Two things I think that to some degree one has to account for the Shinto religion, and it's tenets when describing the odd behavior of the Japaneese relating to the war and Hirohito. It doesn't excuse it, but it should help explain it enough so that you understand that they aren't some kind of monsters inherently. There are, for instance, many Japanese who hate the US and protest their use of atomic weapons in WWII. I don't agree, but I do understand why they feel that way. This leads me to my second point, one which I find mildly worisome, but it may just be the stupid American in me: I get the feeling that for whatever reason, whether manufactured or natural, the primary value of society seems to be national unity. I hear it expressed all the time on various radio programs both from and about China, and while the degrees of civility vary from discussion to discussion the important points always are in line. It's like in those movies where they go to trial and everybody says the exact same think, so the DA knows they've rehearsed beforehand. It creeps me out. Of course there are differences, but only on minor, unimportant subjects like basketball, or when Chinese people express rivalry with other parts of the country. MFW2310, I don't mean to be be rude to you, so I apologize in advance, but I'm amazed, reading the last few pages, that you could be the same person I was communicating with earlier. I hope you can understand why, perhaps due to the multicultural nature of the US, people are terribly upset when you use the phrasing that you did. When people in the US used to say things like that people were considered as and treated as less than human. There is a good deal of Han homogeny in China, and so you might not be as sensitive the concept, becuase you haven't dealt with it. "Semi-jap" b*stard is genetic. If someone is inherantly inferior because of their genetics, the natural thing to do is treat them as sub-human, and the memory of that is fresh in our minds from our own problems. I am reminded of the way that the Spanish football coach reacted recently regarding his racist remarks. Would you at least agree that Japanese people are just as much human as yourself and more or less equal in terms of the quality of their intelegence, health, and ability to feel emotions and such and are, just a product of different upbringing and different culture? To the American, your statement implies the answer is no, but you seem more rational than that. There also is probably some difficulty here in that "Jap" culture and race are combined. Redneck KKK is something you become. Japanese is something (in the way we interpret) a product of being born. I, too, am afraid of certan old-school elements of Japenese culture, more afraid than anything else in the world. I specifically speak of Hiro Onoda and the philosophies he is a hero for. I also recognise that there are many Japanese people who find him as repugnant as I do, and that the culture of Japan changes and has changed, for the most part, away from that school of thought.
Oh really? Who was the head of state? The freaking Qing dynasty? Considering that they were driven out of Tibet earlier I don't quite think they count. The Chinese Communist party? The KMT? Sir Frances Younghusband? That's an absurd catch 22 and you know it. International law is stuff like the Geneva Convention, the Warsaw convention, the UN Security council charter. International law is not dredging up ambiguous 1000 year old treaties between monarchs that no longer exist and using them as a pretext to justify armed invasion in 1950. Every time you do it it just weakens your case. It's really crazy - I mean just imagine for a second that Great Britain invaded western France at some point in the 1950's, stating that since William the Conqueror was a Norman, (and since the head of state is still the royals, technically), and because Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry way back when,and since they occupied it for a few hundred years, it's still theirs. That would be completely absurd, and I just can't imagine it ever happening. IT's another catch 22 when you say that TIbet should bring it up before the UN - but FYI Tibet has passed at least 3 resolutions that I know of - and the Chinese have avoided censure, barely, by politicking the UN HRC a few times in the last decade Most Tibetans care more about having a TV or food or whatever than to be a cause celebre for Richard Gere, true. However they DO want the DL back - that much is obvious if you ever go there or speak to any Tiibetans, if only because the Chinese have tried so rigorously to suppress him.. Religion is too powerful a part of their life for them not to want him back. Go to a Tibetan school and see how many kids are named "Tenzing" - Guess who's name that is? It ain't cause of Tenzing Norgay, that's for sure. That is true from what I have heard and seen. Ethnic chiinese get tax breaks and lower fees for such things as drivers licenses etc and it makes it very difficult for the Tibetans to compete economically, and they are already becoming a minority. Once the railroad gets built - it will be even more difficult. It is not about freeing Tibet anymore really- it's obvious that that's not going to happen in anybody's lifetime. But the Tibetan way of life is worth preserving and the PRC government seems to be doiing what it can to prevent that from happening, which is the real tragedy (not to marginalize the other tragedy of Tibetan dissidents killed/imprisoned by the Govt- that is not cool either.)
Ottomaton, thank you for your well founded criticism. Let me say that I am truly ashamed of my childish behaviour. I hope it doesn't negatively affect your opinion of certain ethnicity. However, I feel that I should say that you (as several others here) have misunderstood part of my posts. It could be due to my terrible English (not being inconceivable, it's my 4th language, good at none of them). So let me rephrase what I was saying. My opinions of the Japanese are generally negative (it's hard you know). Trying my best to change that, as I'm sure are a great many people in many countries. Nevertheless, I do realize that if this miserable little planet is to ever live the peaceful existence that I'm sure we've all dreamed of, those people would have to move on. Yet everytime any appreciable progress is made, guess what, Japan comes out and kicks everybody in the teeth. You have Koizumi visits that infamous Yasukuni Shrine. Or the mayor of Tokyo coming up with the latest of his hundreds of (let's just say) insensitive remarks. Or rewriting history. And right now, you have the Japanese arguing over territory with China, Korea and Russia, all at the same time. Things like that makes it hard for others to look beyond their past transgressions. Here I feel I should make the distinction. I am in no way, shape or form linking those lowlife scumbags with all Japanese. I felt that I made the distinction clear, but I guess not. As for the "semi Jap b*stard" remark, as I mentioned to Sishir, it is bad taste on my part and I will refrain from using it in the future. However, that term (which I will not mention again) indicates that I am merely referring to those scumbags instead of the entire Japanese populace. After all, how much could the average Japanese person know about his or her past when being brainwashed for decades by a "different version of history." As I've mentioned, it is difficult not to associate the Japanese with the sum of all evils, which I'm sure you'd find is quite common in a good 1/3 of Asia, I am happy to report that progress is being made. My problem is with those hateful TIers, who defend those Japanese hardliner scumbags and Class A warcriminals when anybody with any conscience would have done otherwise. And what gain do they have to show for it? Absolutely nothing. I am sure glad that they are willing to piss off the rest of the world just to satisfy some scumbags, who will no doubt be further encouraged by such support. With emotions already running high from that, then what happens? I get accused of being a racist and bigot from those that have not bothered to read my posts as carefully as you have. That caused me to become venomous and hateful, which once again, I am ashamed of. So please once again accept my apologies. But I feel this point is worth repeating: I, in no way, intended to generalize the actions of a few across an entire race. Hope that clarifies things a little for you.
Questions: 1. Is it just Hirohito (or is he ever there?) in the Shrine? 2. The same can be said that to some degree one has to account for the (twisted) Muslim religion about 9/11. Does it make anyone feel differently? Or can the states(hypothetically) harbor terrorists hide under religious masks? Say some country enshrined those in 9/11 as martyr along with traditional true martyrs, saying "what happened in the US on 9/11 is really tragic, but it's necessary for the indenpence of [insert name] nation and prosper of the whole muslin world." I wonder what everyone on this site feels.
Admire SamFisher's history and geographical knowledge. However, About equal opportunity for Tibetans, your information source may not be very accurate. China has its own version of affirmative action. For example, minority students automatically get 20 points credit for the college entrance examination test. Minorities also have more chances for promotion when working in government agencies or public enterprises. Moreover, all Han provinces are required by the central government to support minority provinces like Tibet, often through free goods and training. PRC has done both good and bad things to Tibet. Unfortunately, PRC media always boasts good things while Western media always critisizes bad things. I think that as long as Tibetans agree to be part of PRC, the central government will try their best to bribe them.
That is equivalent of saying that, if you sell your car legally to me and wants it back, I am obligated to give it back to you at a time of your choosing. The 5th Dalai gave up something that was his. The 13th wanted back something he doesn't own. It's also funny that you use international law to your convenience. The same people that argue international law is meaningless nevertheless use international law to their advantage when arguing Israel's right to exist. Or how they say Iraq under Saddam was violating the Oil for Food program because it violates UN resolution (and hence international law) while later giving it no thought when invading a soverign nation. Guess what, you can't have it both ways. Tell me that aside from international law, how the hell else are you gonna determine where borders exist today. I'm sure the Chinese would love to have the Russian Far East back. Why the hell not? It's not like (without international law and treaties) that any borders mean anything. And I don't even want to guess what Europe looks like today without international law, and with everybody making competing claims. Um yeah, 3% of Tibetan passed resolutions that spoke for 100% of Tibetans. Real nice. And you don't know what you are talking about. What tax breaks? You do know that ethnic minorities get far better benefits right? They can have twice as many children than an ethnic Han, get almost twice as much social securites/retirement benefits and are first in line for public/government jobs. So if you are ethnic Han, very well qualified too, you wouldn't be first considered. Sorry buddy, you'll just have to wait until after the Tibetans, Dai, Yi and any of the other 52. Mind you, I'm not saying that the situation is perfect and I'm sure that in some ares, bias exist (how could it not), and definitely the government can do more to help them, but there is no need to paint everything black. China is now going towards a market economy. And one of the downsides of being a market economy is that somebody gets left behind. The Tibetans are essentially in the same boat as poor people anywhere from BeiDaHuang in the NE to the mountain areas of Sichuan. I'm sure those people there feel they are getting screwed too. So this is a social problem, nothing more. But the fact that they are getting left behind isn't simply that they are Tibetans, the image some western media seem to love to portray. If you are fair you'd be guessing that maybe it's rather their lower average education level.
I don't check on this thread and it really gets out of hand. This debate really shows how unfortunate the draw of history can become a real negative. I've often taken people in the BBS to task for downplaying use of the term 'Chinaman' because they don't understand the history behind it. In the same way for societies like the Chinese that looks back as much as it does forward history plays a very strong role and often not a positive role. In regard to the Japan issue it is difficult for people whose countries didn't live under the yoke of the Japanese Empire to understand the hate that is felt towards Japan. WWII Japan in terms of sheer numbers of victims and barbarity was far greater than what the Nazis did. (I would recommend reading the the late Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking to get a sense of that) To compound problems the Japanese have continuously tiptoed around an apology, have a shrine that honors wartime leaders and even now right wing politicians in Japan continue to deny that Japan ever did anything wrong. Why Japan hasn't faced up to what they did has a lot to do with their own internal politics, moral cover due to the atomic bombing and also because the US and the Western powers gave them a pass unlike Germany. That still doesn't change that the term "Jap" is an offensive and racist term that even if it is directed at only a few still ends up tarring the whole. It is no more precise than if a non-Chinese were to use the term 'Chink' and then said, "well I wasn't talking about all Chinese just the bad ones. Its even more disturbing that it has been used in this debate to tar other ethnic Chinese who you don't agree with politically. Further as a slander it is off base. While there are a few Taiwanese radicals who have been apologists, even supporters of Japanese rightists because they believe that will help their cause, those people are an extreme minority and by far most Taiwanese of both sides are consistent in demanding that Japan apologize for its wartime attrocities. To bash the Taiwanese Independence movement in this way IMO is a cheap shot as much as it is to bash the pro-unification side by saying that they want to revive the Culture Revolution. On the subject of the issue of unity. Throughout Chinese history the greatest fear has been disunity and the events of the last 150 years in China have reinforced that belief. The carving up of the country in the late 19th Century by colonial powers followed by chaos and anarchy in the midst of the fall of the Qing and worst of all the bloody invasion of China by Japan. A country that through most of Chinese history had been considered a satellite state. All of these events have given the Chinese something akin to Manifest Destiny to return China to being not just a great power but to the extent of the greatest dynasties. That outsiders have championed the cause of Tibetan or Taiwanese independence is seen as just another attempt in a long line of foreign powers seeking to keep China divided and weak. It also explains why the people like the Dalai Lama and Chen Tsui-Bien are so hated. They are splittest who have not only sought to break apart China but also traitors who have consorted with foreign enemies of the Middle Kingdom. So while deep history and culture are great strengths of the Chinese IMO they are also a weakness because they preserve old hatreds, fears and ambitions. Its something that's hard for Americans with our short 200+ year history to understand, even a Chinese American.
MFW, this pathetically awful legalistic argument you bring up, while suitable for a caracaturish mandarin spinning red tape, just continues to hurt your cause. But if you want to get into past legal obligations, the Chinese are of course legally obligated to all sorts of conduct with regard to the post-Opium wars treaties. And, by your own silly logic, since past generations are able to exert dead hand control irrevocably, I would like for you to prepare a docking slip for my sailing ship in Guangzhou harbor. (mind you this is an actual treaty, not just the 5th Dalai Lama asking for protection) Oh, and also did you know that the Chinese are legally obligated to purchase the unwanted horse stock of the Uighurs annually, at an exorbitant price (payable in bolts of silk) to be determined by the Uighur king? Yup, better start weaving. In the same way of course the French did not ever legally take back Aquitaine and Normandy. Why don't you address this example? Does it make you feel silly? It should. Also please tell me, if only 3% of Tibetans supported independence, why did the PLA invade with 100,000? And does that number count the 50,000 plus Tibetans who were killed in the uprising of 1959? They should just have a popular referendum and see -- right? Yes, I know ethnic minorities get certain perks (two children - though if you've ever visited some of those regions, you'd quickly realize from the abundance of children that even that rule is disregarded). They don't compare, however, to the rows and rows and rows of cinder block buildings that the government builds for Chinese settlers, nor are they going to make much difference when the government expropriates their land to build such gorgeous things. BUt anyway, I'll ask you to take a walk in downtown Lhasa, or Shigatse or Tsetang and see for yourself - if you see any Tibetan shopkeepers that have just moved in, you let me know. But anyway, hey, if Tibetans are such a burden on the PRC because they are poor, backwards & uneducated - why doesn't the PRC just let them go? It can keep a few bases around, just like Russia kept some bases in the old republics. Imperial powers have to let things go sometimes. The US doesn't control the Phillipines anymore, or Cuba - hell we even let Puerto Ricans have referendums to choose whether or not ehy want to be independent. "Losing face"? is that it? Well those are the breaks I guess.
Gee Sam, did you see the Brits, Americans or anybody else take up the post-Opium treaties? They certainly could. Nobody told them not to. And they certainly can make a case for it. But last time I checked, nobody is taking up that offer. And also Sam, I'd think the amount of money the CCP is currently spending in Xinjian far exceeds the price of bolts of silk. I think in this age of (relatively) mass produced silk, that can be arranged. If you and the rest of your kind are willing to lower that amount, I'm sure the CCP, being the oppressive regime that it is, would love to do it. Mind you, the Uighers would suffer, but that's what you wanted isn't it? I would love to see where you got the 50,000 dead from. And also Sam, concensus done by the Tibetans show that the population of Tibet at the time was about 1.55 - 1.6 million. Guess what, 3% of Tibetans just happens to be about that amount. But OK, let's assume that the actual support of the rebellion was actually 10%, well guess what, if it was, I think the PLA contingent in Tibet at the time would have soon found that they are rapidly running out of men. So at best you can say is that 10% of the population at the time supports independence, and even that's stretching it. Of course, that's completely disregarding possible changes to that number from then til now. And also Sam, last time I checked, I wasn't the one that claimed Tibet was a burden to China. Last time I checked, I also didn't paint the picture in Tibet as being all rosy. Last time I checked, I wasn't even the one that brought up living conditions in Tibet. If I remember correctly, you were the one that painted the initial bleak picture, and hence starting the argument in the first place. On the other hand, I think the Chinese knows to take the good and the bad when it comes to Tibet. But since you brought it up, those Han shopkeepers in, gee I don't know, could it be possible that they actually paid $$$ (as in rent, mortgage payments, etc) to get in the offices legally? It is unfortunate that the majority of Tibetans live in relative poverty and that situation is not going to change overnight, but it is ridiculous to suggest that the Chinese are not doing something about it so it improves, if only slightly, in the future. Certainly, some corrupt Commie officials did their part, but last time I checked, not every Chinese official is corrupt (I know, perish the thought). At the worst they can say is that now the Tibetans have (other than a small minority) food, housing, running water, electricity, can get education if they choose, can choose who they marry and not 10 - 15% of them being slaves and the rest being serfs as was the case in 1959. It's easy for everyone to argue they can do better, but I didn't see anybody coming up with plans do to anything about it. And Sam, once again I pose to you the question, what makes the relative poverty of the Tibetans compared to the national average solely a Tibetan phenomenon? What makes them fundamentally different than those poor farmers in the mountainous areas of Sichuan. I'm sure the Beijing and Shanghai contingent in the CCP are racially biased towards them because they are Sichuanese right?
Sorry, got to jump in here... Iris Chang's book is probably not the a book I'd recommend to learn about the Nanjing Massacre... maybe alright to approach current popular imaginings/memory of the events... but all in all, a very one-sided and not all that accurate account. A better read would be The Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography edited by Fogel and Maier.
But you maintain that it is their legal right to do so if they wanted? You have to, according to your logic. Very well then. Like I said, prepare my docking slip for my steamboat. Well the Free Tibet crowd claims over 100 k dead, the chinese claim less than a 1000, which I guess is by the Tienamen Square method of casualty counting, lol, so I split the difference. I take it you're now justifying the extermination of tens of thousands of Tibetans? Wonderful. Hey, by the way, the Vietnamese loved the US. We only killled you know, less than a million, and there's way more than a million Vietnamese. Therefore, they are mostly with us... Anyway let's have a referendum and see how Tibetans feel. I know a bunch who feel differently. And the price of development is to be crowded out and absorbed. This is a hefty price to pay - I wonder what the Tibetans would think about it. I don't think the PLA had to invade Sichuan in 1950, nor were thousands of Sichuans killed since, nor are Sichuan dissidents kept in jail, nor were a bunch of Sichuans massacred in 1995, etc etc etc. Of course, they don't have the shiny fig leaf of Princess Wengchen's 641 betrothal either, ha.
If you ask those shopkeepers where they are from, the prodominant answers might be Zhejiang, Guangdong or Fujian. It happens to other inner Han provinces too. Just like those Hans in inner provinces, Tibetans don't have a business culture. People from Wenzhou, Zhejiang are especially known for their shrewdness. They are doing business everythere, including the Unite States. They are the "Jews" among the Han people. The living standard of Wenzhou people is probably better than those middle-class in the US. For example, my Wenzhou classmate has an annual income is $60K, which might worth $200K in the US. As a province, Tibet is poor. The reason is not different from those inner Han provinces. Bad location with much worse communication (that's why the railroad would help), No business culture. No big foreign or internal investment (it would be even worse if you let those shopkeepers go). Education helps, but is definitely not enough. A lot of successful Zhejiang businessmen only have elementary school education. On the other hand, at the individual level, Tibetans are not that poor. They are probably richer those Hans in inner provinces. They donate most of their income to Temples rather than invest on a store in Lhasa. Can PRC force them to do business? Well, PRC is supposed by Westerners to preserve Tibetans' way of living.
It's not that hard to enter the shopkeeper business. Gee, you only need to pay the rent and startup fund. If you couldnt afford the fee in Lhasa, try some towns first and after earning enough money, move to Lhasa. That's the same way those big city shopkeepers go through. If Tibetans can save 50% of the money donated to Lhasa temples, they will be able to start a small store in their hometown.
issue of dillemma b/w developemnt and conservation is not unique to Tibet. It's the same to all underdevelopemnt aeas, being republic Bannana or Republic Kalifornia. As to the lack of Tibetians in shopkeeper business, I'm sure they are waiting for their own white-rapper. Oh, wait, wasn't the richest business person in the whole west region used to be a Tibetian woman? Actually they do, in 1949. Being not the governing power at that point, they had to "invade" SC as well if that's the word you want. Compared to the casualties in SC, casualty in Tibet was relatively small, and process relative peaceful as PLA inserted power into corners of China. If there were SC dissidents, you bet they would be equally in jail.
Look, the issue of economic development is a separate issue from the invasion issue that people in Tibet would face if it was independent or not. That said, the PRC's current approach is to subsidize it heavily and move in Hans by the truckload. There are a few perks that the Tibetans get as minorities such as the children things, but the Chinese have erected certain barriers, both official and unofficial, that tilt in favor of the chinese. I know for a fact that it is more expensive for a Tibetan to get a driver's license than a Chinese. I know for a fact that Tibetans aren't allowed to have a passport and travel abroad. I know for a fact that Tibetans can't get jobs with Han chinese owned businesses if they can't speak chinese. These types of things are important to Tibetans, and on a daily basis, more important than Richard Gere. snowmt: since the Chinese government closely supervises many of the monasteries anyway (at most monasteries, you'll see a picture of the military or police official who is in charge) then why don't they just take the money and redistribute it? michecon: Fine, then tell me the details of the Chinese invasion of Sichuan and the subsequent suppression of revolts & dissidents. If you're referring to the PLA vs. the KMT then I guess it is a rehash of the Taiwan arguments about which the Chinse case is a little stronger, unlike the silly case they try to make about Tibet.
You know Sam, you always seem to use only one criteria to your advantage. Remember I said legal and historial justifications. Yet repeatedly in your previous posts you chose to use only one half of that. Does the UN or any other international legal entity recognize the terms of the treaty under after the Opium War the same way they recognize China's legal claim over Tibet? The first time you do it I assumed that you merely forgot, the second time, the third time, etc. But when you repeatedly ignore one half of the equation I really have to question your motives. If you feel you are shafted under the terms of that treaty, you are welcome to file a grievance with the proper authorities. And how did I justify the massacre of Tibetans? Honestly, tell me how. Last time I checked I quoted the number to support the fact that Tibetan independence movement is not nearly as popular as some leads us to believe. Not to mention you conveniently assumed that those Tibetans killed are just poor peasants fighting for their freedom instead of slave owners fighting so they can stay slave owners. In other words, the PLA was not committing atrocities but putting down a rebellion. I think both groups exist but hardly as simplistic as you put it. I wonder what the Native Americans would think in regards to crowding out and absorbed. The US and Britain telling China about its issues in Tibet is akin to Bob telling Joe not to steal and rob when Bob himself is taking everything from bank vaults to old lil' ladies' purses. Did you bother checking behind your own ears before you hurled your rhetorics the other way? Not to mention that in this case the Han has the much larger population and the dominant culture. I just love how instead of just the good ole cultural diffusion that has existed through out time (which caused the Chinese culture, as strong as it was, to change), you assumed that there is some sinister plot to wipe out the Tibetan populace. Last time I checked, the Tibetans are entitled to their own language and heritage in school. Mind you, I assume some corrupt Commie official (maybe quite a few) has his own agenda, but only you would use those instances and draw it across the board. I certainly hope that the government is doing more to preserve their culture. I've met any Tibetans, beatiful voices... Once again, by using the term "invasion," you assume that Tibet was independent, which it was not. I wonder how the South felt when the "Yanks" invaded and told them that they can't have slaves (actually, that's what the PLA told the Dalai Lama), can't have their way of life, declare martial law, etc. And what's that you say, the south doesn't today dissent to the "Yankee invasion?" Well you don't have to worry about that do you? After all, "crowding and absorbing" the Tibetans as they are doing today, in about 100 years I can assure you that there wouldn't be any Tibetan dissent to speak off. I also wonder what all you champions of human rights have to say about Tibetan serfs and slaves getting their knees slashed out after trying to run away from their miserable life under the theocracy. Well, if an ethnic Han did it and ran to China, you'd probably call him a refugee or human rights activist. When the Tibetans did it in the 50's you fell deafeningly silent. It's funny (not really at all actually) that during the worst times of the oppressive Commie rule, China (from a human rights stand point) was still at worst on par with Tibet in the 50's. Pretty much tanks your argument doesn't it?
Tibetan schools teach in both languages. So unless you are never in school, you should be able to speak some Chinese. I don't know about the higher driver license fees. I guess it may because of the execution of local government, sometimes against the policy of the central government. But that is true for all local governments in China. Have you ever talked to those Han people in Tibet? They have way more complaints than those Tibetans. The public enterprises are required by law to recruit eligible Tibetans before Hans, while the private companies have their own policy. It's understandable those private entreprenaurs want Han people rather than Tibetans. Unfortunately, the public enterprises are at all-time low while the private sector is booming. There are a lot of racial and sexual discriminations in private companies who want people to produce. Right now the government has a very capitalist-friendly policy but in the future they should do something to prevent those discriminations. Government supervision of monasteries only concerns with possible rebellions. It's not to their interest to order the monks how to run the temple, and if they do redistribute the money, you probably would complain they change the Tibetan' way of living. Those money is mostly used to temple renovations. The "invasion" of Tibet was kind of peaceful. PLA at that time was perceived as the People's Army. They were very good at gaining support from poor people. So their only obstacles is the Tibet Army, which was very weak. In fact, the chief army officer surrendered to PLA with little resistance. He later become the Deputy Governor of Tibet and then Vice Chairman of National People's Council. When PRC was first founded in 1949, it was the people's government. They had wide-range of support from poor people. The honeymoon lasted for nearly 10 years until Mao ****ed up the economy with his stupidity. On the contrary, the current government is very similar to that of KMT: corrupted and capitalist-friendly.
MFW, on the Opium treaties, you have already acknowledged their validity under your ficititious legal construct stating that the colonial powers had the right to insist they be honored. I'm not what more there is to say about that. I take it you also acknowledge the claim of the House of Windsor to Aquitaine & Normandy? You never answered that one. I don't see how you couldn't. I'm glad you've bought the whole "liberation" thing hook line and sinker. I've never met any Tibetans who felt the same way. But hey if it is so non-controversial then why don't they just have a popular referendum and shut us up once and for all, right? Perhaps we should ask the latest Panchen Lama? Not the one that the Chinese installed but the 6-year old who was "detained" by the Chinese 10 years ago and has not been heard from since? Probably he deserved it, right? I bet that 6 year old was planning on enslaving all the serfs again. What would Native Americans think? I don't know, but I do know that the way they were treated was criminal and not acceptable in my opinion - and certainly can't be looked upon to justify anything. I also know that even the pathetic reservation system allows Native Americans more autonomy and self-determination than the Chinese give the Tibetans. Tibet of course was independent in 1950, and had been since 1911 or so. Likewise it was independent for the most part of hundreds of years before that, as we have discussed. Since you are a stickler for international law I'll let you know that the ICJ (International court of jurists) ruled that TIbet was independent, and also ruled that the massacres in 1960 were genocide I hate to break it to you but government run schools in Tibet are like schools everywhere else in China - chinese curriculm, chinese language - and if you think that slavery was the only optoin had the Chinese not invaded (by the way, what should I call it when 100,000 soldiers cross the border and occupy a country? the Chinese "invited"? ) you've been drinking too much red kool aid.
Yes, and after the South lost the Civil War, the occupying military and civil administrators were kind, benevolent, and welcomed with open arms by the vast majority of Southerners. History is obviously in the eye of the beholder. When the government writes your history books, perhaps it's a good idea to broaden your reading, if it's allowed. Keep D&D Civil!!
