China-Tibet Threads

[Skywatcher]

Shouldn't this recent divergence go into Politics?

[yeung3939]

hong, ur first point is already a little off. japanese rule in taiwan was almost like tibet, with korea and manchuria slightly worst off, and other place like southeast asian region plainly rip-offs. taiwan was their first colony, and, like chinese govt wanted tibet to be a showcase, taiwan was the japanese showcase, to show that they can run a colony as good as any western power.

tibetan language isnt the official language in that region but probably the common language, mandarin is still the official one. it's just that central govt says they set no restrictions in the daily usage and academic research of the tibetan language.

as for education, so did ppl in taiwan, korea and manchuria enjoyed under japanese rule. but the curriculum was prepared according to japanese point of view. since taiwan and HK uses same traditional chinese, and as yeung claimed, u have acces to info, why not check up taiwanese sites for that part of history? and same thing in tibet, but prepared according to the chinese point of view. in fact, japanese probably hoped more ppl get educated according to their point of view, just like how the chinese govt hope minorities in china be educated in chinese point of view.

there is no autocratic governor, but something similiar in place. the ethnic tibetan governor is just a powerless figure-head, the real power is in the hands of the CCP secretary in the provincial/SAR govt, and is always a han chinese since 1950.

Just want to know why you said Tibetan is not the official language in Tibet. I travelled in Nepal and I could watch a government channel in the NE part of Nepal. The Sherpa, a people from Tibet, around me like to watch this channel.

Also, in Taiwan's case, I don't know. Your family may be from Taiwan, Aniki. Was the curriculum taught in traditional Chinese or Japanese? From what I heard, there are actually many people who liked the Japanese rule in the years immediately after WWII, and some people are still very pro-Japanese (arguably the ex-president Mr Li). Just like many people in Hong Kong welcomed the British rule even though Chinese was not the official language until relatively recently.

Your examples may actually show that CCP can attain legitimacy if it doesn't already has legitimacy.

[yeung3939]

Inst, that's exactly the places that I was talking about. They erradicated virulent diseases, built railroads, factories and schools. That does not change the fact that they came uninvited.

hong1006,

No, I am not talking about colonialism in the positive. But evidently the Tibetans are none too pleased with the way they are treated. Different geo-strategic factors will shape strategy in the administration colonies. The British and the Japanese were sea based empires; Russia and China are not.

But the problem is that as far as I know many people in Taiwan particularly (those not tortured) were actually pleased with the Japanese rule in pre-KMT years. The Ex-president Mr Li is a brilliant example.

Sigh... 'evidently Tibetans are none too pleased with the way they are treated'. If you can offer any evidence other than your impression from TV, photos, disputed witness reports, I would agree with you.

[Triple C]

OK, explain to me why does journalist from the Economist, who had obtained permit for traveling in Tibet prior to the outbreak of the riots, describe it as "organized violence directed against ethnic Chinese and some Muslim minorities", collobarated exactly with the Chinese official appraisal of the riot as "seperatist"? No one was under any illusions about the motives of the rioters, or shall I say no one but you?

But the presence of fully armed military personnel doesn't mean much really. At least, it doesn't mean something terrible has happened.

200+ armed police and internal troops injured or dead, 300 establishments [Edit: Buildings] torched according to official Chinese sources, a cordon sanitaire established for almost a week, press & NGO ushered out, and that's your excuse of a defense? So much for your claim that my evidence is just my "impression and feeling only supported by reports of Western media" and "what Da Lai Lama tells me." I have got every western press that had eyes in Tibet on my side, and your government's official reports and communiques too. So who's basing his case soley on speculation?

Then, I don't see how the sentence you quoted has anything to do with my statement that you are arguing that Tibetans should not 'sell freedom for money' (in your favourite terms), not that Tibetans do refuse to do so.
In what ways did I lie?

You attributed something you have said to me. Amigo, I was quoting you. As to why that is my favorite quote from you? Because it says mighty lot about how your government, and I am sorry to add, you, concieves 'freedom.' You hold a gun to somebody's head and tell him if he do what you want he gets paid. If not, he is 'free' to pull up daisies instead. What do you think he's gonna do? That doesn't mean he wants to obey your orders, or he had "freely chosen" to do your bidding now, does it?

I see that you still think the Tibetans want to be a part of China. Had it occurred to you yet that with the number uncommitted taken in consideration, there is, in fact, not a single force in Tibet capable or willing to stop the seperatists, save Chinese arms? That makes China an occupying military force. You are free to make your own moral judgements. The cold fact is: your government is in the business of permant and hostile occupation of a territory. That is called conquest.

[gunnut]

"I beg you to accept that there is no people on earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power."
-Gandhi

Very wise words. And it is the reason why we should let Zimbabwe and Burma be. Deaths and sufferings in Africa and other parts of the world is not the problem of western, or any other developed nations.

Any accomplishment the Chinese government had brought to Tibet does not disguise the essential fact of the matter that Tibet belongs to China because the PLA conquerored it. Leave aside for a moment whether Tibetans desire your modernizing reforms. Do you think they want you to be the ones to do it? As to being conquerors, I think after the recent events, it is rather clear to thoughtful observers that had the PLA not intervened, no pro-Chinese Tibetant would be capable of bringing Tibet back to China's fold.

Here's the sticky part: one side says "conquer" while the other side claims "governance." Which one is it?

Take the American Civil War for example. The North says it was a war to assert federal power while the South says it just wants to be left alone to do its own thing. Which is it? Was it really a "civil war" in the traditional sense? Or was it a failed "war of independence?"



Another thing, how the hell do you guys put up 5 pages of replies in less than one day? I don't even have time to keep up. :))

[gunnut]

First time to visit this forum. It is nice to see sucha long discussion about China.

I was born in Hong Kong and I studied Asia History before. I just want to complement the discussion here.

Having lived in a real colony before, I can't see how you can view this system in a positve way. Though the colonial government may have built considerable infrastructure in the teritory, the ultimate objective of which is to serve its own interest. That's what happened in Hong Kong before 1997 handover.

Welcome to the forum.

A colony may not be so bad for the people. It depends on how it's governed.

Hong Kong saw dramatic improvement in standards of living under the British rule. Far better than if it were under CCP rule or even Nationalist rule between the end of WW2 up to 1997. British implemented a very free and open market economy, far more so than on their home soil. I believe the people were given self rule over the internal affairs of the territory. Only foreign affairs were under the will of the British government.

Was that really worse than under CCP rule or Nationalist rule? Could Hong Kong do better as a nation-state like Singapore if it were to declare independence after WW2? I don't think so. British rule was great for Hong Kong.

That being said, there's still the thing about "alien rule." We humans seem to have a tendency to prefer being butchered by our own rather than to live in luxury and freedom under someone else's name.

[gunnut]

Shouldn't this recent divergence go into Politics?

That is a good idea. We should trouble a mod to split this thread and keep things on topic.

I think this is a good thread. We are actually discussing Tibet rather than throwing insults at one another.

[Triple C]

Very wise words. And it is the reason why we should let Zimbabwe and Burma be. Deaths and sufferings in Africa and other parts of the world is not the problem of western, or any other developed nations.

Save for cases in which there is an identifiable faction to be helped and to work with, that is. Even that fails with alarming frequency... such is the sad state of the world.

Take the American Civil War for example. The North says it was a war to assert federal power while the South says it just wants to be left alone to do its own thing. Which is it? Was it really a "civil war" in the traditional sense? Or was it a failed "war of independence?"

Egghead answer: They are both right ;)

Seriously, though. The North can call the war what it wants. Its moral justifications depends on one's ideological persuation. But the strategy of subduing the South was about conquest. Gen. Sherman thought it is, and did the same thing to the Indians.

[Aniki]

Just want to know why you said Tibetan is not the official language in Tibet. I travelled in Nepal and I could watch a government channel in the NE part of Nepal. The Sherpa, a people from Tibet, around me like to watch this channel.

Also, in Taiwan's case, I don't know. Your family may be from Taiwan, Aniki. Was the curriculum taught in traditional Chinese or Japanese? From what I heard, there are actually many people who liked the Japanese rule in the years immediately after WWII, and some people are still very pro-Japanese (arguably the ex-president Mr Li). Just like many people in Hong Kong welcomed the British rule even though Chinese was not the official language until relatively recently.

Your examples may actually show that CCP can attain legitimacy if it doesn't already has legitimacy.

again yeung, u stepped into realms u are unfamiliar with. tibetan could be the most common language in tibet, but not 'official'. no government docs are signed or issued in tibetan, unless companied by a mandarin copy at the same time. the only official language in mainland china is mandarin.

to put it in a simpler manner for u to understand, it's like the status of cantonese in beijing, canton, and HK respectively. in beijing cantonese is not the official tongue and not the most common tongue, mandarin is. in canton, cantonese is not the official tongue, again mandarin is. but cantonese is the most common. in HK, however, because of the promise to HK-ers that CCP wont alter much in 50 yrs, cantonese remained as one of the official languages in HK. but tibet is not HK, so dont use ur experience in HK to imagine the status of the tibetan language in china. it's just slightly better than cantonese in canton but unlike cantonese in HK. at least cantonese had a 'biliterate and trilingual' status in HK.

as for japanese in taiwan compared to chinese governance of tibet, the difference is just 50 yrs of experience plus war time necessity. what the japanese did was similiar to what chinese did in tibet in the first 20yrs of PRC: involunteer assimilation. althou the guidelines were there, but the local officials never followed. so when the chinese govt, with much confidence, allowed dalai lama's brother to lead a delegation into tibet during the early 80s, things went totally out of hand. local tibetans gathered and weeped, and told him their sufferings under CCP. everything CCP did in tibet got exposed to the rest of the world. this is a tour sanctioned by the chinese govt, and closely watched by chinese officials, yet tibetan still braved the dangers and told the delegations about their plight. so much for ur 'lived happily under chinese rule' reasoning.

facing accusation of human rights infringement internationally, the chinese decided to tone down a bit and let tibetan be, but cut off connection btw them and dalai. and thats the tibet u see today. the japanese, however, never had the chance to remedy cos they were defeated in the war and had to give taiwan up.

[gunnut]

Seriously, though. The North can call the war what it wants. Its moral justifications depends on one's ideological persuation. But the strategy of subduing the South was about conquest. Gen. Sherman thought it is, and did the same thing to the Indians.

So why was the American Civil War "right" and China's "occupation" of Tibet "wrong?"

[Aniki]

So why was the American Civil War "right" and China's "occupation" of Tibet "wrong?"

well, time changed. i could probably ask my friends to travel to usa by plane, but i suppose i cant ask columbus to do that during his time. in present day an invasion, a prolonged occupation or a 'total annexation', are probably viewed in a bad light, no matter how justifiable the reasons may seem.

however, as much as i think tibetans should be given a chance to decide their fate, i would say that they couldnt be much better off as an independent country on their own than under CCP rule. this is the part i'm in partial agreement with yeung. but painting CCP as the good guy and bragging about what they have done for the tibetan are the things that turns me off. keeping citizens happy is what a govt suppose to do, it's their job as the govt. it's not a privilege given and tibetans shouldnt be kowtowing or begging for that.

[gunnut]

well, time changed. i could probably ask my friends to travel to usa by plane, but i suppose i cant ask columbus to do that during his time. in present day an invasion, a prolonged occupation or a 'total annexation', are probably viewed in a bad light, no matter how justifiable the reasons may seem.

Technological advances aside, the world hasn't change much. Humans haven't changed much. Some in the south still consider the north as the oppressors.

however, as much as i think tibetans should be given a chance to decide their fate, i would say that they couldnt be much better off as an independent country on their own than under CCP rule. this is the part i'm in partial agreement with yeung. but painting CCP as the good guy and bragging about what they have done for the tibetan are the things that turns me off. keeping citizens happy is what a govt suppose to do, it's their job as the govt. it's not a privilege given and tibetans shouldnt be kowtowing or begging for that.

Well said. China should be allowed to keep Tibet when it becomes more like Puerto Rico. We hope Puerto Rico would leave but they just can't make up their minds.

[yeung3939]

again yeung, u stepped into realms u are unfamiliar with. tibetan could be the most common language in tibet, but not 'official'. no government docs are signed or issued in tibetan, unless companied by a mandarin copy at the same time. the only official language in mainland china is mandarin.

to put it in a simpler manner for u to understand, it's like the status of cantonese in beijing, canton, and HK respectively. in beijing cantonese is not the official tongue and not the most common tongue, mandarin is. in canton, cantonese is not the official tongue, again mandarin is. but cantonese is the most common. in HK, however, because of the promise to HK-ers that CCP wont alter much in 50 yrs, cantonese remained as one of the official languages in HK. but tibet is not HK, so dont use ur experience in HK to imagine the status of the tibetan language in china. it's just slightly better than cantonese in canton but unlike cantonese in HK. at least cantonese had a 'biliterate and trilingual' status in HK.

as for japanese in taiwan compared to chinese governance of tibet, the difference is just 50 yrs of experience plus war time necessity. what the japanese did was similiar to what chinese did in tibet in the first 20yrs of PRC: involunteer assimilation. althou the guidelines were there, but the local officials never followed. so when the chinese govt, with much confidence, allowed dalai lama's brother to lead a delegation into tibet during the early 80s, things went totally out of hand. local tibetans gathered and weeped, and told him their sufferings under CCP. everything CCP did in tibet got exposed to the rest of the world. this is a tour sanctioned by the chinese govt, and closely watched by chinese officials, yet tibetan still braved the dangers and told the delegations about their plight. so much for ur 'lived happily under chinese rule' reasoning.

facing accusation of human rights infringement internationally, the chinese decided to tone down a bit and let tibetan be, but cut off connection btw them and dalai. and thats the tibet u see today. the japanese, however, never had the chance to remedy cos they were defeated in the war and had to give taiwan up.

You just ignore the counter-evidence. According to the wikipedia (I don't have time to verify it. If you think it is unreasonable, say so), the Tibetan 1912-1950's government did send representative to the constitutional meeting of ROC in 1912. The ROC constitution clearly states that Tibet is to remain part of China. And no country has ever recognized Tibet as an independent country since the 13th century.

I am not comparing Cantonese with Tibetans (but don't you know Cantonese didn't become the official language until the 1970's. I was not talking about the communist rule, but the British colonial rule.). I just wanted to say you can't assume the so-called oppressed don't like the oppressor. It is possible that the majority of the oppressed just don't care as long as they can be free from hunger.

Tibet is obviously different from those Japanese colonies. Tibet is exempted from taxation. The Central government paid 90% of TIbetan's government expenditure. The QingZhang railway is a huge project paid by the CEntral government, and of course the maintenance costs are also to be paid by the Central government. TIbetans can speak Tibetan langauge. They don't have to change their surnames to Chinese. Their governemtn TV channel (at least one of them) uses Tibetan. Does Taiwan or whatever have anything comparable to this? Don't talk as if Tibet is a colony and the CCP aimed at extracting resources. Tibetan's consent is one thing. The current CCP's policy is another.

As for the 1980's delegation, I know that delegation but I am afraid the information you get is from the Tibetan government in exile. I would be very grateful if you could provide more information. I have read a Taiwanese reporter's article. He visited Da Lai Lama's people's home in India, and was shocked by the undemocratic oppressive practices of the persons in charge. he said the education there aimed at indoctrination, and people have to obey the order of religious personnel. If you are relying on 'Da Lai Lama told me', I wouldn't be convinced.

[yeung3939]

well, time changed. i could probably ask my friends to travel to usa by plane, but i suppose i cant ask columbus to do that during his time. in present day an invasion, a prolonged occupation or a 'total annexation', are probably viewed in a bad light, no matter how justifiable the reasons may seem.

however, as much as i think tibetans should be given a chance to decide their fate, i would say that they couldnt be much better off as an independent country on their own than under CCP rule. this is the part i'm in partial agreement with yeung. but painting CCP as the good guy and bragging about what they have done for the tibetan are the things that turns me off. keeping citizens happy is what a govt suppose to do, it's their job as the govt. it's not a privilege given and tibetans shouldnt be kowtowing or begging for that.

I have never painted CCP as a good guy. What CCP has done must be taken into account when predicting what would happen if Tibet became independent.

CCP itself needs changes and perhaps democratization (but not in the near future because it would be too risky). I have always insisted human rights and independence are two separate issues. I support protection of human rights (defined in western terms) and complete democratization of Hong Kong before 2017/2018.

[yeung3939]

OK, explain to me why does journalist from the Economist, who had obtained permit for traveling in Tibet prior to the outbreak of the riots, describe it as "organized violence directed against ethnic Chinese and some Muslim minorities", collobarated exactly with the Chinese official appraisal of the riot as "seperatist"? No one was under any illusions about the motives of the rioters, or shall I say no one but you?

But the presence of fully armed military personnel doesn't mean much really. At least, it doesn't mean something terrible has happened.

200+ armed police and internal troops injured or dead, 300 establishments [Edit: Buildings] torched according to official Chinese sources, a cordon sanitaire established for almost a week, press & NGO ushered out, and that's your excuse of a defense? So much for your claim that my evidence is just my "impression and feeling only supported by reports of Western media" and "what Da Lai Lama tells me." I have got every western press that had eyes in Tibet on my side, and your government's official reports and communiques too. So who's basing his case soley on speculation?

Then, I don't see how the sentence you quoted has anything to do with my statement that you are arguing that Tibetans should not 'sell freedom for money' (in your favourite terms), not that Tibetans do refuse to do so.
In what ways did I lie?

You attributed something you have said to me. Amigo, I was quoting you. As to why that is my favorite quote from you? Because it says mighty lot about how your government, and I am sorry to add, you, concieves 'freedom.' You hold a gun to somebody's head and tell him if he do what you want he gets paid. If not, he is 'free' to pull up daisies instead. What do you think he's gonna do? That doesn't mean he wants to obey your orders, or he had "freely chosen" to do your bidding now, does it?

I see that you still think the Tibetans want to be a part of China. Had it occurred to you yet that with the number uncommitted taken in consideration, there is, in fact, not a single force in Tibet capable or willing to stop the seperatists, save Chinese arms? That makes China an occupying military force. You are free to make your own moral judgements. The cold fact is: your government is in the business of permant and hostile occupation of a territory. That is called conquest.

(1) The crux of the problem is whether the protestors represent the will of the majority of Tibetans. I can't see why you think there is a necessary conflict between the racist motives and CCP's account of separatist movement. If those protestors belong to the minority and want to expel foreigners, there would be no contradiction. Plus, if they are dissatisfied with CCP's oppression, why did they attack the Muslims many of whom had lived in Tibet for generations?

(2) 200+ armed police and hundreds of damaged buildings certainly do not entail your conclusion that something terrible has happened. It has been made clear by most if not all reporters that there were no signs of TianAnMen-style oppression. If what you said is not speculation, then what is it?

(3) I haven't made any moral judgment on this matter. I haven't said Tibetans should 'sell their freedom for money'. I only said 'will' 'likey' or 'is'. It is you who are making moral judgments while at the same time refusing to prove what the tibetans actually think and do.

If you think Tibetans enjoyed excellent human rights before CCP's takeover or will enjoy excellent human rights after independence, please give reasons and evidence. There is no cold fact. No one has ever conducted polls or referendum. I have repeatedly said I support referendum (but voters must be informed. maybe 10 years later), but you still insist on deciding and speaking for Tibetans.