Sorry again for the post and run and for only skimming responses so I apologize in advance for missing something. I will admit I'm not perfect and not always consistent in my views but this is one area where I'm not applying a double standard in regard to evil Communist. I don't believe the PRC should be using force to impose another way of life on another people anymore than the US has. That's why I find the argument that we had to liberate and democratize Iraq so disturbing because not only is it arrogant and simplistic but it opens up a potentially HUGE hosts of other problems. I generally believe that humans in the end want the same thing, safety, prosperity and self-determination. People and countries might get there following different paths and some get there faster or slower than others the problem with imposing a political and economic system is that it fails to consider the peculiarities of each situation along with the basic desire of nationalism. So in the case of Iraq naturally there is much resistance and in the case of Tibet much much more damage is done in trying to impose radical change than if left alone. And before people jump on that as much damage percentagewise was done in China proper again that was China proper and if the Chinese rose up to install Mao and all that entails that China but the Tibetans didn't and had no say in the GLF/CR. Its undeniable that much more Tibetans died and sufferend under the GLF/CR than under serfdom. Yes its true Tibetan peasents didn't have the right to vote or much say under theocracy but at the same time they didn't rise up against theocracy either. We might not agree with that life but that was a life they accepted. How do you know what the Tibetans think? Have you conducted scientific polls have you been to Tibet? Have you talked to Tibetans privately? You assume that people like me knowledge is biased but how do you know that your view of the Tibetans isn't biased either. If we really want to know what Tibetans think there's an easy answer. Allow free and open elections in Tibet. If Tibetan groups that want independence win then that would show the Tibetans don't like living under PRC rule and if pro-PRC parties win then that would show they are. Let's take a brief look at American history. There was NO single day in history, when the land of America belonged to any part of Europe, before Europeans settlers came. So, there wasn't any merit based on history alone. Europeans came and killed and drove Native people away, declared control over the land, and set up countries. Then they started to move more and more people here. There was NOT a single Native American asked Europeans to come and kill and take over their land. The existence of US and Canada is undisputed in UN. Nobody ever questions its authority over that land; nobody ever started any movement to return that land to the Native people, even without any historical event to support the "invasion". No offense but you haven't offered any facts either other than your opinion that the Tibetans are OK with living under the PRC. Again since you don't think we have a say then give them a free and open elections so they can determine what they want. As far as the Dalai Lama, yes he doesn't own Tibet but he does represent the last legitimate government of Tibet proper and still wields enormous influence among the Tibetan exile community and in Tibet proper. This is why I don't understand why the PRC doesn't just negotiate with him. The PRC has almost nothing to lose since the Dalai Lama is willing to accept being part of the PRC as long as Tibetans are given autonomy in regard to internal matters. Again the PRC is willing to give Hong Kong that deal and holds that out to Taiwan so why not Tibet?
When you justify the overthrow of Tibet's prior government and imposition of the PRC's economic and social model on Tibet because the Tibetans had lived under a feudalistic serfdom that is pretty much the same as "White Man's Burden." Its the belief that one groups values are inherently better so they are justified in imposing that belief on others with force if need be.
I just cannot believe you actually said that. What do mean by UNDENIABLE? Tibetans died much more under CCP than under serfdom? The population of Tibet was 8 million in 1737, but only 1.2 million in 1959. It reached 7.3 million in 2000, of which 5 million is ethnic Tibetan. Do those number lie? Oh yeah, Tibetans lived so much better of a life under serfdom comparing to under CCP. 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. They lived so great and happily, that 43% of their infants died, and one can only live for average of 36 years! Yeah, it's undeniable. Everything other Chinese said was a lie, only those slave owners exils said were undeniable truth. Because they don't have an agenda and they are unbiased? Or better to say, anything to piss off CCP is welcome? It's a tabu to say anything good about communist, even no one dares to admit they are human too. What a great democracy! Oh, yes, the serfs and slaves didn't rise up. You know, those black slaves in Southern didn't rise up either. Maybe you should tell them and their children and grandchildren today, that was the life they ACCEPTED. You should better help the cause to take off the fame around Lincoln, and told his followers that he did such a bad thing to liberate slaves and abandon slavery, because that was the life those people accepted. Free and open elections? That is the problem in China now, not only in Tibet. I am confident that China will get there one day. But that election will be about the leader of the country and ruling party, just following the beacon of democracy - US. You get to elect your leader, but not whether the land of your country should be given to some people, following orders from a BBS, just like you have no say in whether NYC should be independent or given to Vietnam.
A funny thing I noticed on this board is that the firm-minded Americans with an "I can't be wrong" attitude lumps Chinese against their views into nationalistic fanatics, while good ole Americans are nothing but a bunch of angels searching for others freedom and human rights, as manifested in this post and others.
A couple of questions on the historical facts: (1) was the assumption of power over Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party acknowledged to be in accordance with international law at the time and/or did it get widespread support amongst the community of nations? (2) were there any elections held in Tibet amongst the common people to determine their own future at any time? Thanks.
Pretty funny thing to post in this forum, where you have a group, largely made up of Americans, going at each other tooth and nail over the current American government. The last thing we do is march "lock-step" with each other, lol! Keep D&D Civil.
Did you even read the excerpt that you just quoted? I don't see how you could have misinterpreted it more - the excerpt you quoted said that BOTH GROUPS are subject to criticism. Gosh Panda - I missed this earlier today, but are you serious? I've/We've criticized the American government, the American electorate, and American culture on this board repeatedly - the ability to dissent is one of the things that I enjoy the most about being an American. The point I'm trying to make is this: I'll dissent about my government all I want - which I do, and have done in this thread even. I'll dissent about your government all I want as well - which I do, and have done in this thread. Thanks to Clutch & Co: you and I, regardless of nationality, are free to do so here to all you want. But one of the things that you'll never see is me claiming that a European/Asian/Australian poster is a racist or xenophobe simply for criticizing the US government (or Jeff Van Gundy, or whatever) - which is the exact OPPOSITE of the kind of treatment that occurs whenever anybody dares to question PRC policies on a lot of occasions. If you really think that what I'm saying is that only the PRC can be criticized, and the US can't, despite the fact that I've insisted otherwise numerous times - you should just leave the thread and/or don't even bother reading my posts or responding to them - the communication gap is just too wide if that's the way you feel. It's like I post the word "black" and it comes out on your computer monitor as "white" - I mean there's just a total disconnect.
I would like to start a war on the Chinese inferiority/hypersensitivity complex that is prevalent around here. It's got to go, no question. Let me save you the trouble of a response "SamFisher is a racist supremacist jerkoff blah blah blah". Maybe if you repeat it enough you'll believe it - that tactic worked for the CCP apparently.
Hey Sam, it's funny. I wasn't going to be involved in this discussion because I think it's pointless. To some, maybe you included, Tibet issue is like a religion. I don't want to challenge people on their religion, right or wrong. To me, no one starts a war against China regarding Tibet, and all admits it IS a part of China, that's good enough. Now that you have used that insulting attitute, I have to point out you didn't actually win any point in this argument. What you merely did, was just sidestepping the direct argument and unleashing confution.
You're right about it being pointless - I should have known the "you're a racist" paranoia card would be played - as it always is in these threads, despite the hypocritical paternalism that is always on display. I didn't avoid a damn thing - I have faced up to and condemned the US' colonial past and present just like I do to the Chinese. Anyway, show me your score card, I was actually trying to unleash mass Confucian! Ha!
This quote, and your other quote in this thread didn't give any support that Tibet was not a part of China, or Tibet was already a recognized independent country before the so-called "Chinese invation". Rather, it gave me the impression it was under the rule of China, however weak it was; and likely continue to be without the foreign interference. Is it not? I've also noticed that you didn't provide any DIRECT refute against wnes's historical facts, other than debating over trivial points like who had the military supremacy, whether China invaded other nation or not (which need a whole new backgroud by the way). Isn't that true? That's totally untrue. You can claim your territory, although may not under your strong practical control, but as long as it's under your sovereinty, it's not an invation. As a lawyer, I thought you should know better. Best.
I don't know why you have to bring in unneccessary things into a discussion. Maybe it's a lawyer/PR thing? I've certainly never called you a "racist". Even if others do, I don't see why you would put in into a genial reply by mine? Oh, and thanks for pointing out my misspelling.
It was not. Do the research yourself. Or use the search function- there's a big smackdown thread with me and an extremely petulant poster on the other side which discusses this issue - should be about a year old or so. No, I only refuted the ones that were just plain wrong such as his 'The PRC has never invaded anybody ever' which then morphed into 'yeah but our invasion of Vietname was really kickass' once I reminded him of that, and other ones, like 'the chinese army was invited in by the dalai lama when he signed the agreement' (how does one sign an agreement in 1951 and "invite" the PLA in in 1950? ) He also confused the uprising of the late 50's with the the initial invasion in 1950. What else did he say that I missed? I don't think I missed much - but remind me. Fact: Tibet was under no semblance of Chinese control in 1950 prior to the invasion - the last chinese forces were routed out of there in 1911 - and it wasn't under their sovreignty. Again, the historical case is so tenuous and archaic I don't see much merit in discussing it. Not to mention that by 1950 it was simply outdated. You can (and countries frequently do) make up historical cases for every war of territorial expansion - be it Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, (which was actually quite similar to China's jsutification for invading Tibet- colonial lines superimposed over old feudal grants and map) or be it Hitler invading Poland. That doesn't make it right.
No offense intended - but defensiveness on one side breeds it on the other as well. I wasn't picking on your typos, I was just bringing much needed levity to the subject, although I'm pretty sure I'll be the only one who laughs.
Oh, I don't need to go back to the earlier thread, I remembered that well enogh. It certainly doesn't provide conclusive evidence that Tibet was not under Chinese sovereignty prior to 1950, which you presented as "fact". There were enough pre-ccp documents and events for a fair-minded person to ignore. Maybe you "don't see much merit in discussing it", yet it is crucial to classify it as "invasion" or not. Is it not? I've noticed you bring out analogy like Kwait, or Poland, yet fail to mention that the world has acted against the invader inraq and Germany. And everyone accepted Tibet as a part of China? So, does the world fall asleep, or lost its conciousness, or maybe, the so-called "invasion" wasn't as clear cut as you would like to believe? That's part of the reason, I sarcasticly said "Start a war..." Lastly, I don't know why you have to bring out the insult when people defend their views. "Chinese inferiority/hypersensitivity complex"? because they don't agree with you SamFisher? Wasn't debate, and presenting their view exactly what they supposed to do on a D&D forum? Why should they lay over and chant, "you are always right Sam"? I just don't understand. Freedom of speech, hahaha.
I don't know if you've ever being to a Chinese BBS. The fighting over government decisions there are equally, if not more heated. The hint here: it's not about government. Tibet issue to Chinese is certainly not about government. Even the other side of the Taiwan straight say Tibet is a part of China as well.
Strictly for the period of 1911 to 1950 it is certainly a fact - there was no chinese control over Tibet - that it not the only period in which there was no control, there were many others....but it is the most recent one. I just don't see much significance in using euphemisms - an invasion is an invasion is an invasion. China invaded Tibet. The US invaded Iraq. The US invaded Vietnam. The US invaded Cambodia. The US invaded Normandy. Invasions are invasions. The world did go to sleep, and by the time it woke up it was too late. Other geopolitical events, like Korea & the COld war, overshadowed it too. It's too bad, IMO. As I said before, the British were the ones ideally situated to help the Tibetans gain international recognition and they failed to do so - shame on them. However a lot of the blame must go to the Tibetans themselves for being too isolationist during that period. Again, that doesn't make it right. I bring it out because I've been accused of being a racist by Chinese posters on numerous occasions - over Tibet, over Yao, over whatever. I don't care that much, it's not like I'm going to not going to order from Grand Sichuan Eastern next time I want spicy chongqing chicken for fear of being blacklisted or I'm afraid my next visa will be denied. But it is sort of a cop-out to answer legitimate criticsim with "you hate chinese people"
Keywords here: "a period", "no control". So, even if I take your words at face value, that still does nto establish that as "invation". I thought we've gone over the "control" over "sovereignty" thing, disn't we?
