One question... Are they the peaceful protestors or are they who robbed shops and beat up civilians? As far as i know, in china, if you are robbing banks or stores, they can shoot you.
Someone explain what the heck is going on in TIBET or CHINA regarding these boycotts/protests or this *****. I am totally confused... it seems I am not reading the appropriate storylines, here. Sorry.
These pictures, which btw cannot be indepently verifed, were not taken in Lhasa. They supposedly occured in a separate incident in Sichuan, where the mob not only started a race riot targetting other ethnic groups, but also reportedly attacked and burnt down a police station. I guess they expected the police to just sit there and be burnt to death as well, just like those helpless storeowners in Lhasa. And please move this to D&D.
WTF? He means that Texas joined the USA of its own free will. Tibet did not join China of its own free will. And to the earlier poster who responded to my statement about Han Chinese being resettled in Tibet: Yes, citizens of a free country should be able to settle anywhere they want to within that free country. Citizens of a non-free country should not be resettled by the government of a non-free country, in an occupied territory, in order to dilute the ethnic makeup of that occupied territory. Whatever. Arguing with the Chinese posters here about this is pointless. They're unwilling to concede even basic points about, or criticize, the way the Chinese government acts.
Mao Zedung, contrary to popular belief in the West, pursued a policy of moderation and patience in Tibet, although his ultimate aim was clearly to transform Tibet in accordance with socialist goals. He sought to persuade Tibet's leaders over time to genuinely accept "reintegration" with China and agree to a societal transformation to socialism. His strategy placed great emphasis on creating cordial relations between Han (ethnic Chinese) and Tibetans, and allaying Tibetan fears and anxieties. The PLA troops, for example, worked hard to differentiate themselves from previous Chinese regimes. Calling themselves "New Chinese," the PLA troops in Tibet emphasized they had come to help Tibet develop, not exploit and abuse it. They were careful to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion, giving alms, for example, to all 20,000 of the monks in the Lhasa area. This rhetoric was supported by enforcement of a strict behavioral code that precluded the PLA from taking anything against the will of the people, and that required them to pay for everything in silver coins (dayan) rather than paper money. Moreover, the old feudal and monastic systems were allowed to continue unchanged D between 1951-59 there was absolutely no expropriation of the property of aristocratic and religious landlords. At the heart of this strategy was the Dalai Lama. Mao saw him, in particular, as the vehicle by which the feudal and religious elites (and then the masses) would come to accept their place in China's new multi-ethnic communist state.
Did you pull that off of some pro-PLA wiki site? Nice way to gloss over the way Beijing has inserted itself into Tibetan religious life - picking its own lamas in contravention of how the Tibetans have traditionally done so. Also, if you think Mao is a moderate, that must make Stalin a liberal in your red-tinted world. Mao, his cronies, and his policies are responsible for the deaths of not just thousands, not just millions, but TENS of millions of Chinese during the Cultural Revolution.
i don't think his statement was off by much. that's why, in 1959, they rebelled. probably due to the fact the government decided not to continue the tradition or something. you know the fact that mao is well respected by most chinese right? regardless what he did, most people think that he can do no wrong. members of my family was beaten and labeled as counter revolutionary. they don't even hate mao.
please take a look at the pictures posted in this thread http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?p=3556410#post3556410
If so many Chinese were killed by Mao, who should hate Mao most? They Chinese or you western people? think about it. The telling truth is that Chinese love Mao, Western hate him. Don't act like you care about Chinese. Mao's problem is that his policies prevented you doing more killing on Chinese. that's it. that's where all the hate from. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSQnK5FcKas&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSQnK5FcKas&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
what's wrong with you MEOWGI??? don't you know that the experts of American History are Chinese people who watch Yao Ming only? its not like you know anything about Texas since you live here.
i'm pretty anti-mao, and anti-communist, but this statement's one of those that's not true that's been told over and over. while certainly millions of chinese died, there's no really way to count the numbers. instead, the tens of millions number was estimated by using what should have been the population trend during normal population growth during the cultural revolution. .i.e. instead of a rising slope, the population was stagnate for about two years. the flaw in this estimate is that you're counting people never born as being killed. just look at a population chart of china between 1965 and 1975 if you don't believe me (learned it in college taught by a white professor who spoke fluent chinese). it's one of those "humans only use 10% of their brains" kinda myth. here's some other not so flatter thing about mao. he had the blackest teeth, the were always edited in his photos. he swam in the yangzi river against the advice of his doctors which at that time was infested with waste. he liked to spend alot of time with underaged girls (what he did with them is under speculation).
Was that before or after Caucasian settlers took over the area? And isn't that what China is apparently doing to Tibet? Will China gain the same legitimacy if a Tibet full of Chinese people ask (or take part in a referendum) to be part of China? I'm trying to understand the difference here.
