[Sunday Times]Tibetan monks beaten as police halt dissent

Idiotic

 

.
In all seriousness, this is a pretty good post, YallMean. I undrestand you bringing up the Panchen Lama but there is another side to that story - namely the ohter panchen lama being kidnapped and taken away by CCP authorities when he was young.

I understand that Chinese do not want to divest themselves of Tibet, and I know that the Han-ification of Tibet (Xizang?) is inevitable at this point, and will probably be forgotten someday. But people should remember it these days for what it is.

EDIT: i wrote this last ppost before your prior post, in which yu callled me an idiot, so...............yeah.

 

Sam, you make more sense when you are not juvenile-ish, generalizing ... Oh, well, what do I expect from a guy whose handle is a computer game character. Or maybe your real name

Tibet is China's national interest. That's what Chinese is taught. So you know what you are up against. But like I said, school kids are taught to respect Tibtan culture. Every kid can tell you how Han Princess enterend Tibet, and made peace between China and Tibet. Every kid will tell you how much they want a Hada from a Tibetan, which represents the pureness and most precious gift Tibetan gives to a guest.

However, there are firictions between Han and Tibetans, those who have to live together. Just like any ethinicities that have to live together. You are from New York, you know what I am talking about.

So It's not a simple cut problem. From US pespective, I think siding with a particular side is dangerous. Have we learnt enough? It's an internal affair to China. Let it be solved within.

Now, I do wish to see Tibetans to be happier, because mentally they are not, and CCP has to quit being a parent. That's true in whole China tough.

 

To my own surprise I've actually made it through this thread, although I skipped over most of the Star Trek back and forth. I think this post explains somewhat why the PRC and many who support them are so sensitive to issues like this. IMO though it also is a mistaken opinion.

It strikes me from this post that the view is that any criticism of the PRC is construed as being a criticism of the PRC as a whole. So that actions in regard to Tibet are excused with the argument that our government is the best it has ever been. While it very well may be that the current government is the best government in Chinese history that isn't really the point and no one has advocated that the PRC government be overthrown when discussing Tibet and criticism of the actions of the PRC in Tibet are not saying that the whole government should be replaced.

It is the same as when many of us criticize the Bush Admin. almost all of us though still want to see our current government structure in place. That is why Deckard's postscript is "Impeach Bush... and not Overthrow Bush..

 

that was the best stuff, go back and read it.
my stuff of course was great, that other dude's sucked Romulan azz.

 

Honestly, I didn't even think of your ethnicticity. What I meant is that I am viewed by some here as having "an agenda" with regards to China and Chinese policies. I don't think I do, not in the sense those who think I might believe. With those people, I think your opinion is more respected. From my point of view, I think that's a pity, but what can you do?

The 310 pounds was just an added joke on my part. I know you really weigh 105.



D&D. Attempt to be Civil!

Impeach Bush.

 

Criticism on other country's domestic issues can easily be miscontrused. Many Chinese are very critical of their government just like the Americans. But there is also National pride and that has to be respected. Not saying you dont respect it, just trying to help you understand where are those Chinese posters' comments coming from.
Some cops beating up monks doesnt necessarily mean Chinese government are treating all Tibetans the same way. Tibetans are very religious, and they believe the life after death, while the communists dont. Tibetans fear that losing freedom to practice their religion whorshipping Dalai Lama means hellish after-life and that's why they are fanatic. While Communists try to transform Tibetans into revolutioary souls, it's like telling 50 cent to play Tim McGraw in his party. It simply doesnt work.
And the soverignty claim on Tibet is not only by the CCP. Tibet became part of China dating back 1000 thousand some years ago. So Tibet is another prbablem China has to face. You are right about China's paranoid, rightfully so.

 

I remeber the account from China's side on Dalai Lama exile was that CIA opteratives persudaded him in 57 to fled. They even air-lifted Tibetans to US for military trainning. Dalai didnt want to leave Tibet in the begining. But left with a small group of people, walking to India? Given the cold war situation that time, Korea conflicts between China and US, there might be some truth to it.

Today, Tibet economically is much better off, which an medival theological government probably wouldnt be able to achieve. Tibetans know that. Religiously they are not happy. Partly because Dalai's propaganda from the other side of the border, and that annoys China hell a lot.

Is China invading Tibet? If 1000 year sovernrity claim on Tibet is still consider invasion, then many countries simply will not exist today.

To me Dalai is a fraud. Let me repeat it's only to me. So dont get worked up. Let me tell you why he annoys me. The guy preaches like a saint, but clearly has political agenda in his mind. He should be really engaing talk with China, see how to improve Tibetan's religious freedom. So far he failed to do so.

 

People would be more defensive if they are the minority. And they feel the urgency to defend their own country/people when the majority has negative opinion about it. If you want to see Chinese criticize their own government, go to a Chinese board and you can join the bash fest there. I think it's the same situation about Yao Ming. We seldom see Chinese posters criticize Yao on this board. But you will find ten of thousands haters who relentlessly bash Yao MIng on the Chinese boards. Easy to understand?

 

Here's a summary of the posts. Fisher, Me, Dekard, MadMax are in White.
The Haters are wearing Gold.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a1lWrMtwZt8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a1lWrMtwZt8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

Well, this is a board based in US. And I am sure if people here join Chinese forum and find out about what they say about US would be offeded too. So it's all cool, and all understanable.

 

Which doesn't make sense either though. If the US wanted him to flee, India would be the last place he'd go to. India was a Soviet ally at the time and US-India relations were awful. Trade between the two was almost non-existent.

The eastern part of India is practically Tibetan (especially Ladakh), hence why China has claimed stretches of it. That area is ethnically and culturally nothing like the rest of India and has a lot of Tibetan followers, so his leaving to India seems more like a move that would make sense from a personal ideological standpoint but sending him to a Soviet backed country would be pretty stupid from the US's perspective.

You guys keep ignoring things that people point out. This economic growth isn't uniform. Han Chinese from the east are granted housing and tax subsidies to move to Tibet. Most businesses there aren't Tibetan, they're Chinese. Life expectancy and GDP statistics are skewed toward ethnic Han residents. There is a cultural gap in Tibet that is being ignored. The new infrastructure is entirely Chinese. The lingua franca is Chinese which locks out a lot of Tibetans. In addition new developments like the railroad don't really help native Tibetans as much as they help Chinese businesses.

Lastly, economics is a silly criterion when used exclusively. Even if there has been growth, that doesn't mean that it can simply be used as a justification to ignore the destruction of Tibetan culture. There is a way to boost growth and be more respectful of that culture, hence the calls for limited autonomy by the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan officials. China is there to stay, no one is disputing that. But Tibet is unique in that it actually has more central control than many Chinese provinces. There is no real local government there and consequently no representation for local Tibetan natives. It's a Chinese government running a province of people that has no connection to that government.

Yes China invaded Tibet. 1000 year sovereignty claims are meaningless. The US signed coerced treaties with Native American tribes throughout our history in order to gain land. That doesn't make the manifest destiny any more legitimate as a historical practice. It happened and there's nothing we can do to change it, but it was still not a legitimate practice. The Chinese are in Tibet to stay but yes, they invaded a sovereign nation. I suppose Iraq had a sovereignty claim over Kuwait seeing as how the Babylonian Empire stretched over the Middle East. (in fact he cited that as one of his reasons for invading Kuwait) but I think we can all agree that invading Kuwait wasn't justified.

Of course he has an agenda, he hasn't exactly hidden that. He's repeatedly called for local autonomy for Tibet within China. And as for engaging with talks with China, ummm.. they've tried that before. Both sides just refuse to budge on demands. He wants local autonomy, China doesn't want to give up any power. And why the hell is the burden exclusively on him? I realize China is in a position of strength seeing as they control Tibet, but that's not particularly relevant. Also, calling someone fraudulent doesn't exactly make you seem like you support some even handed negotiation with said fraudulent entity.

I heard the Dalai Lama speak in person and to be honest I wasn't incredibly impressed. But he's one person in a broader issue, so stop conflating Tibet with the Dalai Lama. The issue goes beyond that and that's consistently become some random red herring used to deflect any discussion of the actual issue. And lastly, even if he is a "fraud" that's not even important. His being a fraud doesn't change the fact that China invaded a sovereign country and has come up with a lot of spin to justify it. Arguments that are criticized when it comes to US foreign policy. Rocketsjudoka does a better job of explaining that.

 

Nobody is denying that things should be improved in Tibet. The same can be said to China as a whole. Economically Tibetans are better off, yes or no? Is Tibet's economic development at the cost of Tibetan's own economic well-being? I have never visited Tibet, so I am not sure how prevelent is the Han-xification in Tibet as many alluded here. But from what I read, yes there is a influx of migrants from outside of Tibet, especially from the SiChuan province, and local Tibetans dont like it. Tibet's heritage and culture should be best preserved. But again this can be said about other parts of China.

Why dont we start a movement to free Hawaii. Last time I checked, Hawii was a country before the unilateral annexation by the US congress.

What China isnt doing good job of is that it doesnt let Tibetans open Casinos in Tibet and keep them happy. Like I said Communists are like "Dude are you serious" on Tibetan's beliefs in after life. Well, that's what Communist is about. But at least Tibet is not at war, and there is huge economic activities going on there, Tibetans benifit along the way.

 

So my complaint for my Macau experience is that the Stanley Ho owned casinos were trying to rip you off.

At the most expensive American owned casino, the Wynn, they gave me an exchange rate of 7.7, when I go to StarWorld, they offered 7.2 !!

plus no craps tables! The Sands was great, I liked that place.

 

No matter how "civlized" this world appears to be today, the conflict of cultures comes down to the basic law of nature: the strong will survive and the weak will die out. This is especially true in modern age. More cultures vanished in the last three hundred years (aka modern age) than any other time period in human history. What is happening in Tibet today is no different. A stronger culture (Chinese communism/capitalism/confucism cutlure) is eating up an old and weak culture (Tibetian buddhism). This is entirely immoral and inhumane and sad, but it's an innevitable consequence of social evolution of human society. It is conceivable that in a century's time Tibet will be like a province in China today where a Han culture will dominate and all types of Tibetian buddhism pratice will disappear and ethnic Tibetians will speak Chinese instead of their native languages.

 

Except when there are efforts to protect and save that species and they have remarkable recoveries. It has happened in nature, and there is no reason it couldn't happen elsewhere.

 

As many posters pointed out that criticizing and outright bashing are different. I think all of the posters have agreed that police beating anyone, including Tibetan monks are wrong. Criticizing all you want, but called for "Free Tibet" based on the beating, or using the beating as "proof" of genocide is very irresponsible accusation, which New Yorker loves to do all the time. I think if people are offended, they are most offended by such ignorant and superior comments.

Criticizing US government can find supporters on this board, when some posters are criticizing the same thing. But advocating "overthrowing" US government as a whole is not going to be welcomed. People always say, you can call free Texas all you want. Of course, they can take it lightly, because that's not such an issue and no movement behind that at all. Except for a sily joke on a BBS, there is nothing more. However, for those "Free Tibet" or whatever other movements, there are serious political interest, serious money, and actions behind that. Yes, people, especially Chinese people will take that more seriously.

Again, criticizing certain incidents or policies is different than bash the whole government or country with any negative incidents. For instance, Lou Dobbs loves to call China "Red China", I just don't how that is not pointing to the whole country, rather than some stupid policy or corrupted officials, or even just CCP. It's hard not to take offense. Attitude like that is not hard to find on this very board.

Finally, lots of Americans don't take foreign critics too well either. Remember people got all worked up and deeply offended on TV, when a British magazine sent posts to Americans and told them not to vote for Bush?

 

You need to remember that Dobbs is of an age, as am I, that saw the name "Red China" as simply an everyday way to describe the country. It was because of the "Chinese" government in Taiwan, in part because it differentiated between the two easily. Red China was used in the national news broadcasts from the multiple news programs on the numerous networks and hundreds of news programs on TV stations across the country. And these were not "monolithic" groups of stations. The ownership was widespread, more so than today. Simply put, it was a Cold War term in wide use for many, many years.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Dobbs is using it to slam the current government in China and its policies. His program is a combination of news and opinions. You need to remember that. Those kinds of programs seem to be popular today. The "slant" or "bias" depends on who does the program and who owns the network that broadcasts it. On CNN, Dobbs' show is just one of several, and you won't see "Red China" used on the others, in the main.

Just an FYI. So if you are irritated by what Dobbs is doing, he's doing to on purpose.


Oh, I was happy to hear Britons suggest to Americans that they not vote for Bush. Didn't bother me. They are entitled to their opinions, as well.



D&D. Attempt to be Civil!

Impeach Bush.

 

Who has called for overthrowing the PRC? I haven't read anyone saying that the PRC should be overthrown on this thread.

This is what I mean by a paranoia. Arguing for better treatment of Tibetans and even for greater autonomy in Tibet isn't the same as saying that the PRC should be overthrown anymore than saying that Native Americans should be treated better and also given more control over reservations. It strikes me as paranoia that somehow criticizing regarding the treatment of Tibetans is automatically seen as a threat to the whole of China.

 

The problem with this argument is that it is very similar to what was once called "White Man's Burden" where European colonialists justified colonization as being beneficial towards occupied countries as they brought civilizations and industrial progress. Recently a modified version of this argument has surfaced where some have claimed that African Americans actually have benefitted from slavery as without it they wouldn't be here in the US and instead be living in the poverty and misery of Africa. The problems with these arguments is that they end up being an ends justifies the means argument so that at any point in time and based on any narrow standard any action can be justified. So while there is no doubt the Tibetans have materially gained but at the costs of enduring the horrors of the Cultural Revolution and having their culture and religion diminished and no control over their territory or border. Did anyone consider whether that was costs they wanted to endure or did the PRC just decide to impose that on them?

The problem with the Chinese attitude towards Tibet is that while the Chinese have become very nationalistic and protective of their territory it seems that many are unable to consider that maybe the Tibetans feel the same way. For those of you who continue to argue that it is for the good of the Tibetans that the status quo be maintained would you be willing to accept the loss of your culture, control of your borders and influx of what you consider outsiders if that meant material benefit?