A Tibet Thread

Apparently the CCP owes you some money after that post.

Because with the exception of the Sherpas living in Nepal in the Khumbu, as well as various Tibetan exiles seeking greener pastures and/or fleeing Chinese persecution and passing through on their way to India - they're geographically and culturally quite different.

 

No, he doesn't. Actually, I owe him certain degree of indebtedness, for he defended me in quite a few threads on Bush/Republican policy debate. That said, you don't speak an exemplary British Empire and an evil CCP regime in the same breath.

 

You know, this is one of the most difficult things about this debate is getting reliable information. It's impossible to trust the Chinese government for facts and figures because they have been known to flagrantly shade things in their favor (see, e.g., the official Tiananment Square death toll). However I get the feeling that some of the more vocal Tibetan exile groups do the same in order to counteract the propaganda coming out of Beijing, and are sometimes their own worst enemy

So let's take the uprising of 1958 & 59 - IIRC -the official PRC casualty figure of Tibetans killed (if there even is one) is absurdly small, something in the area of a few hundred to a thousand - while the Tibetan figures I've seen range from the low hundred thousands to over half a million.

Now, even if we were to split the difference and say the legitimate figures are around half both accounts, in the 75k-250k range - I still think that the number is conceptually closer to the Tibetan view insofar as it marks a long campaign of bloodshed rather than the official PRC view of it as a minor internal disturbance.

 

Sirshir Chang:

Excuse me to chip in my two cents:

I'm pretty sure you have not presented evidence against China's sovereignty over Tibet. Rather, from the material you presented, it shows Tibet was under great control of China in the Qing Dynasty, and had been acknowledging itself as part of China during the subsequent ROC era. Your tried to raise questions on those facts, saying you aren't sure about the representativeness of the Tibetan delegates, sorry, mere question marks are weak since it can be asked on anything. I can say I'm not sure of the representativeness of the delegates during the foundation of the U.S., and this doesn't have more power than your question.

Tibet's history proves that Tibet has a highly autonomous government. It also demonstrates China has been approving the head of that autonomous government for centuries. This is a demonstration of China's sovereignty over Tibet.

BTW, do you feel the need to be anti-China so that you can de-China yourself in a attempt to blend in the American mainstream? like "Ok China is where my family's from, but I'm an American with loyalty pledged to the Stars and Stripes, look, me stomping on China's national flag." I'm just curious. If that's not case, I'd have more respect for people like you.

 

I think these things are mostly a function of what you learned while you are growing up. What they teach you in China and what they teach you in the US are often totally different. I know this because I came to the US when I was in junior high school. We often form rigid ideal that are very hard to change, just look at the D&D forum for all the examples you need.

 

Like I've said, I was not interested in the number, and did not dwell upon them. My only question to you then was why stop at a particular bad period of time?

I don't know what do you mean by "oversawn". If it means "oversaw", then I've never said 14th Dalai oversaw a ROC comittee. what I said was that ROC had a commitee overseeing Tibet affairs, and the reincarcination of 14th Dalai was presided by ROC.

Dalai Lama was proclaimed the tulku (reincarnation) of the thirteenth Dalai Lama at the age of three. On November 17, 1950, at the age of fifteen, he was enthroned as Tibet's Head of State and most important political ruler.

In a debate, it helps to be precise and not adding things wasn't said. Otherwise, it's hard to get to the point.

What do you mean by "To a certain extent"? Do you mean "The current German government isn't bound by the treaty of Versailles " not by subsequent treaties and agreements? Or the current Iraqi government can renounce the debt unilaterally? If so, why does the US government organize international meeting TRYING to alleviate Iraq's debt burden?

Again, it helps to be precise, not make it murky.

Again, it would help if you can be precise. What treaity(ies) that was (were) signed but PRC or ROC nullified unilaterally? What do you mean by "came to agreement with the other party"? Like Japan's return of right to Taiwan to China? Oh, that's an international agreement.

I challenge you to come up with one, ONE exapmle. There is no murkiness about it, and it not "selective reading of history".

What's been negotiated after PLA (Partially) entered Tibet's east and north was how to govern and whether or not PLA should be allowed to enter Tibet. Sovereignty was never in question. Please note that PLA entered Tibet mainly not to change tibatan's way of life(that happed later), but to enforce the sovereignty.

However, What you advocate as a form of "one country two system" for Tibet is an interesting idea. I wouldn't be against it were we still at that juncture of history. And I do believe the original governing plan is somewhat like "one country two system". Things turned south in the CR. And at this point, it already doesn't make sense going back to that.

No, I've never said that. I was merely pointing out the difference in "facts", which I will entertain to debate, and your "personal views" which I won't choose to debate. Yes I do feel a bit ironic that you hold a view that countries have the right to choose how to govern, yet you started this whole Tibet thread (Nothing offending here). Tibet was a part of China after all, the evidence in support far exceeded the evident against it (mind you, you didn't provide any concrete evidence other than casting doubt).

Here's a "bottomline" quote from your earlier post: "The bottom line though is that the PRC government wasn't the historical T'ang or Yuan government so any treaty made then is questionable in regard to the PRC. Also at the time that the PRC took power from the KMT government the KMT didn't control Tibet either. So Tibet at the time had defacto independence or at the minimum was under British suzeriegnity since the 13th Dalai Lama had signed a treaty with the British."

The first two sentences are reputed. The last sentence "or at the minimum..", you have it backward (that treaty acknowleged Chinese suzeriegnity, let along 13th Dalai Lamma didn't have authority to sign such a thing).

Overall, as someone who produces peer refreed articles, I've long learned to be precise, not to put the words that others didn't say, not to overstate conclusion that my evidence can not support. I will urge you to do the same. The debate would be much more easier and meaningful that way.

 

That's how I see it. I just don't trust them one bit.

 

I find this statement totally bizarre. It exhibits a mania, or phobia, about any criticism of Chinese policies, from those overseas of Chinese dissent, that declares, "you are either with us or against us." If you take a position critical of China on this issue, no matter how it is presented, then you saying, "Ok China is where my family's from, but I'm an American with loyalty pledged to the Stars and Stripes, look, me stomping on China's national flag." Your own words, Panda. You can't imagine how foreign this is to most Americans, who may disagree with each other in the political sphere, argue and attack each other, but ultimately respect the right to do so. When I described trying to have a discussion with you as talking to a brick wall, this is the attitude I was referring to.

What is the point of having a discussion, if that is the response? Oh, examples will be presented of some of you being critical of some aspect of Chinese policy, but ultimately it boils down to what you posted, and one can't have a discussion with someone who assaults another in that fashion.

It's like trying to have a political "discussion" with Trader_J... he has no interest in discussing a topic, because he's busy either making a joke about it, or saying insulting, slanderous things about those one can only assume he disagrees with, although it is hard to tell, since he's so busy trying to be "amusing." I make the comparison only because it illustrates what I find true about both of you, that having a discussion with you is pointless.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Watch out SSChang:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-2-9/37956.html

I'll be honest I laughed when I saw his picture.

 

I believe Chang is called out as a banana. Some of you guys make him out to be Al Gore going to Saudia Arabia to criticize the US abuse of arabs. And that's a cheap shot.

 

Being Banana is inevitable for American Chinese because seriously how many people in US still consider themselves as Germans or Polish or British after three generations? The only reason for that is because so many (non Asian) Americans still treat Asian Americans as non Americans, so they do not have a true sense of belonging in the US.

 

Seriously Deckard, I'd like to see some contructive discussions. Panda's question, although I personally find a bit abtrusive, doesn't deserve your trashing of him (if it's from sisir himself, I can understand better).

First of all, it's not a statement. Panda was asking a (obtrusive) question he personally find curious. He didn't accuse him of doing so. Maybe he has had the experience of someone who's doing so? After all, there was murmuring of "how can you say...as a Chinese" -- as Sisir says himself. After all, "blending in" of Asian Americans is a issue in the States. It certainly doesn't help whenever some Chinese defends something about China, ethnic Chinese (real_egal) or Chinese citizen (panda), there are always responses like "why do you Chinese...sing the same tune...defensive...lock step" and "We Americans can criticize....all the time". Maybe, just maybe, he does sincerely feel the curiosity to ask that question, given teh background? Why do you quickly arrived at your conclusion and feel the need to attack his personality?

Secondly, almost all of the Chinese posters (panda included) in this thread agree to some part of Sisir's original post, refuting some parts, and leaving yet other parts to discussion -- if you actually read the posts. so I don't know where those "lock step" stuff comes from.

I would really urge more substential, actually discussions, and less personal attacks, like you put in your sig Keep D&D Civil.

Best.

 

This is an image of locked-heart that I took at altitute of 4860 meters along the Yunan/Tibet border last summer. Because of the constraint of time, I did not venture further to Tibet. I would like to do that this summer.

Maybe Sam if you keep a web-log of your trip, or some sort of that, I can check out and get some tips?

 

That's very amusing. My post is "trash," and Panda is just being a bit "obtrusive" with Sishir. Fine. You want a "discussion?" Have at it.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Sorry if you can't see the difference between "totally bizarre. It exhibits a mania, or phobia" and asking a question. What? You don't think "bizarre, mania, or phobia" is personal attack? Oh, and he engaged in the actually discussion, yours didn't. BTW, I didn't call your post "trash", what I mean is your "trashing" of him. Please note.

Frankly, I wasn't counting on a constructive post anyway.

Edit: and read the response from Chang who was actually directed of question. Amusing indeed.

 

Seriously, something I'd like to know -- a little disclosure. Anybody here, poster/lurker whatever, is a member of organizations such as "Friends of Tibet," on their mailing list, or subscribe to their newsletters? It helps me understand your position (an innocent but curious bystander, a "Tibetan Cause" sympathizer, a hardcore Dalai Lama follower, etc.) much better.