Note to USA: when you occupy a country and subjugate its people- backlash is inevitable. Remember that in the future.
Some of the news are from UK. Read it before you talk. I guess it doesn't matter. You already made your judgement anyway.
I did what you asked, and you move the goal posts. If I find the 'original chinese text' you will want to see a video of the words comming out of his mouth, and so on and so forth. Right? I'm not going to play that game. I did what you asked.
who is playing games here? just provide a source that's believable. only a dumb ass would believe on a line that someone wrote based on another language. unless it was originally English, otherwise, whatever can prove that's what's said would work. not a line from an article. i can say something like, 'it was reported that 123 innocent civilians were brutally murdered by the mob.' is anyone going to believe that? i hope you get the point. should be simple to comprehend. i wasn't being clear before, hopefully it's clear now. thanks.
Found this on a blog. Seems like a pretty good descrition of what's been going on in this thread. "An imaginary dialog between an American and a Chinese on Tibet: American: "Free Tibet! You Chinese need to get out of Tibet and leave the Tibetans alone! You need to treat them and their culture with respect!" Chinese: "You mean like you treated your black slaves and Native American Indians with respect?" American: "That was a long time ago. We don't do those things anymore. Everyone in America benefits from our American democracy now." Chinese: "Fine. We are at a different stage of development from you, as you know. You have already reaped the benefits of your extermination campaigns against the Native Americans and your cultural genocide and enslavement of the blacks. We won't go so far. We will simply overwhelm the Tibetans with our numbers. Then, in a generation or two, when Tibet does not exist any more, our grandchildren will write books about how sorry they are, all the while benefiting from the marginalization of the Tibetan people and culture, just like you do with the Native Americans. Perhaps when the Tibetans make up less than 1% of Tibet's population, we'll let them vote and tell them how lucky they are to have the 'freedom to vote'. We'll even let them make some money by opening up some casinos. What do you think of that?" American: "Dirty commie! Stop trying to brainwash me with your commie propaganda! Free Tibet! Dalai Lama forever!!!" "
Here is a funny reply on Latimes bbs to those who want to boycott chinese goods: "Method of boycott chinese products and make your self heard/see! everyone go out side and start a fire, first throw you China made Ipod(if you have one) and say Free Tibet! loudly. Then take of your china made clothings, including your china made undies and throw them into the fire. Yell Free Tibet again. go back home, and pickup your china made computer and throw it into fire and Yell Free Tibet! do the same thing for every china made product you have purchase over the years. after that your are China free .. keep walking around the fire and constantly yell "Free Tibet!" till the fire burns out. Guarentee exposer" Submitted by: boycott Chinese products 4:29 AM PDT, March 20, 2008
Does the Chinese govt and ppl in general still hold grudges against the Western-Euro powers for the near colonialization, forced opium trade, etc. ? If so - I would understand why they would tell the West to go eff themselves when someone like Pelosi starts making demands. I think that is a factor in all of this.
The problem with your comparison in regard to the Tibet and Iraq is that you are arguing on one had that that it is bad that Iraqis are dying in Iraq and laying at the feat of outsiders (US) which is a fair judgement but when you compare that to Tibet your argument seems to be that the Tibetans should be non-violent and surrender to the PRC. The problem with your argument is that to be logically equivalent you should be saying that either the insurgents in Iraq should surrender or laying the violence at the feet of the PRC. I don't want to see turmoil in China which is why I've continued to say, that it is in the PRC's own interests to negotiate with the Dalai Lama as he is offering them a lot for very little. I don't want to see millions die in any country but as a student of history I have a fair understanding of the strength of nationalism and can understand why people will want to fight and die for what they think is right. The mistake that I think the PRC and its supporters are making is the inability to look at this from any point but thier own. A strange situation considering that not that long ago it was the Chinese being brutalized by outsiders who themselves argued that might makes right and that the Chinese were weak, morally corrupt and so deserved being subjugated. Those arguments had no more sway on the Boxers and several other nationalist groups who were willing to take up arms to fight even though that meant that many Chinese would suffer too. The truth is that Nationalism is a very dangerous force but one that is almost universal and its a mistake to believe that others will simply lay down their identity even if it means great costs. The PRC and Tibet though have an incredibly rare opportunity to deal with a nationalist leader who is not only adverse to bloodshed but very willing to compromise. Instead of seeking that opportunity the PRC would rather embrace a single minded approach. As I posted in another thread the US government has gone a long way to try to rectify what happened to the Native Americans. It is recognized by most in the US (not everyone) that what was done to the Native Americans was wrong. Native American soveriegnity though very limited still gives them control over who can and cannot settle on Tribal land and non-interference in their religious and cultural practice. In fact having dealt with this in regard to architetural projects Native Americans can prevent impact on cultural sites even outside of recongized tribal land. So while what happened to the Native Americans will never be fully addressed steps are being made to remedy that. Considering that the PRC is communist in name only I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Yes, they do. It's beneath the surface (as compared to say the open hostility towards the Japanese), but it's there.
Yes the Dalai Lama has gone back and forth on the issue of independence vs. autonomy but the point is that he is now for autonomy. Consider that Arafat was for the destruction of all of Israel yet Rabin still negotiated with him. Or that Mandela at one point was for the violent overthrow of white South Africa. The point is what the Dalai Lama's position is now. http://www.newsweek.com/id/124365 [rquoter] (Newsweek) What more do you think the Chinese leadership wants you to do to prove your sincerity? Wen Jiabao wants you to accept two conditions—that you renounce Tibet's independence and renounce violence—before dialogue can take place. (Dalai Lama) Last year in Washington we had a meeting with some Chinese scholars, including some from mainland China, who asked me, "What guarantee is there that Tibet will not be separate from China ever [in the future]?" I told them that my statements won't help, my signature won't help. The real guarantee is that the Tibetan people should be satisfied. Eventually they should feel they would get greater benefit if they remain with China. Once that feeling develops, that will be the real guarantee that Tibet will forever remain part of the People's Republic of China.[/rqouter] If the PRC doesn't believe him then call his bluff and negotiate. If he backs down then the PRC is right but since the PRC isn't even bothering to negotiate it is they and not the Dalai Lama that appear to be the ones that are stubborn and unreasonable. As for what parts of the PRC are Tibet that is up to negotiation and is somewhat irrelevant since the Dalai Lama is willing to have overall PRC sovereignity. I would suggest you read up some more on the Dalai Lama if you still continue to believe the Dalai Lama wants to reimpose a theocractic government. I already posted this earlier in the thread but some would rather not read something that contradicts there views. http://www.tibet.com/DL/biography.html [rquoter] In 1963, His Holiness promulgated a democratic constitution, based on Buddhist principles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a model for a future free Tibet. Today, members of the Tibetan parliament are elected directly by the people. The members of the Tibetan Cabinet are elected by the parliament, making the Cabinet answerable to the Parliament. His Holiness has continuously emphasized the need to further democratise the Tibetan administration and has publicly declared that once Tibet regains her independence he will not hold political office. [/rquoter] As for your fears of Tibetan radicalization and adopting violent and terrorist ways, I think you will find the Chinese government and the Chinese people are made of tougher stuff than you think. In fact, if I put on my cynical hat, I think that's exactly what the Chinese government wants. The only thing Tibetan separatists have got going for them at the moment is this facade of non-violence and pacifism, which has successfully captured the popular imagination (and it is only an imagination) in the west. The adopting of violent and terrorist ways would be the beginning of the end of the "Free Tibet" movement.[/QUOTE] Has the ETIM been eradicated? Have the Israelis wiped out Hamas? The Russians have been much harder than perhaps any other country in the world in trying to wipe out the Chechens yet they haven't been able to either. In the Tibetan case it will be even harder to wipe out a dedicated insurgency as most of it is based in other countries where the PRC can't reach whereas the PRC has many economic and diplomatic interests throughout the World. Don't discount the power of a dedicated insurgency but my point has been all along that this can all be avoided through reasonable negotiations with a partner who has put non-violence as his primary principle.
So since Americans got the chance to exploit and exterminate the Native Americans and black Africans that makes it right for the Chinese to do the same to the Tibetans?
Whatever you write, there's always this gigantic assumption that Tibet isn't/wasn't part of China. This is what split views come down to.
nope. using the same logic, eventhough the Chinese got the chance to exploit and exterminate the Tibetans that does not make it right for the Tibetans to kill chinese people and set shops and banks on fire.
Rocketsjudoka is not making that argument. Perhaps you should talk to your fellow Han-Chinese who bring it up the 'American Indian extermination' justification for whatever Chinese do in Tibet.
I took a politics class last semester and IIRC China offered the Dalai Lama to be the spiritual leader of Tibet and resolve the issue peacefully. The Dalai Lama rejected it because he wanted to be both the spiritual and political leader of Tibet, although he did agree to oppose independence. So basically, the Dalai Lama wanted de-facto independence like Taiwan but with the continued economic and technological aid from the Chinese government. So offcourse China rejected it.
