Tibet VS China VS The World

[dec4rhapsody]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Unfortunately, the Cultural Revolution -- the Chinese version of the infamous "revolution gone wrong" period every revolution has -- is much more recent than similar destructive fascistic movements in other countries. The large numbers of fenqings is very much troubling considering that history, and I do hope the Chinese people and government (yes, the evil nasty PRC one ) keeps them down where they can't cause too much trouble.

Yepp, evil nasty PRC does it everytime after they make full use of them~ And YOU don't have to worry about fenqing-tachi because they are ruining OUR image.


I've taken CR-history in my freshman year and came up with the conclusion that I don't know what went through people's minds during THE passionante days...

[Gemstar]

If I was the leader of Tibet and China wanted to take over I would let them. I mean why not they want it. What of Tibet that is so important that it needs to be taken over? What are the monks losing out on? What is China gaining? No-one is gaining or losing anything. To be consice and very very short on everything. Allow, just allow it. No quarell nothing. The end. What else can anyone say?

[xris]

Keep the discussion on-topic please, and don't turn it into a chat thread about random thoughts that pop into your head. Recent off-topic posts have been removed due to this.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by dec4rhapsody

I've taken CR-history in my freshman year and came up with the conclusion that I don't know what went through people's minds during THE passionante days...

I'd reckon the same spirit that drove the Reign of Terror circa 1790's and other similar gloriously revolutionary periods...

Mob mentality is scary. I do remember reading about many senior PRC officials and Sino-Japanese/Civil War heroes being assaulted, tortured, and/or murdered during that time. Whatever my opinion of the PRC government is, that must have been rather sad to be betrayed by your very own leader and his newer fresher younger (and mad) henchmen.

[Southern Cross]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

If I was the leader of Tibet and China wanted to take over I would let them. I mean why not they want it. What of Tibet that is so important that it needs to be taken over? What are the monks losing out on? What is China gaining? No-one is gaining or losing anything. To be consice and very very short on everything. Allow, just allow it. No quarell nothing. The end. What else can anyone say?

Unfortunately the matter isn't that simple. Autonomy to the Tibetans would mean much more for them than what we can take of it face value considering all of the factors the people of Tibet have been facing for years that we may not even know of. It is "the fact of the matter" that is being disputed in this thread. I won't argue over the validity of any single "fact," I would rather examine a more reasonable case regarding the people of Tibet, their government, the purpose of their government, and the entirety of the People’s Republic of China as unbiased as possible.

The people of Tibet, generally, hold strong beliefs about their culture. You could say that they’re entitled to that as any free man would. On the other hand, the government of the People's Republic of China, in theory (correct me if I’m being unreasonable), is one that aims for a more unified identity for all the people of China to associate with. Such a “unified identity” would appear to be questionable in regions with such extensive histories such as the Tibetan Plateau and cannot be compared with the United States’ “American ideal” for the fact that the United States really is more of a salad bowl than anything else as it very roughly incorporates a plethora of cultures from around the world (primarily Western-based.) The past “culture” of the truly indigenous people of American regions has been rendered to be a factor that can no longer even be considered as a significant part of the United States as we see it today (It is seen as the most outspoken atrocity in the history of the United States.)

So, in practice, the incompatibility between Tibet's strong cultural roots and the giant that is China makes the PRC's governorship over the Tibetan Plateau an extremely vulnerable one. In the modern setting, it would be extremely unfortunate to have such a forceful cultural assimilation similar to the American Frontier "Wars" repeated again and is a scenario that cannot be discounted. It is arguable that times have changed but there are patterns in history that tend to repeat and still repeat to this day; the general clash of cultures and national identity is a more prominent pattern.

A government must ensure the health and protection of its people. The people who accept their government must also accept the identity of being under their governorship. Although there is actually nothing against being a Tibetan under the PRC government, there seems to be a powerful notion that the Chinese identity threatens the very fabric of Tibetan culture. (Valid considering what a young United States did to the indigenous people of its frontier.) This is the reason why civil unrest is so great among the Tibetans, and it is because of this instability that some people may choose to attribute some blame towards the people of Tibet themselves.

At the same time, China's overwhelming size does make the Tibetan notion even more legitimate; it would be extremely difficult and impractical to establish an identity flexible enough to truly incorporate the culture of the Tibetan Plateau without actually losing its core in the process (Thus inevitably leading to assimilation.) Considering the ideal “unified China” view I don’t think they’ll be taking such a progressive approach to national identity to account. Culture differences, aside from the more obvious effect of unrest, creates a potential for even further issues on trade and communication between the governing body that derives from a kind of representation of Coastal China and the actual people that live in the Tibetan Plateau. This further emphasizes the instability between the ideal Chinese identity in practice with the people of Tibet.

Now, the reason why China can't simply allow the Tibetans their autonomy is due to the region’s great availability of certain resources – most essentially, freshwater. Freshwater sources are abundant and easily accessible in the Tibetan Plateau. Considering how the Green Revolution from several of decades ago ended up making other parts of Inland China much drier than it should be for food production, freshwater is important so that China can maintain agriculture in the level that it is today. (Food production in the immediate future isn't too great of a problem anymore; actually, it's the distribution itself that is disproportionate. Regardless it would be extremely bad news if Chinese agriculture began to slow down considering it holds the world's greatest population over one of the world's greatest spans of land. Poverty is enough of an issue today.) Despite improvements on desalination technology, being able to collect freshwater directly saves a lot of money and thus would allow the Chinese to allocate even more funds to addressing issues of poverty rather than struggling to maintain food production through a primarily desalinated freshwater supply.

While it is valid that the PRC would like to make freshwater better available to its inland regions, it should really keep the actual inhabitants of the Tibetan Plateau in mind. It's fine to have provisions so that order may be maintained, but if it gives off even a slight aura of assimilation into the Chinese identity then it would be hard for most Tibetans to accept it. Considering all the crackdowns and campaigns launched in Tibet over the civil unrest, there is a potential for losing some of the very resources sought out in the first place. Not only that but China loses the confidence of the very people of that region and that will only cause a descent further towards civil disobedience that may cost even more precious resources and manpower. It isn’t even a matter of recognizing autonomy – as long as China can be less assertive over the issue of national identity in general the Tibetans would probably feel more comfortable being under their government, thus preventing further unrest.

Although my education is primarily Western (I have taken advanced World History and United States History courses myself and read mainly western literature sans Sun Tzu's Art of War) I hope my own views seem reasonable to those who come from more Eastern schools of thought. As thus, I am open to any other interpretations/corrections/rebuttals.

[tenken627]

dec4rhapsody, I am curious.

Are you currently in Shanghai? I was wondering about the extent of the internet censorship in the PRC, including message boards. Especially with anything negative in regards to Tibet, Taiwan, and other sensitive topics.

I am assuming that this is more the case with the larger sites actually based in China.

I've read an article that JingJing and ChaCha are two adorable animated characters from the government, and they appear on a post as a cutesy but firm warning if a message board strays too close to anything negative regarding China's policy towards Tibet, and perhaps other topics.

JingJing and ChaCha:



Just how extensive is the censorship? What type of charges do they levy against you if the government does find your thread/post/blog/web article offensive?

It seems that some people here are frustrating each other talking about Tibet and the PRC, but at least they are allowed to discuss it. You can't take that for granted, whether you are on one side or the other.

[Zoned87]

Those are to remind you that the communist government is watching your online activitys and you can be arrested for exercising freedom of speech.

I could picture a little george bush floating around on american pc's and them sending agents to arrest you if you posted anything bad about him or the government... kinda like mandatory spyware.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Southern Cross

Unfortunately the matter isn't that simple. Autonomy to the Tibetans would mean much more for them than what we can take of it face value considering all of the factors the people of Tibet have been facing for years that we may not even know of. It is "the fact of the matter" that is being disputed in this thread. I won't argue over the validity of any single "fact," I would rather examine a more reasonable case regarding the people of Tibet, their government, the purpose of their government, and the entirety of the People’s Republic of China as unbiased as possible.

The people of Tibet, generally, hold strong beliefs about their culture. You could say that they’re entitled to that as any free man would. On the other hand, the government of the People's Republic of China, in theory (correct me if I’m being unreasonable), is one that aims for a more unified identity for all the people of China to associate with. Such a “unified identity” would appear to be questionable in regions with such extensive histories such as the Tibetan Plateau and cannot be compared with the United States’ “American ideal” for the fact that the United States really is more of a salad bowl than anything else as it very roughly incorporates a plethora of cultures from around the world (primarily Western-based.) The past “culture” of the truly indigenous people of American regions has been rendered to be a factor that can no longer even be considered as a significant part of the United States as we see it today (It is seen as the most outspoken atrocity in the history of the United States.)

So, in practice, the incompatibility between Tibet's strong cultural roots and the giant that is China makes the PRC's governorship over the Tibetan Plateau an extremely vulnerable one. In the modern setting, it would be extremely unfortunate to have such a forceful cultural assimilation similar to the American Frontier "Wars" repeated again and is a scenario that cannot be discounted. It is arguable that times have changed but there are patterns in history that tend to repeat and still repeat to this day; the general clash of cultures and national identity is a more prominent pattern.

A government must ensure the health and protection of its people. The people who accept their government must also accept the identity of being under their governorship. Although there is actually nothing against being a Tibetan under the PRC government, there seems to be a powerful notion that the Chinese identity threatens the very fabric of Tibetan culture. (Valid considering what a young United States did to the indigenous people of its frontier.) This is the reason why civil unrest is so great among the Tibetans, and it is because of this instability that some people may choose to attribute some blame towards the people of Tibet themselves.

At the same time, China's overwhelming size does make the Tibetan notion even more legitimate; it would be extremely difficult and impractical to establish an identity flexible enough to truly incorporate the culture of the Tibetan Plateau without actually losing its core in the process (Thus inevitably leading to assimilation.) Considering the ideal “unified China” view I don’t think they’ll be taking such a progressive approach to national identity to account. Culture differences, aside from the more obvious effect of unrest, creates a potential for even further issues on trade and communication between the governing body that derives from a kind of representation of Coastal China and the actual people that live in the Tibetan Plateau. This further emphasizes the instability between the ideal Chinese identity in practice with the people of Tibet.

Now, the reason why China can't simply allow the Tibetans their autonomy is due to the region’s great availability of certain resources – most essentially, freshwater. Freshwater sources are abundant and easily accessible in the Tibetan Plateau. Considering how the Green Revolution from several of decades ago ended up making other parts of Inland China much drier than it should be for food production, freshwater is important so that China can maintain agriculture in the level that it is today. (Food production in the immediate future isn't too great of a problem anymore; actually, it's the distribution itself that is disproportionate. Regardless it would be extremely bad news if Chinese agriculture began to slow down considering it holds the world's greatest population over one of the world's greatest spans of land. Poverty is enough of an issue today.) Despite improvements on desalination technology, being able to collect freshwater directly saves a lot of money and thus would allow the Chinese to allocate even more funds to addressing issues of poverty rather than struggling to maintain food production through a primarily desalinated freshwater supply.

While it is valid that the PRC would like to make freshwater better available to its inland regions, it should really keep the actual inhabitants of the Tibetan Plateau in mind. It's fine to have provisions so that order may be maintained, but if it gives off even a slight aura of assimilation into the Chinese identity then it would be hard for most Tibetans to accept it. Considering all the crackdowns and campaigns launched in Tibet over the civil unrest, there is a potential for losing some of the very resources sought out in the first place. Not only that but China loses the confidence of the very people of that region and that will only cause a descent further towards civil disobedience that may cost even more precious resources and manpower. It isn’t even a matter of recognizing autonomy – as long as China can be less assertive over the issue of national identity in general the Tibetans would probably feel more comfortable being under their government, thus preventing further unrest.

Although my education is primarily Western (I have taken advanced World History and United States History courses myself and read mainly western literature sans Sun Tzu's Art of War) I hope my own views seem reasonable to those who come from more Eastern schools of thought. As thus, I am open to any other interpretations/corrections/rebuttals.

Wow. Someone who uses the Western education that doesn't see things with a biased eye.

To answer your question, I think the government is being assertive about the national identity because they need to keep the population united. Which is a pretty hard feat, considering China has a population of 1.1 billion. If the country is divided...who knows? Civil wars? political unrest? or maybe the worst of the worst...Cultural Revolution 2?

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Those are to remind you that the communist government is watching your online activitys and you can be arrested for exercising freedom of speech.

I could picture a little george bush floating around on american pc's and them sending agents to arrest you if you posted anything bad about him or the government... kinda like mandatory spyware.

First of all, you are living in the 20th century. The government isn't as strict as it was now. Second of all, there are somethings called proxies.

[Zoned87]

Proxies are slow and sometimes don't work properly if at all, also not everyone knows how to use them. Last I remember PRC was still handing out prison sentences for online political activism.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Proxies are slow and sometimes don't work properly if at all, also not everyone knows how to use them. Last I remember PRC was still handing out prison sentences for online political activism.

Well, would you like to see China in a Civil War just because you demand to see instant change in China's form of government? Yes, just let those innocent lives die while you 'fight' for 'freedom'.

[Zoned87]

In the United States we argue about politics alot but there is no civil war.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

In the United States we argue about politics alot but there is no civil war.

That's because the US has a smaller population, and a more educated population. Some of China's population has never gone to school, and that part of the population can be easily swayed, or manipulated to cause a riot or at the worst, a civil war.

[Zoned87]

When the United States was first founded very few of the people who made up the country had any education, but it still worked.

We had 1 civil war although that was over slavery

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

When the United States was first founded very few of the people who made up the country had any education, but it still worked.

We had 1 civil war although that was over slavery

Every culture is different, and the Chinese history is way more complex than what you guys had. They spent 5,000 years with an Emperor, one with absolute power, and a lot of Chinese culture is based on that. You can't change the history and the culture of a society just for a sense of 'freedom'.

It's like going against your traditional beliefs for something new. The majority of the older population still have emotional scars from the Japanese invasion of WWII, and the Cultural Revolution, where the 'poor' overruled the 'rich'.

[Zoned87]

It still works that way, its just not quite as obvious because they now wear business suits instead of military uniforms.

Also the people who founded the united states lived under a king

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

It still works that way, its just not quite as obvious because they now wear business suits instead of military uniforms.

Also the people who founded the united states lived under a king

Do you not understand what I am saying?

England's written history is...like say aprox. 1,000 years.

China's written histoy is 5,000 years.

China's history is also more complex.

Stop enforcing things on China. Just because your country can do it, China, a country with strong traditional beliefs and an ancient culture, will have to take longer. It's like teaching a dog new tricks.

Goddammit, China isn't some super-country that can instantly transform itself like Superman.

[Zoned87]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Do you not understand what I am saying?

England's written history is...like say aprox. 1,000 years.

China's written histoy is 5,000 years.

China's history is also more complex.

Stop enforcing things on China. Just because your country can do it, China, a country with strong traditional beliefs and an ancient culture, will have to take longer. It's like teaching a dog new tricks.

Goddammit, China isn't some super-country that can instantly transform itself like Superman.

Actually England has been a kingdom since the Roman occupation ended around 400AD.

And how do you know they couldn't? Perhaps you merely underestimate the ability of change.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by Zoned87

Actually England has been a kingdom since the Roman occupation ended around 400AD.

And how do you know they couldn't? Perhaps you merely underestimate the ability of change.

Yes. We saw change from a communist country to a democratic country.

The USSR.

May I enlighten you of the breaking up of the USSR too? Would you like to see China broken up like that too? Would you like to see China's people broken up into different nations, each a third world country with a corrupted 'democratic' government?

[Zoned87]

I think Russia's problem was although the government structure changed the leaders did not.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Do you not understand what I am saying?

England's written history is...like say aprox. 1,000 years.

China's written histoy is 5,000 years.

China's history is also more complex.

Sorry, but that's a cop-out. You honestly believe that what happened during the Tang Dynasty and other such dynasties has any impact on what's going on with China today? I would not argue that certain aspects of the culture and social thought can be derived from the distant past, but things are incredibly different. The only thing that China's long history has an impact on, in my opinion, is China's national identity and pride. That's it. If you want to argue about complexity, I could create a compelling argument that America is more complex due to the "melting pot" scenario derived from having many, many more cultures mixing and mingling. China's population vs. America's diversity: let's just agree that they're both complex, and not argue over which is "more" complex.

Goddammit, China isn't some super-country that can instantly transform itself like Superman.

Transformation doesn't have to do with wealth, it has to do with the people in the country. If the Chinese people want to have more freedom, they will have to work toward it. Similarly, here in America we're experiencing a decay in our freedoms - because the people either want it or are simply not fighting against it.

Many "freedom loving Americans" may be pushing their opinion about what China should be - ignore them. Many Americans have a bad habit of feeling that every country should be actively trying to emulate America. I wanted to remind you not to get confused about where freedom comes from, as well as where it disappears to: it's the people.