If I remember correctly, from what I was taught in school. Manifest Destiny of owning the land from sea to shinning sea by the U.S. was never really cast in a negative light. Though the trail of the Tears, Mexican American War, the Texas revolution was all seeing as stepping stones of achieving that goal, which at least the way it was taught, was a positive act. When it comes to Tibet and China, given Tibet's historical ties in with China, I would say there is as strong if not stronger manifistation of the destiny for Tibet to be a part of China. I want to know how it's vastly different.
None really. In that era, land grabs and imperial aspirations were the norm. Let's see, we manufactured a war with Mexico. Another with Spain. Fomented revolution in Hawaii. At least we didn't treat indigenous peoples slaves like the Europeans. However, we thought they were inferior and unworthy to run themselves on their own. Ooops Filipinos... Then again, China has a lot of land already. I'm not sure if they desperately need Tibet, nor would they flock to Tibet if there was some calamity in their agricultural or industrial base. Yeah, the resources would be a boost, but growth comes in cycles. As the US is learning, preventing natural declines will only cause greater artificially induced declines. Frankly, China has a more legitimate claim to "Manifest Destiny" Taiwan. There's an economic imperative to go along with the shared ancestry route. But if I were China's neighbors, I'd be darn spooked if they started ramping up the Manifest Destiny rhetoric. To what extent would they be willing to go to to acquire resources to sustain the once cyclical engine?
Two wrongs don't make either right. Every criticism of China in the D&D is answered from the Asian side with "but you did it", "but your hypocrisy", "but you invaded Iraq". There is certainly no way rational Americans of the 21st century can return the continent back to the native American people. What were at best rationalized factions of native Americans without a common 'national' identity have been assimilated or confined to specific reservations. The reservation system is a travesty, a national embarrassment, but does offer a precious little bit of autonomy to the surviving descendants. Americans in the 19th century were avaricious and ethnocentric, and viewed themselves as chosen by their God to dominate this continent. Americans of the post WW2 era see themselves as the beacon of democracy, commerce, science and equality for all peoples. A flawed beacon, to be sure, many duplicitous and self serving in their intent and covert in their manipulation of other people. But no nation makes more of an effort to promote freedom for all the people of the world. We provide most of the funding for The United Nations, The Red Cross, The world Wildlife Fund, CARE, Doctors Without Borders, We bore the expense of countering the expansion of the Soviet autocracy, funding of the Aids Project in Africa etc etc. We developed much of what is Space Fight, commercial flight, the modern computer, the Internet, cutting edge medical science, the world energy supply. Now if you want to claim any of those qualities for China, go ahead. Are you avoricious or are you trying to promote the condition of mankind. (and I don't consider the imposition of order at the cost of personal freedom an improvement...by George Bush either) I guess the short version of what I want to say is that the difference is that I can say in this forum or the op/ed of the New York Times that Manifest destiny was wrong. Can any mainlanders post that the domination of Tibet is wrong without getting a visit from the thought police? I can research every point of view on Manifest Destiny with unfettered access. The Trail Of tears is no state secret. There is no nationly sanctioned point of view. All human endeavors are flawed. It's only through discussion, evaluation, reconsideration and re-direction that you advance your morality. If the state monopolizes information and opinion, no fair evaluations of it's actions are possible. You can't say whether they are just or unjust.
Difference is that while the US has used the territories gained by Manifest Destiny to enrich itself and make itself the most powerful country in the world, we are literally paying to keep Tibet's economy running. The railroad doesn't build itself. Tibetians do not have to live as slaves of the Dalai Lama anymore and they actually have the chance to sell stuff (there isn't much of it) outside of their own territory. They would have no tourist industry, which is their main industry nowadays, if it weren't for us.
I see your point. 2 wrongs don't make a right. However it's not entirely that simple, 1. Native Americans were treated A LOT worse by the US 2. The US AND China should both withdraw from occupied lands. China leaves Tibet. The US should at the very least leave a a few big states. 3. I don't think most of the pro-Chinese posters here are claiming some sort of moral superiority - only pointing out the perceived moral hypocrisy of others. 4. Tibet has been apart of the Middle Kingdom for long periods of time in history. So while the "you did it too" argument has its problems, one can understand why many Chinese might bristle and argue back when Westerners claim some sort of moral superiority. In the Chinese view, it is the same Westerners who forced the Opium trade and very nearly colonized China.
I think Langal said similar things to what I'm feeling. However, here's my view on the Tibet situation, there is absolutely zero chance that the PRC leaves Tibet, millitarily and economically, they're strong enough for people not to attack them head on. They have the power to push down any internal strie, not to mention the control of media which will help them control the minds a little more. There is also very strong pride and nationalism from the Chinese population. You have to understand, these are just people just 2-3 generations away from being oppressed by the Westerners/Japanese. Any attempt from the West to make the Chinese feel guilty or morally inferior will not work. It'd be like a white person telling the black communitty that there's major problems with it that needs to be solved. Any criticism, even if they're constructive is likely coming from the wrong source. With that being a given, my view has being what's the best course of action for China to take to improve lives of the Tibetans. I think the focus should not be "free Tibet", but rather "what can we ask China to do to improve Tibetan life".
So lets just wait to 200 years and let China and Chinese people evolve on their own. The Chinese history spans 5000+ years, 200 years is a blip in time. China's actually gone through some crap for the past 100+ years, and stabillity is just something they recently enjoyed (about 15+ years imo), and for the most part they've done wonders with it. I'd like to give the Chinese people the benefit of the doubt. You can't measure social progress in years, give them a couple of decades and see what they can do. I mean U.S. is one of the last major Western powers to re-nounce slavery, but I personally believe it's at the forefront inter - race relations right now. It took a civil war, but the U.S. sorted it self out. China needs to be given the same opportunity, or else any change will be short lived or feel coerced. Ill feelings wih only be hidden and at the end of the day, doesn't solve a damn thing.
Because it's not 200 years ago. All sorts of conduct that was acceptable, or at least inevitable, 200 years ago is no longer tolerated today. Wiping out indigenous cultures was Ok 200 years ago. Slavery was OK 200 years ago. Jim Crow laws were ok just 50 years ago, Concentration camps, Apartheid, etc - the list goes on and on and on. it's no longer acceptable, nor is china's 19th century style subjugation of Tibet.
Who says that Manifest Destiny stops at California? We're going worldwide baby -- China is set to be the 59th US state by 2062. We've already got Taiwan...
One of my points is that China is still evolving. Look at even 9/11, it changed "everything" and looked at how much liberty, privacy and equality the U.S. is willing to give up and alter because of it. But in reality that event is peanuts compared to the crap China went through to even get to be where it is today. Like children, some time you just gotta let it figure it self out. The modern China is still in its infancy in many ways. You gotta let it figure things out by itself. Overly dictating the situation will only it feel more threatened, controlled, and risk pushing it further away. Also, U.S. telling China what to do with Tibet is like a former coke head that still use weed recreationally telling a kid not to smoke cigs. The kid is not going to respond. I guess in a way, I agree with what you're saying. China is still a little behind, maybe not 2 centuries (China hasn't exactly genocided the Tibetans just yet), but definitely still growing. Heck, even 50 yrs ago, the U.S. was more than happy to throw Japanese Americans in to camps and half of Europe was gasing Jews. And these countries were the leaders of tbe world with at least some sembelance of stability for an extend period of time. China had just barely begun to claw it self of some really ****ty situation and is finally starting to become a world player only very recently. You can't hold it to the same standards as the western world just yet. Lets give it a chance to be more stable and evolve before too much involvement.
Really excellent post, Dubious. It's wasted on those it was aimed at, but excellent and on target, nonetheless. Impeach Bush. Send Him to Tibet to Sell Trinkets to Tourists.
It's a very pragmatic call, and one I highly doubt the West will willingly accept. Shoot...we jumped head first into the Balkan situation while brushing aside the fact that it was the stomping grounds for the last two World Wars. Noticeably silent in that EU recognition of Kosovo were states who have their own separatist difficulties: Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. I won't judge much in this topic about Chinese treatment of Tibetans but I find our current treatment of our Native Americans clearly lacking. Poor tribes stay poor. They lack the law enforcement authority to pursue roaming criminals and serial rapists within their jurisdiction while the Bureau of Indian Affairs and FBI twiddle their thumbs and drag their feet on the issue. We privatized their reservation lands in the 70s, which created a land grab for mineral corporations while the Indians saw no direct benefit. In that same era, we encouraged them to migrate into urban projects in order to promote assimilation, but left them with no skills training or overall follow through to survive in the city. Furthermore, in the poorer tribes, their tribal councils are cherry picked with government friendly figureheads whose interests have openly clashed with their traditional leaders. This is not the Noble Savage who has one upped the White Man with the sale of gambling and fire water. Like it or not, the Iraq disaster has caused a souring shift on our espoused principles of exporting democracy. I don't think China will become one anytime soon. Singapore has a planned economy. Japan relied heavily on the MITI model, and exported it to its neighbors S. Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines where they have enjoyed good gains with similar planned economies. Will there be at least a veneer of democracy in China like those listed countries? Possibly, but not immediately. Their overall base (though impressive in sheer number) isn't mature enough, nor is the infrastructure, and nor is there a pressing need to enact social reforms. In fact, we lost our moral authority, and without it it's harder to divide authoritarian nations to enact individual concessions. They're banding together and improving their networking to override our international institutions we ourselves had set up 60 years ago in order to check them. The next President has no easy task. There is no 8 year mulligan. He/She has a foreign diplomacy mountain to climb without the wealth of resources and institutions formerly at his disposal. I'm not sure many Americans understand that. I have a feeling both Dem candidates do, but I'm not optimistic in McCain's approach. Regardless, it's too early to decide without them giving more clues.
