Cry for Tibet | 66 comments (66 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Thank you for this. (4.00 / 8)

Though I appreciate your involvement in this discussion I do not agree with your points, smelling more of hasty judgments and colonial arrogance. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

First of all I see no point of speculating what Tibet would look like - you ask this question to draw negative opinion in minds of readers. Because most of them think that theocracy is bad. This question very often not only Chinese nationalists ask, when they try to justify unjustifiable but also all European colonialists asked - what indigenous American societies would look like if noble Europeans did not come and rescued victims of barbaric human sacrifices.

Secondly you're wrong in your description of Bhutan and your comparison with Nepal is not justified here - Nepal is not under occupation and nobody suppress culture of Nepalis.

Thirdly theocracy in Tibet was absolutely different from what we can see in Iran.

You can recommend two very good books on Tibet: The Dragon in the land of snow. A history of Modern Tibet 1947-1999 by Tsering Shakya and Melvin Goldstein's Demise of the lamaist state, History of modern Tibet 1913-1951.

by FarEasterner on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 12:09:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 3)

I respectfully disagree. Tibet has been part of China since before the white man came to North America. It is not under occupation, though I do understand some ethnic Tibetans (like some ethnic Basques in Spain, ethnic Corsicans in France, ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka or ethnic Pathans in Pakistan) think it is, as does Richard Gere. And whatever India and the US say about the subject, their views are not to be taken at face value, there are other geopolitical and self-interest reasons for their respective views, and in the case of the former, this includes a territorial dispute which very arguably should go the way of the PRC.

In fact, that the country exists as an entity with national aspirations has far more to do with British colonialism of the 19th century, which is why your ascribing some sort of colonialist agenda to my statement here is somewhat ironic in my view. Especially since, if I understand things correctly, you are writing from India, which has taken up the same geopolitically interested position today as did India of the British Raj of yesterday...and I don't think I have to go over what China's experience with British colonialism actually was; this was but one aspect of it, but the history is sordid, very very sordid, and goes far to explain properly nationalist views in China in this regard (and again, to reiterate, I'm not Chinese).

As for the rest of it, and again I respectfully disagree. In my view progress by definition moves forward. The 1949 revolution did this, in the long view of history. Countries without radio, television, an absolutist king, et c., until this decade (like Bhutan) do not. Again, this "national happiness" stuff look great on paper but I want to see poverty reduction and moving the ball forward for all of us, and the PRC is delivering.

Quite frankly I don't buy the fact that there are Tibetan national aspirations, felt by a groundswell of Tibetans, any more than I buy that there are Cubans in Cuba who think that the Cubans in Miami should just show up tomorrow in Havana, take over everything and run the country, or that if you poll Corsicans they actually want autonomy (which, by the way, we tried...and they didn't..some would say quite convincingly that this was unfortunate).

Of course I am willing to be proven wrong but until I see a poll of all Tibetans (including Han who live in Tibet) who want independance, autonomy or some other, I'm having a hard time with this.

Again, respectfully and fully understanding this is an unpopular view around here.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 01:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 6)

Tibet has been part of China since before the white man came to North America.

That's official Chinese state ideology today. However, whether an autonomous but tribute-paying region is part of a country is in the eye of the beholder (see f.e. the fiefdoms not directly under Ottoman control in Europe, or Korea for long periods of China's history). What's more, Tibet was not the only region getting free during the Chinese imerium's 20th century weakness: there's Taiwan (overtly threatened by One China ideology) and Mongolia (covertly threatened), too.

It is not under occupation, though I do understand some ethnic Tibetans (like some ethnic Basques in Spain, ethnic Corsicans in France, ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka or ethnic Pathans in Pakistan) think it is

The only reason I haven't told you are channelling official Chinese state ideology is that I think you are channelling French national state ideology.

More to the point, China's settlement policies (which didn't 'finish off the job' so far only because a lot of settlers can't stand the climate and move back East after a few years) and the behaviour of the settlers cannot be called other than occupation. To not rely on Western media, I tell what a friend told who travelled from Beijing to Bombay as backback tourist. For example, every village is 'doubled': the original village of the native ethnics is sided with a Han Chinese quarter, and power is held by the latter. The problem is not just the regime, it's Han Chinese nationalism, as evidenced by tourists: the most disrestpectful in Buddhist temples weren't from Texas but from Shanghai & environs.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 04:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 5)

As bit of a counter-point, to avoid the simplest mis-readings of the above.

The above is no advocacy of Tibetan separatism. In general, I don't think in drawing borders as a solution to anything. For the population of Tibet, I think the best would be more cultural autonomy, more local government, and an end to settlement policies while infrastructure and other projects of the Chinese central government would continue.

Of course all of this is predicated upon the issue of democracy, which the PRC is not (it is a hyper-capitalist worker-exploiting state and a centralised-top-down-bureaucratic imperium in one), not anymore than the old feudal government of Tibet. Which makes me wince at both you (redstar) speaking about opinion polls to 'believe' that there is popular resentment and FarEasterner claiming wide satisfaction pre-PRC-occupation.

I haven't attacked your (redstar's) point about the economic benefits the PRC brought because even if I am not unreservedly enthusiastic about the changes and less willing to blanket equate them with progress, just these are the reasons I don't think the Tibet case is as clear-cut as in the eye of most Western Free Tibet! campaigners.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 07:30:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 4)

Well said DoDo.

I myself find redstar's attitude rather interesting. After all, I could equally have said some short years ago "I have no evidence for national aspirations in Ukraine" etc. etc."

Or, one can easily say "I see no reason to believe that the people of Burma are unhappy with their present government, in the absence of a poll that talks to all the people in the country."

And yet, redstar claims to unabashedly believe in "progress." But only economic it seems, not in terms of people's lived political lives...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You could have said that, and today you (none / 1)

can say there are nationalist aspirations in Eastern Ukraine for reattachment to Russia, which would also have the advantage of historical arguments on its side as well. Ukrianian history didn't stop with that turquoise revolution or whatever the American PR firms came up with for Ukraine here, Georgia there et c.

Burma did have a poll, and the Burmese people did speak overwhelmingly against the military regime currently occupying the couutry. That one is pretty clear.

But you are absolutely correct in your take on my view that economic progress and above all equality are far better guideposts to human rights and human gain than simply installing a liberal democracy which can be gamed by the wealthy to their advantage, a regime I lie under (for now) in Amerika.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 09:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You could have said that, and today you (none / 1)

I see I forgot to address this point. To justify the Chinese takeover with economic improvements assumes that an autonomous Tibet would have stayed static.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You could have said that, and today you (none / 0)

And given how they select their leader, it can just as easily go backwards as go forwards, can't it?

I wouldn't want the pope running the EU.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You could have said that, and today you (none / 1)

Who said internal revolution or less violent change is not a possibility?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have no doubt that there is popular (none / 0)

discontent in Tibet regarding rule from Beijing. I just don't have any verifiable way of determining its extent and I just don't trust the Western press on this one, not by a long shot. And I certainly won't take Richard Gere's word for it. I also note that the Chinese press tends to play up the PRC's support for ethnic minorities in the PRC and have no way to evaluate that claim either, really. Surely the truth lies somewhere, but where exactly does it lie? (And my general operating principle - if the originating press is english-language, it almost certainly lies to some extent...)

I also recognize this may be attacked as naive, but as far as I know, the operating governing principle in Beiing is still Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and, if emphasis on markets rather than command and control has taken place, it's also a fact that the Beijing government actively governs with a view towards not just social stability, but also equality and fairness. Whereas in the west discussions of gini coefficients and growing income disparities make the glibertarian elites roll their eyes, these considerations are taken very very seriously, still, in Beijing.

As long as the party hasn't changed its name and the army is still called the People's Liberation Army, I'm going to err on the side of naivete and continue to believe that they are, in the large survey of history, on our side.

That, anyhow, explains what might appear to some to be my apparently curious position here.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What can I say? (4.00 / 5)

Your assumptions seem contrary to my own experiences in the region.

Your "naive faith" in the nature of the PLA as a non-imperial instrument seems contrary to a history of a thousand years of popular revolts against "Imperial rule" in many regions of what is now China.

Your assumptions about how seriously the "Gini coefficient" is taken in governing circles in China seems not only contradictory to the experiences of the people I know living there, but also the outcomes of government policies we can see in action.

Distrusting the Western press is a good thing, but you might consider being less certain about "the realities on the ground" if you are claiming a position of "generalised distrust of the propaganda we're being fed."

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But my assumptions are also informed by my (none / 0)

many friends from (and in) the PRC, and in particular the view of Tibet as integral part of China is of a pair with the general view of Chinese people living in the PRC. It's not just the official line.

I am wondering, do you have any numbers, information on the PRC and income inequality that would suggest the Beijing government and the Party do not take this seriously? China is a big place, a bigger place, by most meaningful demographic measures far more socio-economically diverse, to begin with, than Europe is, and so you need to take these differences into consideration. Comparing gini's to Europe's individual nations, or even the US, is therefore not appropriate, as the rapid gains the PRC has made economically are regionally uneven, something the Beijing government actively tries to manage. Rural poverty is quite high, but let's remember that China is still going through the stage of rural to urban migration which largely ended in Europe two or three generations ago, and this process creates havoc in creating income disparities in the short term all the while eventually, if managed well, creating conditions for much greater equality in the medium- and long view. Put another way, I have no doubt the PRC will be a much more equal place than it is today when my grandchildren finish school; as for the "West" (tm), I'm not so sure. That might be an article of faith, but there it is.

And anyhow, the most comprehensive measure of human rights and human gain, produced annually by the UN, has the PRC climbing steadily where it will soon enter the top tier in the UN's Human Development Index's annual rankings. Compare to the other places we are talking about - India, Bhutan, Nepal. Way, way down. For me, it's simply not even controversial to say that the PRC is mankind's most successful poverty alleviation program in history.

And I do distrust propaganda and take official PRC statements like this one with perhaps less a skeptical eye as I do the anglo-american press, but a skeptical eye nonetheless. But I will say one thing, and this too may be taken by some as an article of faith and if so, so be it: socialist imperialism is an oxymoron. I don't see the PLA in this sense the same way as you.

All this being said, I suppose we could give Brittany back to the Bretons, it's been part of France for about as long as Tibet has been part of China, and there is a separatist movement there as well, at times in history quite strong.

Plus they have a really cool flag.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But my assumptions are also informed by my (4.00 / 2)

While I do not agree with everything you write (especially your esthetic opinion of the Chinese flag design, but that may simply be a question of fashion), I find myself nodding along with most of what you have to say in this comment and much of what you write elsewhere in the thread, albeit I have only been in China for nine months and in the extremely affluent, very sheltered east coastal town of Hangzhou.

There are still things to be very concerned about with respect to China, perhaps even afraid of, including Han nationalism which DoDo (or was it Metatone?) mentioned, corruption, the precarious state of internalized social controls, and a historical self-image which is shockingly grandiose (not to mention favorite Western targets like natural resource consumption, socioeconomic inequality, human rights abuses, information control, pollution, etc.) But -- and like you, maybe I am being naïve -- overall I am impressed by and optimistic about China's progress.

Oh, reading Western coverage of these riots has been disappointing to say the least -- and in some ways even more instructive about Western media bias than the pre-Iraq war insanity.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:39:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I meant to add, however... (4.00 / 3)

that I am daily reevaluating and revising my thoughts and feelings about China, based on personal experiences, observations, readings, conversations, etc. Who knows, one trip to Tibet and what I see and hear there may completely change my views -- and another trip may do so again. It's happened before, both here and in other places, as it must happen to many people living overseas, or even within their own countries.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I meant to add, however... (none / 0)

This is a good point, a very good one.

And perhaps my perceptions are colored by my own experiences, which is far more PRC-oriented (I've probably exchanged 50 ims with one of my best friends from university...her da is a PRC (now retired) diplomat who spent a long time at the UN.) But while dated, I did have contacts on the other side of this argument we are having here as well, not Tibetan, but Bhutanese, also from university days, a woman from my circle of friends who was a daughter of an adviser to the king and also posted for a time at the UN. She went to Scarsdale for high school in America, then the same international university as I (Kofi Annan, among others, was a graduate) at the same time and again in the same circle of friends.

The things she told about Bhutan, and what she would be doing when she graduated, and the typical life of a Bhutanese back then (ie, not going abroad for school in rizty highschools and so on), boggled my mind. I immediately thought of peasant life back in the days of the Shogunate.

I mean, I understand people romanticise this stuff, and I understand also the romanstic appeal of this "national happiness" measure the king of Bhutan has come up with (funny - that's not PR, but "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" somehow is!). But sorry, for me, progress ain't the past, it's now and in the future. Great leaps forward, great enough so that the inevitable steps backward in reaction don't retract the whole of the steps leaped.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 04:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But my assumptions are also informed by my (none / 1)

What about piles of bodies of killed monks shown on CNN yesterday? Were these photos fabricated, it's also anti-Chinese bias? In fact if Western media is biased it's unabashedly pro-Chinese (savouring how barbarous Tibetans attacked innocent Han settlers) and especially CNN which invested heavily in China and coverage of upcoming Olympics.

by FarEasterner on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 07:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But my assumptions are also informed by my (4.00 / 2)

I do not have access to CNN TV here, and I have not been able to find the pictures on their website. If you have links to those pictures, could you post them here?

I may be naïve and gullible, but I do not believe the weeping Han civilians who were interviewed on Chinese TV news were actors making up stories about how their daughters and sisters were burned to death in stores which were impossible to escape from which were set on fire by Tibetan mobs from which they were hiding.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But my assumptions are also informed by my (none / 1)

On the other hand, the Chinese news keep on reiterating that they have "definite evidence" that the "Dalai clique" was behind all the riots, in Lhasa as well as Sichuan, without bothering to tell us what the evidence consists of.

Of course, one cannot buy the Chinese version wholesale. But one should not buy the foreign version wholesale either.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh, silly, I wasn't talking about the (none / 0)

PRC flag (which is fine by me anyhow, I like the dominant color!) but the Bretagne flag:

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no doubt that there is popular (none / 1)

I read of widespread worker and peasant revolts in Eastern China over the past five years on (leftist, Mandarin-speaker) blogs before the Western MSM took notice.

The PLA was used to crush the people's uprising in 1989 all across the country (this is not commonly known, the revolt then did not consist of TV-cameraed Beijing students on Tiennanmen Square only).

As an internationalist, I take expressions like "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" as PR hogwash to cloud over the abandonment of real Marxist ideals. (I contend BTW that rejecting internationalism was crucial in the initial split-off of Social Democrats from Marxist socialism, and a similar rejection by Lenin sealed the fate of the Soviet Union.)

In my view, the PRC central government considers social stability a power issue, exploitation of migrant workers is OK as long as discontent doesn't concentrate in a major region. Ths what it does is less programmes for social equality rather than regional equality.

After these critical notes, I submit it may be that, as it often happens in top-down hierarchical systems, the majority may believe that the central government is all good for them, and blame local officials for problems (not recognising this is a systemic problem, and strikers and uprisers against a bad local official who appeal to the central government are in for a rude surprise when armed forces are sent in in support of that official). The example that sruck most in me comes from a source you may term MSM, National Geographic: Northeast of Bejing, a local official embezzled the funds for the big tree-planting project, by sending people to dig the holes but not buying any trees. The author seemed to expect anti-regime feelings, but the locals told him about it all in the explicit hope that he'll relay it into the ears of the top in Beijing.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no doubt that there is popular (none / 1)

I contend BTW that rejecting internationalism was crucial in the initial split-off of Social Democrats from Marxist socialism, and a similar rejection by Lenin sealed the fate of the Soviet Union

I'd really like it if you developed this thought into a longer post.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no doubt that there is popular (none / 1)

Heh... I'm supposed to do that about since I wrote this... I shall, eventually :-)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 4)

I don't think I have to go over what China's experience with British colonialism actually was; this was but one aspect of it, but the history is sordid, very very sordid, and goes far to explain properly nationalist views in China in this regard (and again, to reiterate, I'm not Chinese).

Ah please, one can be a victim of imperialism and imperialist at the same time. There have been rebellions against China's own colonialism throughout its history of over two millennia, some successful (Vietnam) some not (Miao-Yao rebellions).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 04:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 3)

Redstar,

China is an imperialist power like any other. It has "historical" claims on all of its neighbours: Tibet, Indochina, Eastern Siberia, etc. The fact that it's not a European power doesn't make any difference.

by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 03:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is so wrong. (4.00 / 2)

Culturally different. Linguistically different. Ethnically different.

Commonalities in traditional world views are real--resulting from intellectual and trade ties over many centuries.

This is a case where facts exist. Opinion alone not acceptable.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (4.00 / 3)

Everything you said is obvious lie as Chinese themselves were under the rule of foreign Manchu dynasty till 1911. Only in the last period Manchus tried to assimilate themselves into Chinese mainstream, but were not fully accepted (just read about Boxer rebellion and their slogans and derogatory songs).

Tibetans do not owe their civilisation, religion and culture to China in any way, and their country was occupied and their culture, religion and way of life were brutally suppressed since 1950. More astonishing that China still continue to claim some Indian territories like Arunachal Pradesh claiming these lands once belonged to Tibet - no surprise how locals think of such horrible perspective. Sheer hypocrisy, callous and imperialist designs - that's how inhabitants of these Buddhist regions think of Chinese policies.

If some did not know here I am neither Tibetan nor Indian to be biased by origin. I know and can speak about many negative features of Tibetans and Indians and their policies, but these do not overshadow the clear picture of atrocities committed by China in Tibet. In my view you just try to justify unjustifiable.

by FarEasterner on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 07:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 0)

I really don't appreciate being called a liar.

Especially given that I've been more than respectful in presenting the counterpoint, and that at root, the source of dissension is as much one of interpretation of fact as it is one of ideological beliefs. We've had similar discussions on Afghanistan (where I've actually been at) and held the undoubtedly just as unpopular view on this matter that Afghanistan would have been far better off if the Saudi Americans and their mujahideen proxies had been defeated by the Soviets and Najibullah, while bad, was far better than who (and what) came thanks to the Saudi Americans.

For me, this is a very similar discussion at the ideological level. Same part of the world, too, buffer areas of hardscrabble between very large and competing regional imperial powers (one of which you current reside in). And, while the Dalai Lama presents an admirable, sympathetic, noble face for his people and his cause, I think you know that as he has moved more and more towards inclusionary, progressive views of the future and of relations with Beijing and the Han people who live in Tibet, the exile community has in inverse proportion gotten quite nervous about him. This brings to the fore the obvious question of who succeeds the Dalai Lama after his death, and what all of this means to future progress, plurality human rights and human gains not in this decade, but in future decades as well.

Again, I really do not appreciate being called a liar.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 1)

Well I wanted to say un-truth but later realized that un-truth and lie are the same.

Didn't you say that "Tibet has been part of China since before the white man..." - you do feel comfortable with such distortion of history?

And yet you proceed to invoke some long-overdue sympathy for treatment China suffered at the hands of European powers and Japan then spinning into what real aspirations of Tibetans are (surprise, surprise in one-party state).

If you don't appreciate to be called a liar, you had better to think whether your statements are independently verifyable or not in advance.

by FarEasterner on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 0)

Lie carries an intentional distortion, "You know that this is not true, but you are saying it anyway".

If it is untrue this can either be becuase it is a lie or because it is factually incorrect and the other person is unaware of it.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Mar 24th, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 1)

FarEasterner:

Everything you said is obvious lie

I'm not an FP'er, but there was no need for saying that, FarEasterner.

It only diminishes your point.

Which is a shame, because this has been an interesting thread and Diary.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 1)

It may not be personal, I read it as "lie [of the PRC]". It may also be a poorly picked word (i.e. instead of "falsehood") from someone not with English as first languege like you and redstar. So I won't flag it as FP.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 0)

I'd buy that if anything I said in the comment he was responding to in any way made referenced to, or was sourced from, PRC press, government statements and whatnot.

Understood english as second language, something i deal with all the time, but i don't think that's what was going on here.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 1)

I don't and won't be shy when some shamelessly spread false information espcially here, right beneath my diary.

If you feel comfortable with lies it's up to you.

by FarEasterner on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 05:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't misunderstand, I don't think. (none / 0)

I don't know too much about the history of China and Tibet, but I seem to recall that the relationship is much more complicated than "Tibet has been part of China for hundreds of years". The Mongol empire is not China just like the Ottoman empire is not Turkey. It doesn't look like the Ming Dynasty controlled Tibet, and the Qing Dynasty was Manchu, not Han. In addition, in 1912 the Chinese army detachments in Tibet simply left and went back to China. The fact that China (and Britain) didn't recognize the independence of Tibet doesn't mean that China did anything to assert authority over it until it got into Mao's head.

Culturally, Tibet has features both from the Hindu and Chinese cultural matrices - like (the perhaps aptly named) Indochina, it's a buffer state between India and China. It is probably not properly part of neither. Someone mentioned the fact that the 3 great Chinese rivers start in Tibet. In fact, they start in the provinces of Amdo and Kham to the Northeast, which China annexed around 1928 leaving the region around Lhasa (what is now the Tibet Autonomous Region) alone. The region around Lhasa is an endorheic basin with no ecoregion-level connection to China proper. Someone mentioned the sources of the Brahmaputra but that's just on the southernmost edge of the Tibetan plateau. Were it not for the buffer state location between China and India it would have no strategic value to China. Well, maybe there are some mineral deposits there. At the rate they're going China can rape those resources in 5 years and move on to greener pastures leaving a bunch of smoking holes in the mountains. Which brings me to the PRC as "history's most successful poverty reduction program" to quote another comment of yours in this thread. Is that sustainable? It's being done at an appalling environmental price, and it is doubtful that the Chinese people in the hinterland are benefitting at all from it, not to speak of the fact that the Cultural Revolution was a cultural suicide to follow the physical suicide that was the Great Leap Forward. Wasn't there some story about all metal objects being confiscated in order to help the industrial production, but for instance the many, many tons of steel produced to match the insane targets of the central planners were brittle and effectively crap steel? What a waste.

Tibet fun fact of the day: the game of Go (WeiQi in Chinese, quite possibly also the game referred to as Qi in ancient texts) probably originated in Tibet. We know this because an archaic version of the game is played there. Maybe we could have a case of "our national game originated in Tibet therefore Tibet is China".

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 06:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cry for Tibet | 66 comments (66 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Bidenomics made real

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - October 2024

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Recent Diaries

Zelenskyy's Dream of Victory over Russia

Gaza and Ukraine Wars Digging Gold for Profiteers

Yom Kippur and Genocide

Schizophrenic Disorder ICC The Hague

Building a Regional Superpower in a New Middle East

Brussels and Washington In Geopolitical Union

Starmer's Government Complicit In Gaza Genocide

Todd: The Disappearance of US Hegemony

Biden Willingly Entrapped by Netanyahu

Final Joint US-IL Assault On Iran

Hate Preachers Wilders-Ben Gvir-Smotrich

German Industrial Weakness in Charts

Gaza Massacre One Year On

America's Revenge On the Islamic State of Iran

Post Neoconic Wars, Hypocrisy Thrives In the West

Aysenur's Death a Targeted Murder by IDF

3rd Day Rutte Next Stop Moscow

1st Day on the Job - Mark Rutte

Harsh Lesson On Humanitarian Law and Israel

Bidenomics made real

Occasional Series