From we Chinese point of view, since Qin conquered other five kingdoms (221 BC) and unified China, separation and reunification are throughout our history. In this process, minority groups' culutre are assmilated by the culture of ethnic majoritry, the Han nationallity. During some reigns, the Han nationallity are under the rule of ethnic minority group, such as the case of Qing dynasty. However,the Han defeated the conquer, as far as culture is concerned. Because the Manchu ruler was forced to speak and write in Chinese and promote confucianism national wide, to make a better control over the Han. In this case, you see, the ruled Han nationallity end up assimilating the conquer or invader with Han's culture. I'm a Chinese and a member of Han nationallity. The point is about living standards of minority group in China rather than culture's surviving.
While Obama didn't meet with the Dalai Lama before his visit to the PRC he did say that the PRC should negotiate with the Dalai Lama during his visit in addition to stressing human rights for ethnic minorities. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33979715/ns/politics-white_house [rquoter] Obama also pointedly raised human rights, saying they are fundamental to all. ... At their joint appearance, Hu called on the U.S. to respect China's "core interests" — code for ending support for Taiwan and for the Dalai Lama, in his Tibetan government-in-exile. Obama obliged by saying Tibet was part of China. But he urged China to restart talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives — something Hu did not mention. [/rquoter]
Do the wishes of the minority not play a part? Can't they have both a good standard of living and their culture, and when their is a conflict between the two, they get to choose which wins out? I'm not trying to say your wrong, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.
Is that right? OK I'll play your game. Let's see, China has recognized the independence of Mongolia and the Koreas, not without some external pressure mind you, but it's not like the British Empire voluntarily gave up India, Hong Kong, portions of the Mid East now did they? In the case of the Northeast, comprised of modern day Helongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin, all three provinces voluntarily (i.e. in favour) of staying in China. If we are to cherrypick examples of such "acts of charity," there are plenty of examples abound. The funny thing is, I don't see China making the excuses. What I see however, is that certain other countries, not quite clean behind the ears, doing all the talking though. You know, I've seen you make the same ludicrous and tiresome argument over and over again. "The Dalai Lama is peaceful. He recognize that Tibet is a part of China and only wants autonomy. The CCP should negotiate with him." Let's start with the obvious myth, that Dalai is peaceful. You'll excuse me if I (or the Chinese government for that matter) base their judgment on his actions instead of his words. When citing peacefulness, are we referring to the same peace-loving slave owner whose institution led a CIA backed uprising that started in the 50's and continued into the mid-60's? Sure he's peaceful now. Because he has no bargaining chip, the CCP holds all the cards and presumably he would die some time in the next two decades in exile. That's like myself saying I won't fight my 6'9 250 lb built like a brick neighbour because after I've already gotten my head kicked in before because I am "peaceful and non-violent." At deviation from the sham "peacefulness" would place his on the list of terrorist organizations before you can count to 10 (not that certain organizations affiliated to him hasn't tried that approach). But sham peacefulness at least allows him to sell his book and keep getting money from idiots like Richard Gere. Then there is the issue of what's in it for the CCP? No reall, I'm curious to hear your opinion on this one. Just so they move from the current situation (where they hold all the cards) to meet at half way to Dalai's demands for "Greater Tibet" comprising of somewhere between a quarter to a third of all Chinese territory, that excludes all non-Tibetan Chinese (note I didn't say Han), presumably including the Qiang, which is ridiculously larger than any definition of Tibet from any self-respecting individual except aforementioned morons like Richard Gere. Once again, you'll excuse the CCP for not taking that claims of negotiation seriously. Dalai set a bar so ridiculous that any meaningful dialogue is impossible. In fact, viewed in that light, it appears the neither side actually wants to negotiate. The only problem is, due to tools like you, only the CCP is getting flak for it. Now you'll excuse me for a minute for noting your obvious contradiction of... yourself. I've heard all those Free Tibet yuppies (or anti-China pandits, whichever) all cry that Dalai is merely a spiritual leader, not a politician. Is that true or false? If it is NOT true and that Dalai is also a politician, what exactly make you or your kind think he and his ilk is so peaceful and spirititual, free of greed, loving, yada yada yada unlike any other politician? What makes you think it is him who's in the right and the CCP wrong. On what basis do you think it's better to take his side? IF it is true and indeed he is only a spiritual leader, allegedly is not and in the future, won't run for Tibetan leadership, why should the CCP be negotiating with him as supposed to somebody else, or not negotiating at all? If he's not a "leader," what business does he have with world leaders and going back to the current thread, why is is an obligation for Obama/Hu to meet him?
