Trust me, the Chinese posters criticize the government a lot. I would say, it is very commonly accepted among the Chinese people that: 1. Both China and the US are not perfect. Both have problems. 2. The US government is more democratic than the Chinese government. People are granted more freedom in the US than in China. But China is getting better. 3. The US is more advanced than China in economics, science&techonology, military, etc. But China is catching up. The bottomline is China is on the rise (in many aspects, not only economically), and we're proud of it. We are only irritated because the west always picks on us. It can be argued that China creates less problems than the US. As of the immigrants, some Chinese think the US is a better place to live and decide to settle down. Some decide to stay in China. Some want to leave but don't have a chance. Some moved due to other reasons (making money, personal career, etc.). People who stay in the US still have the right and choice to defend China, right? I don't agree that PRC demonizes Tibetans. The Chinese were educated to treat the minorites like brothers and sisters. We're not against the Tibetans. We are only against the Tibetan people who threw stones at people on the streets and set cars and shops on fire, and those who try to divide China. IMO, Britain invading China is not a very good analogy. First there is no such complicated history between Britain and China prior to the Opium wars. Secondly the British invaded China to export opium, sign unequal treaties and gain trade privileges (to be soon followed by other countries including the US).
That's actually not a bad idea and it would be interesting to see that get presented. Now you are splitting hairs. He's committing to keep Tibet part of the PRC but the PRC that's not good enough as he's not saying they will be together forever. This sounds more like insecurity or Big Brother from 1984 saying its not enough that people follow Big Brother but that they love him too. What does it matter that he doesn's say "Tibet will always be part of China"? He can't guarentee that and anyway who's to say that 50 years from now Shanghai will still be part of China? What matters is that he is giving his agreement as the leader now and is in the power to agree to that. What happens in the future neither Tibetans or the PRC know. And he is in his 70's now. 20 years ago the PRC was killing its own citizens in the Tiananmen should we judge the PRC now on that? The Dalai Lama is making his offer now if you don't like the soundbite then call him on it and have public negotiations and force him to lay out where he really stands. It is both. The Tibetan culture is tied to its land as much as Chinese culture is tied to China. You can't just say we can move the people and things will be the same or that things can still stay the same as long as the people are there but they don't have control over their lives.
If that is the case then you are crushing them with your kindness. Intentional or not the influx of PRC into Tibet is destroying their culture. The economic disparities created are disrupting their society too along with the influx of industry and lots of people into an environment that is very fragile. An occupation no matter how benign is still an occupation. The problem is though that the British believed in something called "White Man's Burden" and often saw the people they subjugated as uncivilized and inferior. This even extended to the Chinese who even though the British knew had an ancient civilization they considered the Chinese to be decadent and depraved. The British view was that the Chinese deserved what happened to them because they were weak physicall and morally. Obviously looking back we realize how arrogant and biased this was and how much damage was done under the idea of White Man's Burden but that doesn't change that they justified their actions under that view. In a similar way I see a lot of the statements made by the PRC regarding Tibet in the same way as a "Han Man's Burden" to go and civilize the backward Tibetans. Even the Dalai Lama agrees that there was a lot of things wrong with theocractic Tibet but it is still arrogant to continue to justify the ongoing situation based on the idea that the Han are just there to help the Tibetans. Even if the Tibetans agree to that doesn't mean they have their own nationalist aspirations as any people do.
The Beijing government is more generous than I am; it's already said repeatedly the door is open as soon as he says the right magic words about Tibet being an *inalienable* part of Chinese territory. I personally have a higher standard. The Dalai Lama went through the effort of documenting his plans 15 years ago; why can't he update the plan to capture what he has to say about the Middle Way? He doesn't *owe* me anything of course... but until he erases the ground-work for independence that he's laid out before with a new book describing his thoughts, I for one don't believe him. Sorry, no go. I hope China preserves Tibetan religion and culture, but I don't believe the only way to do so is to make Tibet a Tibetan ghetto where non-Tibetans are explicitly second-class citizens and unwelcome. This is especially the case because I suspect all of this is just a front for eventual independence. I hope the Dalai Lama thinks of a different way to preserve Tibetan culture without his "high degree" of autonomy. It just doesn't connect in my mind that one is necessary for the other. If he doesn't... then we Chinese will just have to make our own attempt at it without his help. But yes... someone tell Beijing and Dharamasala about the Tibetan Vatican idea!
Keep in mind that any average Tibetan in China has more political rights than *I* (or Yao Ming for that matter). I don't see how you can compare that to the situation with British Imperialism in Asia, especially with the Opium trade.
Shockingly, you are not the first PRCbot to run this subroutine - it's been executed before " Tibetans are SO much better off than I cause they can have two kids! Tibetans get all this special treatment according to the laws on the books!" Sure.... Passing a bunch of laws (in a country where textbook laws are malleable, to put it mildly) doesn't mean anyting if the laws don't have any effect. Laws also don't make a damn bit of difference when the government passes other programs that have a countervailing effect. (resettlement of soldiers, among others, also a lot of discriminatory pricing for government permits, etc) All you have to do is to go to Lhasa and look around - see how much good those laws are doing the Tibetans...I guess that's why allthe shops around the Barkhor are Chinese-owned? I guess that's why all Tibetans are so obviously satisfied with their benevolent Chinese elder brothers!
Just go to the urban core in any American city and look around - see how much good American laws are doing for African-Americans. Why are African-Americans economically deprived in the United States? Why are African-Americans imprisoned at far greater rates than whites? Just look at the lineup of the American presidents; how many non-Anglo-Saxon faces do you see there? Are results like this actually *proof* of institutionalized racism? Or could there be something else going on here? If you want to be believable, give us specifics about the policies that "prove" racism, SamFisher. Discriminatory pricing is a good start; show us a race-based pricing schedule for government permits in Lhasa. When it comes to business success in Lhasa, I know for a fact that various policies have been tried throughout the last 20 years to give Tibetans an economic advantage. For example, the pedicabs that dominate Old Lhasa... batches of permits were exclusively assigned *only* to Tibetans. 2 years later, almost all of these permits had been resold to Han Chinese entrepreneurs. How do you resolve issues like this? How do you *make* Tibetans more successful in Old Lhasa businesses? Do you set racial quotas in business hiring, even for small private businesses? And how do you propose that we enforce those quotas? "It's Wednesday; show us your token Tibetans." Nothing you've said remotely takes away what I've said before. Tibetans are legally first-class citizens in China, and I'm a second-class citizen. No matter how many straw-men you setup, that remains a fact. I understand that Tibetans are marginalized economically in Tibet, and I for one happen to be in favor of affirmative action. What else should and can be done? What do you propose as a solution to erasing the income gap for under-performing minorities in this country, SamFisher?
You talk like those Han store owner are the privileged class. They are themselves most poor people from other provinces. It's not hard to understand why the Han Chinese has advantage in these trades. They speak Mandarin, and most of the tourists are han Chinese. And they are smart business people, they work hard. I guess, if Tibetan continue to think they don't need to lean Chinese, they would continue to be in disadvantage even if there is complete autonomous. Oh, I hear the climbing Mount Everest business is completely in Tibetans hands, no Han Chinese can get their hands on it.
I agree with michecon. The language issue is a major issue. Forget the politics for a moment, when the PRC government put the Tibetans in schools teaching Han Chinese, regardless of the motive, it should benefit the Tibetans. No country in this world will allow people within their country to be forever excluded from the mainstream culture, because it will only generate a group of people that can't perform well in the job market. To call it "cultural genocide" as Dalai claimed is simply ridiculous. If this is the case, the Tibetans would have been forced to speak Mandarin and give up Tibetan native languages, and ironically they will be better off with that. Like it or not, when there is a dominant culture, the lesser one needs to make some adjustment and probably compromise to a certain degree or they will be in trouble. Many Tibetans are, to be honest, are trying to hide in a shell and hope the outside world will never affect them. Seriously, even Tibet becomes independent, the next day all the MacDonald, Walmart, Starbuck people will rush to their place and these people will still get scxewed.
I think both sides all have some good points.I just get one thing to say.One's country is like one's parents.You may not agree with them all the time,and you know they are wrong sometimes.you may even have some heated argument with your parents in your home.But when you at work and some people critize your parents in your face,you will not like it and be your parents' side even if you know your parents are wrong.i think it is just human nature or is it just a chinese thing?
The difference is of course I am not clueless enough to go around saying "well legally blacks have more rights than me, they've got it so well off" like you just did.
Most of the climbing mount Everest business (which is pretty smal on the North face vis a vis the southern side) is not in Tibetan hands - its in Nepali Sherpa hands. The same goes for Cho Oyu and Xixipangma. The Tibetan side of the mountain doesn't have the climbing expertise or experience. Most of it is arranged by agencies based in Kathmandu. When I was hiking around Camp I on the tibet side, for our expedition all of our camp staff were Nepali Sherpas who lived across the border.
I guess there's chance people I talk to mistaken Nepalis for Tibetans. But right there, it proves you need experiences to do businesses.
I can't really figure out how blacks have more legal rights than you. So, you'd be extremely clueless to say the above. While I and Yao Ming are clearly "better off" than most Tibetans in China (who are marginalized and struggle due to cultural/language issues), we have fewer legal rights than they do. Period. And I guess you have no answers to this question: I understand that Tibetans are marginalized economically in Tibet, and I for one happen to be in favor of affirmative action. What else should and can be done? What do you propose as a solution to erasing the income gap for under-performing minorities in this country, SamFisher?
I know this is an old story, but still... Interview from BBC - Voice of Tibet:Attacking the Girl in Wheelchair is FANTASTIC <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d9Amlz2Jvro&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d9Amlz2Jvro&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Hope everybody can click the website on my signature, all we want is no more media distortion. To tell you the truth, every pics of torch relay i saw on another chinese website, i cry.. just hope everyone can notice that if this happened in ur country which has been disgraded for long and now finally got a chance to show herself to the world, but some ppl just dont want it happen and fight to deliberately distort her, stop it from happening, what would u FEEL?? PLEASE,PLEASE,don't just SAY you LOVE PEACE while ur action is totally totally against it.
<embed src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/882018/braveheart_freedom_speech.swf" width="600" height="518" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>
Enjoy hyperbole much? I haven't "protested" the Chinese Olympics or marched against "the torch." Very few have. Those who have are in the media spotlight, so they have gotten a lot of attention. It sells ads on TV. Sure, many millions of people around the world disagree with China's policies towards Tibet (and other Chinese policies), but I think most of those people don't think the Olympics are the venue to use to make their point. I don't think it is, although history argues otherwise. China's government is using the Olympics for political purposes at home and abroad. They aren't the first to do so. Impeach Bush. Make Him Clean Up After Himself.
the opinion on this board is you must suck and be a brainwashed, chinaman if you can't conform to western thought.
