they had really nice PR. basically painted a different image. now everyone thinks they are the good guys. but in reality, they represent the high class only.
China wont even show Pirates of the Caribbean... I seriously think that the genocide supporters should be banned from this site.
nobody is supporting genocide. the **** is wrong with you. i consider that statement a personal attack to some of the earlier posters. peace is always the way to go. besides, are you the one saying how US is all great? and now you are saying, some of the earlier posters shouldn't have the rights for freedom of speech?
Actually, how much money is poured into Tibet is probably not the best pure judgement. What I want to know is who is the PRIMARY benefeciary of the construction. The Panama Canal cost the U.S. a lot of money to make, but a the fruit went mostly to U.S. also, thus the protest and the eventual handover. So the same thing can a be asked about Tibet, are the heads of the tourism and trade industry (as well as all comparable senior positions) in Tibet held by Hans or Tibetans, I don't know and I'm here more to seek knowledge. What I'm trying to say is if an average Tibetan now have the means to open a small shop on the side of the road, sees the opening the supermarket next door by a Han and he sees little or no chance of doing that, then you have a problem. You mention test scores and I think that's a good start. I'm hoping that comaprable scholorships and stipens are gonna come with it (you can't just let them be in the college easier, but also offer the means to actually go to the college). Kind of like the affirmative action in the U.S., if .1% of aspiring Han youths can get into QinHua, atleast .5% of Tibetans need to be able to, and .2% would get a full ride (free tuition plus living expenses). Same thing for companies, atleast those in Tibet. The better positions and jobs need to have an accurate representation of the demographic break down with in the region. I.E. if Tibetans make up 50% of the population with in Tibet, then they need to (or have programs to actively get to) be at a point where they makeup 50% of the heads of the corporations/companies/etc. Personally, I think things like that will make the situation in Tibet smoother. I don't claim to know much about Tibet, so informations around economic/educational/social/financial break down of Tibet by Han and Tibetans would be great. I actually don't care much about editorials (from both sides), show me hard numbers.
Talking about me? I'm not saying free Tibet, I'm merely stating that a pragmatic approach calls for China to really improve the life of an average Tibetan (something atleast on the level, and possibly even more than the Affirmative Action in the U.S.).
1945, the population in Tibet was reported - by Kuomintang, current in Taiwan, not the Chinese Government, as 847,000. However, they didn't include part of Shinjiang, which according to Dalai Lama and his followers, part of Tibet. So let's include that, the number would be 1.3M. Now, after you so called "genocide", after years and years, the population of Tebetans in Tibet, is around 2.5M, which is a bit shy to 95% of the total population there. So please tell me, what kind of genocide, will almost double heir population??? And always remember, Tibetans never suffer from any "diseases" that will kill 90% of its people. And one plus to that, Dalai Lama accuses the Chinese Government for "culture genocide", and I'm not sure which part of culture he refers. The slavery or buddhism? Do your homework next time.
LOL, apparently for some people, freedom of speech only exists in catchy slogans. Speaking of "genocide", I see old Dalai is on CNN again mumbling about "cultural genocide" by the Chinese. He used to claim a real genocide in Tibet. Apparently that one didn't fly since the Tibetan population has actually grown two-fold since the 1950s, so now he has coined a new phrase, "cultural genocide". But what the heck is a "cultural genocide" anyway? If he means the traditonal Tibetan culture is being overwhelmed by the modern consumer culture, stuff like i-pods and PS3s, shouldn't he be blaming the West instead, who invented that culture? If he means the destruction of the old feudal lamaist theocratic society where 90% of the Tibetan population were serfs, I say Bravo China, keep up the "genocide"!
Unlike the civil unrests in other parts of China's rural areas, economic inequality is not the cause for recent riots in the Tibetan regions. Tibetans benefit far more from PRC's economic, educational, and social policies than minorities in the US from the Affirmative Actions. Do your research, kid.
why are western religious people all around the world trying to convert other people? isn't that "cultural genocide" as well? what about how some people say there are no women's rights in Islam? isn't that trying to change what other people believe? the point is, every culture needs to progress to stay in the game. you can't stay in the primitive stage. that's what the lamas are asking, to go back to the old days, where their people didn't have enough to eat.
Some posters seem to want to make this out to be a two option scenario - either become Han or live in the 12th Century. There are, in fact, other options. Nepal, for instance, was dirt poor and medieval in the 1940's. It would probably be a reasonable analog for Tibet. As it turns out, without the Chinese, they seem to be doing an acceptable job of evolving and keeping pace with the modern world all on their own, without China to 'help' them along. There is no reason to believe that Tibet, had it remained separate from China, would not have advanced of its own accord. In fact, to try and make the claim that they would revert to feudal times is more than a bit silly. And if you want to extend that logic elsewhere, it makes for compelling reasons for the USA to invade everywhere in the world, pour our money in, and bring them up to our standard of living. Clearly this is idiotic.
do you know the geography there? you do realize that, there is no way out, except from the east. there is no modernization there without the help from the east.
Nepal seems to have done alright without becoming part of India. Are you familiar with Nepal? How is that different? Also, China is to Nepal, as India is to Tibet (on the other side of the Himalayas) but China manages to have a significant trading and cultural relationship with Nepal through Tibet. If goods and culture can go over the mountians in one direction, they can go the other as well.
Reality is never that simple. Know why? Even if they say outright, "no money for ethnic Hans, only Tibetans," it would still depend upon whether ethnic Tibetans are motivated (among other things) to take advantage of the handouts. Furthermore, infrastructure developments, health care, better communication, etc benefits everybody, not just ethnic Hans. That line just won't fly. Ethnic Hans are on average, much wealthier and educated than ethnic Tibetans. The ethnic Tibetan may want to own a supermarket chain, but does not have the education, finances, connections and willingness to work hard to have the same. Those things go beyond preferential policies and won't fundamentally change no matter how favourable the policy and how much money is spent until years, perhaps decades from now. See above. It is precisely for this reason that I think Affirmative Action is one of the dumbest ideas out there. No offense or anything, I honestly think you are trying to be fair in your post, but I think that is misguided. What precisely makes the poor ethnic Tibetans, down and out on their luck, more entitled than poor ethnic Hans, down and out on their luck? Why should 0.5% of Tibetans enter Qinghua, 0.2% getting free rides when 0.1% ethnic Hans (the actual figure is actually lower) get to do so? The thing I see is that most people seem to deem fair as a (let's use a pension fund term) defined benefit plan. Doesn't matter what you put in, everybody gets the same. So if you are uneducated, poor and not willing to work, you get the same as someone who is educated, a bit wealtheir and willing to work? It of course, all depends on your definition of "fair" and there are arguments in favour of either, but I would argue the far more fair system is a defined contribution plan. Ethnic Tibetans already get preferential treatment, how much more are you willing to prop them up? When is it enough? Where does it end? When they have the same income and savings as ethnic Hans no matter what? Resentment goes both ways. If what you propose comes true, it will simply flip from one side to the other. Ethnic Hans will say, we work hard, we are better educated, but we get shafted. That is actually already true among a large group of ethnic Hans, due to what they see (rightfully) as preferential treatment. They think they are condemned to poverty while others at least get help. The other thing to note is that, numbers and stats are never a replacement for good judgment, as long as it is carried in a manner that minimizes bias.
What about Nepal? It was dirt poor and it still is dirt poor, with an occasional rebel attack here and there. Geopolitically, Nepal may also be much closer to China than to India.
The Independent nation of Taiwan is thriving without the support of China ~ Tibet is only being held back by so-called Chinese assistance. China wouldn't want it any other way.
The government of the province of Taiwan looted 90%+ of China's national savings when it fled. It was then a Cold War bastion, build up by the west, US and UK in particular. It is also in a strategic important location. None of which is true with regards to Tibet.
You have to also consider the large proprotion of Tibetans who are lamas, who are essentially non-productive members of society. Tibetans' deep religious beliefs also hinder their economic development. When a Chinese make some money, he would open a shop to make more money. When a Tibetan makes some money, he would make an offering to a temple to thank the Buddah. So it's no secret why Han Chinese always out-competes Tibetans. Heck, the Chinese are pretty much out-competing everybody in the world nowadays. And that breeds resentment. See the race riots targetting ethnic Chinese in Indonesia a few years back. The root cause behind what's happening in Tibet now is essentially no different.
Per capita income in Nepal is higher than in reported (wealthier city regions) of Tibet. Just a couple of hundred dollars difference, but its still there. Good point. Thus a free Tibet, on the other side of the Himalayas from India, could succeed without necessarily assimilating themselves into China. Thanks for helping me with my point about the supposed 'locked in' nature of Tibet having to deal only with China.
The province of Taiwan is also economically dependent upon Mainland China, and will be more so in the future.
