To start off, there is no disillusionment about China. China is not a liberal democracy. China is a developing country with as much as social problems/injustice and political problems as we can easily observe. The establishment principle of "stability" and progressive as a collective society is diametrically opposed to the majority of libertarians here. This however does not invalid much of the criticism directed towards excess China-bashing, particularly the Free Tibet advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak64
Having read several book on Tibet, and others by Tibetans who lived through the illegal and continuing Chinese occupation of their country, I would have to suggest your assertion is wrong. Yes Tibet was feudal, as were/are many countries. The regime was not oppressive though, nothing I have read supports that. Granted, there is probably a tendancy by some to romanticise pre-invasion Tibet.
|
If it is a book written by scholars it would worth some recommendation. Movies or books such as "sever years in Tibet" built upon stereotypes were, indifferent from other literature of similar purposes, politically motivated.
Quote:
|
Again, not one piece of eyewitness evidence I have ever read supports this. Some , Tibetans,fficials/governors and the like, did sell out and support the Chinese, treason is not confined to any one race or culture. Other Tibetans, notably the nomadic horsemen of Amdo fought to the last man against the Chinese. The Chinese invasion and occupation has never had widespread popular support. There have been periodic uprising against Chinese rule.
|
The uprising are mainly small scaled disturbance rather than organised millitary violence. It is true that there are horsemen who live in India and subscribe to such philosophy and they also criticise Dalai Lama for dancing along with the voice of Western leaders-a softer approach to advance in the issue of Tibet.
Quote:
That is nothing that could not of happened, or would not of happened without China's brutal occupation and oppression. Does such an increase in living standards justify genocide, oppression, the killing of about 20% of Tibet's population, and the destruction of an ancient culture? It is possible to have progress without socialism, despite what some would tell you.
There are doubtless many countries that recorded a similar or better performance in the same timespan.
|
The citation of Tibet as a region experiencing rigorous growth and development is used to illustrate an inconvenient truth. It is, of course, not used to justify any othe thing. An inconvenient truth is something that opposition ignore or painfully ignore. An inconvenient truth is something observable without much detailed scrutiny but something people dont want to talk about.
Quote:
|
The Dali Lam was no saint! Compared to whom exactly? The saintly Chairman Mao perhaps!?
|
Dalai Lama is a politician singing songs in tunes of self-righteous liberal interventionist. He knows the rules of the game and he surely knows how to play it.
Quote:
|
You assume that China and Tibet are the same nation. I find your comparison to pre 1960s USA segregation laws unrealistic on several levels. USA segregation laws never, as far as I am aware, prevented black people from moving about in the USA. Due to democratic common law, principles of free speech, and a (broadly) free press Martin Luther King was able to achieve what he did. How come you have have never heard of the Tibetan equivalent of Martin Luther King?
|
Manpower was transfered to Tibet for economic and social assistance such as engineers and health care workers. Prior to that, Tibet itself as an extremely under-developed landlocked region. Independent Chinese migration saw it as a land of opportunity.
Ethical Minority in China are exempted from one child policy and given preferential treatment to University enrollment.
The idea of we want "white tenets only in our white communities" is no different from "we want Tibetans only in the plateau". Note that Tibetan advocate regard that particular issue as far more importance than the political reality of The PRC-such as a lack of democracy.
Quote:
|
Historically just plain wrong! In 1950 the Indians recognised the Chinese Communist government, but in the same statement urged that the Chinese government show restraint towards the people of Tibet. The Chinese promised to respect those wishes! Further, the Tibetans themselves urged action from the UN to halt the Chinese agression against them. Unfortunately the world's attention was focused on Korea, and only San Salvadore, (bizarrely enough) supported them.
|
India fought border wars with China before and a balkanised China means a lesser neighbouring threat, especially in the succesful establishment of a vast new nation with little economic or millitary power-all signs of vulnerability of being under Indian influence.
Would India remove their military in Jammu and Kashmir and advocate Independence, or any other form of reduction of her control?
Quote:
|
Another irrelevant point. China had not invaded, or even (as far as I am aware) even threatened Tibet at that time. Further, the world had some slightly bigger fish to fry in the shape of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Aggressive international communism and cold war politics were not on the USA's radar at that time.
|
In the constitution of ROC, republic of China, or what is known as Taiwan today, Tibet is also an integral part of China. Even mongolia independence, a deal Chinese communists made with the Soviets was unrecognised. It is a regime that USA and her western associated have supported for decades. It is the international politik that counts.
Quote:
|
Er? As far as I remember communism (at least in most of Western Europe) came to an end in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall. And as for 'bloody records', I'm not saying the liberal western democracies are faultless, but compared to Stalin's famines and purges, Mao's similar, and the crimes of Pol Pot and other assorted grizzly communist types, I'd argue our case in court.
|
What kept "democracy" and other evils such as "racism" and "class exploitation" alive at the same time for hundred of years?
Prior to the civil rights moement, Soviets were massively campaigning against that and regarded "racism" as the Achilles' heel of western Imperialism, in contrast to the socialist version of "New Soviet man" based on equality.
The ruling class, esp the WASPs in Washington even employed forced integration through the use of national guards. The evolution of social welfare and collective bargain was also an response against a possible communist ideological takeover.
Quote:
probably something to do with the fact that communist oppression drove them out of their country. Tibetan exiles cannot go back for fear of arrest and imprisonment, neither can their children or grandchildren. It's hardly surpring they lose touch with certain aspects of their culture. But at least here they are free to express the opinion that Tibet is and should be an independent nation. They do not enjoy such a luxury in Tibet.
Olympic Flame, might I suggest you actually read something about the history of Tibet, rather than just reciting Chinese government propoganda about that benighted nation.
|
Advocating separatism/secessionism against the Nation is against the law in China, from what I know, just as the public order act of UK which criminalise
certain speech.