Care to guess why one is called "The Invasion of Tibet," and another "The Louisiana Purchase?" Hint: one involves use of force. The other involved purchasing land. Can you see the difference? In fact, just name me one US State that was forced into the Union at the point of a barrel. I'm listening. And I'm not talking about the South post Civil War. I don't remember Tibet voting to join China, then seceding when they didn't like their elected President.
I like how you completely skip the entire thread simply to post that Obama is a "clown." This is a "Debate & Discussion" forum not a "I DUN LIEK TEH PRESIDENT SO I POAST HES A CLOWN" forum.
Seriously, this line of argument isn't a winner. The Confederacy is a perfect example of a legitimized American conquest. The idea that all those States took the extreme position of seceding from the country and fighting a war because they "didn't like the president" is a ridiculous straw man. The Civil War is an example of self-determination denied. Besides the Confederacy, it is glib of you to appeal to the legalistic manner in which the US turned territories into States by having the white people vote and completely ignore all the red people who were killed or subjugated to get access to the land to be voted into the Union. You also forget the Mexican-American War, which brought us much of the Western US. It's not like they sent pollsters to the Mexican missions and frontier towns to find out if California wanted to be a Mexican or an American territory. The Tibetan equivalent would be if, after the annexation, China flooded Tibet with Han Chinese and then let them all vote on whether Tibet should be part of China, with actual Tibetans grossly outnumbered by the Han. Oh wait, that's what is actually happening.
invasion? that's your point of view. it's really a liberation. their peasant class and slaves were finally freed. i don't see how is that wrong. their elite class wanted to keep the power. you shouldn't even associate freedom with them.
were you there when the lower class was liberated? they seemed happy back then. it's not like all of them are unhappy today. mostly monks and religious folks. those who made it, seem to be happy. those riots, are social economic related riots, not racial.
hm... do you really think that's what communism is about? if so, doesn't that match chinese culture perfectly? then why is everyone against communism in china then?
anyways, i just want to say that, the chinese government should improve freedom there. for all ethnic groups. and also provide equal opportinity to everyone. but it shouldn't be influenced by what dalai lama thinks or anybody else for that matter. they should already know that rule by force will not keep them in power. and i do see improvements. so at least that's a good thing.
There are many examples through US history of conquest where I disapproved of the USA's actions. Unlike some posters here, I don't reflexively defend a country based on whether I hail from there. For example, I can completely understand why the citizens of the Philippines resisted territorial status. They also won their freedom. Like the US itself, Mexico, Scotland, Ireland, India..... I like when countries gain self rule. It's a little odd that you are condemning the US for removing Native American right to sovereignty in the West but blithely dismiss the citizens of Confederate States that didn't want to secede to preserve slavery -- you know, the slaves. And they weren't so subtle as the US was either. They didn't bother with migration. They just didn't let them vote. If it makes you feel better, I also disapprove of the way the US treated the Native Americans, and I think that is a very apt parallel to China's treatment of Tibetans. I'm sure there were plenty of enlightened white dudes sitting around saying that the Indians "peasant class and slaves were finally freed. i don't see how is that wrong." However, I'm not going to defend scurrilous acts today with the lame rejoinder of "well, someone else did it two centuries ago."
I don't think everyone in China is against Communism. I think Tibetans want to be an independent people. I support them.
sure, that's fine. but people outside of china are mostly offsprings of upper class plus some refugees. so it's very biased. i wouldn't be surprised if there is a big chunk of them within china would prefer to stay with china. especially if they understand that they really depend on china for their everything other than religion considering their geographic location. it's better to ask china to narrow the gap between the rich and poor than independence. what's good about independce if china gets pissed off and decides to cut off their supply on everything? i understand their wishes and i hope things improve for everyone in china. but it takes time.
You'll understand where i'm coming from when Obama takes your land and children to pay for his socialist agenda.
i think you missed that meeting. i'll catch you up after i finish rounding up some christians to throw into the camps. gotta meet that quota!
Some of you may think that KC is joking around with his over-the-top responses in this thread, but I know for a fact that he is TOTALLY SERIOUS.
A simple "sorry, you're right" would have sufficed. I know you're fighting a battle on several fronts here but, for my part, I'm not arguing one way or another on Tibet. I was just objecting to the argument that China is engaged in a conquest that is different from that of the USA. The US, in various ways, has conquered native americans, blacks, hispanics, and many peoples the world over. I'm not saying these actions by either country are right or wrong, merely equivalent. But, you used a couple of posts to argue this point that the annexation of Tibet was more outrageous than anything that has happened in US history. The arguments was never that the conquest of Tibet was okay because we did it ourselves 200 years ago; meh was saying it is essential in nation-building in all countries, and to reverse it all would splinter all the nations on earth.
What if I don't think you were entirely right? Like I said, I agree with your comparison between the US treatment of Native Americans and China's of Tibetans. I do not agree with your statement that "The Civil War is an example of self-determination denied." As I said, there were millions of Confederates who had no choice in determining their leader, and who very likely would not have chosen to secede and fight a Civil War over their peculiar economic institution. Particularly when you are using displaced Indians without suffrage to make your point wrt US atrocity in the past. As you said, a simple "I'm sorry, you were right" would have sufficed. Or we can do what people on MB's do and discuss an issue. I have no problem with keeping away from personal attacks and staying within the bounds of discussing an issue. But please don't ask me to truncate my points against yours and choose to ignore my rebuttals.
Sorry, I neglected a . I meant no offense. You're right that slaves weren't given a say in their national self-determination, but that only strengthens my argument. The South seceded without asking the blacks what they wanted; the Union forced the South to come back without asking blacks or whites what they wanted. Since then, it's all blown over and most Southerners, black and white, are proud to be Americans. What's the lesson here? We kidnapped Africans, conquered native Americans, stole land from the Mexicans, and fought with each other -- all lamentable, but we built a great nation from it all. That doesn't justify invading Tibet, but it gets hard for me to moralize in these arenas dominated by realpolitik.
Maybe it's naive of me, but I don't have a problem with people ignoring the realpolitik when it is contemporaneous. It's easy to condemn what we did to the Indians today. The ones standing up at the time to condemn it deserve applause though. So do those who are willing to do so wrt Chinese (or American or any other country) today.
What if those who opposed conquest of the Americas (whoever that might have been) won that argument? Where would we be today? It's almost too unrealistic to consider. There would have been no USA or these other countries. Maybe the Sioux would have eventually built a great nation here -- but only by conquering the Cherokees, Apaches, etc. The genocide of indigenous peoples was an atrocity, but I don't see any other way around it. We could have been kinder about it, but the genetic dilution, the loss of culture and language, and so on is completely unavoidable. It is the nature of mankind to conquer on the one hand and assimilate on the other. I don't think the case of Tibet is so extreme. They aren't the ripe fruit the Americas were, tempting the conquistadors. Tibet could be functional as an independent country competing in the world market, though I bet they'd be less well off, given their geographic disadvantages. In the end, I don't see my personal interest here. Why is Tibet's self-determination more important to me than Chechnya's or Kurdistan's or Palestine's, especially when I think Tibetans' self-interest is best served by submitting to Chinese power? I can't moralize and say everyone's self-determination should be protected because so many nations would just distintegrate to dust. So, I'll let the ones that are able to insist to do so. If Tibet becomes independent or doesn't, that's fine. I don't see how the US benefits from helping it to become so.
