and its media tries to push the issue the deeper the Chinese people are going to dig in and push back. Anytime someone like Pelosi opens her mouth against China and its policies. She is basically doing pr work for the PRC in China. The complete lack of understanding of Chinese History, culture and mindset by Western politicans is astounding to me. It is like they are deliberately trying to stir up China.

[tripperazn]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

I only point out that unless the citizenry of China becomes passionate about Tibet, which at this point, they are not, all of these protests are just spectacles that serve little real-world value.

I've been watching a lot of the Chinese news channels lately, since a lot of stuff is going down there at the moment. From the Chinese Central TV and Phoenix TV Stations (main Hong Kong station), all you get are these insane uncensored scenes of corpses being dragged out of burned shops and enraged crowds destroying buildings and rioters killing riot police.

These channels are what EVERYONE watches in China, if any citizenry are going to be passionate about Tibet, it's probably not in a favorable way.

[Vexx]

Aye, I've not seen the "message" so forceful out of the PRC government and its controlled news stations in quite a while. Its also as "good" as anything some of the Western news agencies do --- assertions presented without evidence, no examination of *why* large numbers of people are at a flashpoint, considering everyone as part of the same piece (Dalai clique) rather than what it really is -- a collection of different organizaions with different ideas about how to deal with perceived injustice.

Kind of like conflating Al Quaeda with Iraqi nationalists with religious factions with Saddam to advance an agenda that has more to do with the flow control of oil.

Some folks might want to review the Watts riots in Los Angeles in the 60s. The trigger points were different and there was the same lawless violence against essentially innocent people --- but the underlying causes were decades of oppression and injustice that built tempers to the flashpoint.

The difference was there was an independent press allowed to examine all aspects of the events, so egg was evenly splashed on many faces.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Alleluia_Cone

As to the current situation with Tibet, I see this as the proverbial lost cause. Even by exploiting the focus that is directed at China by the media of the world as a consequence of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, what do the people of Tibet or even the Dali Lama hope to achieve? Worldwide condemnation is all well and good, except for the fact that it most certainly will not lead to action on the part of foreign nations. China is not the Soviet Union of the nineteen-eighties; it is not a multinational empire in decline, there is no groundswell of support for the adoption of western conceptions of nationhood and so on. And, beyond that factor, China is also not a country that can be bullied with. It is far too powerful economically and increasingly politically for nations, the United States included, to even contemplate interfering with their internal affairs of state.

This paragraph reminded me of the policy of appeasement that nations took toward Germany just before World War II. (They're too powerful, nobody will risk fighting with them, just give them what they want and hope they're satisfied with it.)

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Papaya

Huh?

China has never been a nation-state.
France is a nation-state. Germany is a nation-state.

Stating what you consider examples instead of providing a definiton doesn't make me any wiser. So I can only answer to what I think you mean.

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is a duck. China has 'national' minorities, but many nation states do, if they aren't multiethnical in the first place. (And China is ethnically more homogeneous than both France and Germany.) Still, China has an idea of "Chineseness" as overarching principle that goes beyond the ethnical differences. Exactly as a classical nation state should. This is one of the reasons this thread exists in the first place. The other is that many Tibetians beg to differ.

The Tibet and Taiwan conflicts are really textbook examples of conflicts grounded in the idea of the nation state, eerie familiar to any historian. But I can't see any modern Western European state trying to uphold national borders against an independence movement at the price China is willing to pay (or let others pay), let alone threatening an already de facto independent state on historical arguments. So China takes the idea of nationhood more serious it seems. 'Independence' is a very theoretical concept in Europe anyway where significant powers have been transferred to the EU. That alone goes against the classical idea of the nation state where the nation is the very basis of all "statehood".

So bottom line, the "Western" idea of the indivisible nation as the alpha and omega of state sovereignty is very popular in China (or Eastern Asia in general), and certainly more so than in large parts of "the West".

[Papaya]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Stating what you consider examples instead of providing a definiton doesn't make me any wiser. So I can only answer to what I think you mean.

When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is a duck. China has 'national' minorities, but many nation states do, if they aren't multiethnical in the first place. (And China is ethnically more homogeneous than both France and Germany.) Still, China has an idea of "Chineseness" as overarching principle that goes beyond the ethnical differences. Exactly as a classical nation state should. This is one of the reasons this thread exists in the first place. The other is that many Tibetians beg to differ.

The Tibet and Taiwan conflicts are really textbook examples of conflicts grounded in the idea of the nation state, eerie familiar to any historian. But I can't see any modern Western European state trying to uphold national borders against an independence movement at the price China is willing to pay (or let others pay), let alone threatening an already de facto independent state on historical arguments. So China takes the idea of nationhood more serious it seems. 'Independence' is a very theoretical concept in Europe anyway where significant powers have been transferred to the EU. That alone goes against the classical idea of the nation state where the nation is the very basis of all "statehood".

So bottom line, the "Western" idea of the indivisible nation as the alpha and omega of state sovereignty is very popular in China (or Eastern Asia in general), and certainly more so than in large parts of "the West".

Have you been to China?
If you live your whole life in Beijing, chances are if you visit another city, you'll have no clue what they're saying. Cultural differences are very, very vast in China. The whole "nationalism" thing is mostly a worry of the urban youth and the old. Most people there are just worrying about getting along and making a buck. I guarantee you the average guy in China hates the villagers 100 miles away more than they care about a foreign nation.
China might be 90% Han, but those 90% Han have very little in common.

[Slice of Life]

Most people there are just worrying about getting along and making a buck. I guarantee you the average guy in China hates the villagers 100 miles away more than they care about a foreign nation.

That is the default state of human relations everywhere. But it doesn't describe the whole picture. Or the world would be a more peaceful place than it actually is. The tensions and hot spots in East Asia (or anywhere) aren't imagined after all.