Feb 09
Dealing with the Activist Scoundrelism of the West
Written by bianxiangbianqiao on Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Filed under:media, News | Add comments
Filed under:media, News | Add comments
Throwing a shoe at Wen Jia Bao created very little arousal among the Chinese. Time has changed since the Olympics. One Chinese commenter on MITBBS was concerned about how the shoe-thrower walked out of the building on his way to jail bare-footed, in the snow falling in London at that time. Did the police lend him a shoe to remedy his uneven legs?
A year ago I would be choking back vomit when reading news about the shoe-thrower and his likes. This time, I did not even bother to watch the video of the incident on the internet. I did not feel Wen’s remarks after the incident particularly inspiring because I did not see the incident as worth anybody’s attention. Even Wen’s activities in that part of the world seemed of little significance beyond formality and symbolism.
Indifference is a sign of maturity gained from experiences. It allows one to see through phenomena that have salience but little substance. The Chinese parable, “the Donkey of Guizhou (黔之驴)”, is of great metaphorical value in understanding the process of maturation.
“At the beginning Guizhou had no donkey. Then a certain person introduced a donkey to Guizhou. The local tiger at first approached the donkey with great trepidation. When the donkey raised his hooves and displayed his kicking skills, the tiger fled. But after a few rounds of progressively intimate encounters, the tiger figured out that the ineffective kicks were the only way the donkey could do damage. Then the tiger devoured the donkey, and Guidzhou became donkey-free again.”
China’s encounters with the activist scoundrels of the West are like the tiger’s intercourse with the Donkey. The Olympics introduced Western activist scoundrels to China. At the beginning they were arousing, because they were creepy. But eventually you figure them out. After all, they are donkeys (AKA asses in the US). They are the same scoundrels as the more mundane type, like the two guys who took off all their clothes and sunned their ass cracks in the Summer Palace on a bright spring Beijing day a couple of years ago.
There are currently 5 comments highlighted: 28198, 28495, 28542, 28618, 28647.
A year ago I would be choking back vomit when reading news about the shoe-thrower and his likes. This time, I did not even bother to watch the video of the incident on the internet. I did not feel Wen’s remarks after the incident particularly inspiring because I did not see the incident as worth anybody’s attention. Even Wen’s activities in that part of the world seemed of little significance beyond formality and symbolism.
Indifference is a sign of maturity gained from experiences. It allows one to see through phenomena that have salience but little substance. The Chinese parable, “the Donkey of Guizhou (黔之驴)”, is of great metaphorical value in understanding the process of maturation.
“At the beginning Guizhou had no donkey. Then a certain person introduced a donkey to Guizhou. The local tiger at first approached the donkey with great trepidation. When the donkey raised his hooves and displayed his kicking skills, the tiger fled. But after a few rounds of progressively intimate encounters, the tiger figured out that the ineffective kicks were the only way the donkey could do damage. Then the tiger devoured the donkey, and Guidzhou became donkey-free again.”
China’s encounters with the activist scoundrels of the West are like the tiger’s intercourse with the Donkey. The Olympics introduced Western activist scoundrels to China. At the beginning they were arousing, because they were creepy. But eventually you figure them out. After all, they are donkeys (AKA asses in the US). They are the same scoundrels as the more mundane type, like the two guys who took off all their clothes and sunned their ass cracks in the Summer Palace on a bright spring Beijing day a couple of years ago.
Happy lantern festival. Have a prosperous year of the Ox everyone.
a more mature bxbq
There are currently 5 comments highlighted: 28198, 28495, 28542, 28618, 28647.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Please do not throw your shoe at Mr. Wen unless it is a luxury brand costing hundreds of dollars. If you do, you need to throw the entire pair, so I can donate them to the poor. Now, you need to buy a pair of shoes from China to help their regime. 🙂
You need to be more creative – copycat is no place in our society. I understand your energy, good nature and idealism. I was the same when I was at your age. I hope you’re there to protest for China when your ancestors pushed opium to China.
It is history that the Britain’s evil parliament approved to send warships to enforce the opium trade to China. What do you call a country pushing opium? The alliance of foreign countries to burn China’s summer palace, looted all the treasures… The ruin should be a required site for all European tourists. All the museums in Europe should classify whether the Chinese treasures are loots and posted the info if necessary.
Spend your energy elsewhere. The choices are unlimited: CEOs enjoying outrageous benefits/bonuses from companies receiving bailouts, or helping US to kill Iraqi children in a war you cannot afford. Hope you folks can find the mass destruction weapon in Iraq some days.
Your action on the wheel-chair torch bearer for Olympic showed the world how barbarious and coward you are.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:36 am
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-02/09/content_7458536.htm
It looks like that this person who threw the shoe is a graduate student of the school. I’m surprised that Wen asked if he could stay at the school. This shoe thrower should be expelled from school as a lesson. An educated person like him should learn the consequences of his actions.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:26 am
@ pug_ster: I agree with you that he should have more than a slap on the wrist, even if Wen said he should stay in school. Wen was a guest of the university and this grad student was representing his school when attending this function, so his behaviour is a direct reflection on his university. What he did was entirely unacceptable, regardless of how good his research has been in his chosen field. A lack of punishment would condone his behaviour and if anything, as an older graduate student he should be held to an even higher standard than an undergrad. On top of that, as a foreigner he is a guest in the UK and is representing his country while there. I have absolutely no sympathy for this guy.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:56 am
If you want to email Martin Jahnke here is his email address.
If you want to send your comment to the head of Cambridge Pathology Dept., here’s Dr. Wyllie’s email address.
Both found on their staff directory.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Absolutely, the shoe-thrower needn’t have bothered. Without a doubt, he should face the music to the full extent of British law. And yeah, this little stunt should leave a lasting impression on his transcript. But happily, there’s acknowledgment that it really wasn’t that big a deal…after all, it was a shoe (and it wasn’t even a 4 inch stiletto). Even a year ago, I can’t see how a reasonable person would find due cause for vomiting. And if the ability to recognize a sideshow for what it is constitutes the basis of maturity, then congratulations, you’ve arrived.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:38 am
China’s encounters with the activist scoundrels of the West
bxbq, out of curiosity who are the “activist scoundrels of the West”? I’m sure no one here supports physical confrontation but you would acknowledge that only a minority of China activists in Europe and the Americas could be considered “scoundrels”, yes?
+++
This shoe thrower should be expelled from school as a lesson.
pugster, so I take it you support the prosecution of the Iraqi who threw a shoe at George Bush?
This guy should be judged in accordance with the law, though I hope that people here don’t have one rule where shoes are being thrown at Chinese leaders and another when they’re thrown at foreign ones.
However, expulsion is rather extreme. If this guy had a history of causing trouble for the university it might be appropriate, but this seems unlikely given the fact he has apologised already. I would simply let the matter be handled at the magistrates court.
+++
If you want to email Martin Jahnke here is his email address.
Charles, I’m sure the flesh search engine has already resulted in his inbox overflowing with abuse. I doubt any e-mails we’d send would get through, let alone be read.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Raj,
How could you possibly equate Bush with Wen? One is the ultimate enemy of human rights, all that’s righteous of our specie, responsible for the death and suffering of millions on this earth, and the soul mate of an able accomplice against humanity with a last name rhymed with air. And the other is a beloved premier of a country of one billion plus. What an insult? Have you no sense of right and wrong and appreciation of human dignity?
[EDIT] Just to make sure there is no misreading of this comment, please take a liberal dose of similes while reading it. 🙂 😉 😎
February 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This continues the trend of the coarsening of the West, the UK, and Cambridge. As Singapore’s MM Lee Kuan Yew said before, it is becoming from bad to worse.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
@ DJ
Is this really the road you want to go down? Shoe throwing at Bush is OK because he “deserved” it, but shoe throwing at Wen isn’t because he didn’t deserve it? Who’s to say who deserves what? To the Wen shoe thrower, Wen deserved it. It was a protest of Beijing’s policies in Tibet and Xinjiang, perhaps. I’m not saying I agree with him. But I think shoe-throwing at people is generally not productive or otherwise desirable anywhere, regardless of who the target is. I think the Wen shoe thrower should be prosecuted according to the law. But I think the Bush shoe thrower should be too.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
As Singapore’s MM Lee Kuan Yew said before, it is becoming from bad to worse.
BC, I think that someone who as much contempt for freedom of speech as LKY shouldn’t be quoted in a situation like this.
+++
How could you possibly equate Bush with Wen?
DJ, I think WillF sums it up quite well. You think Bush is a bad guy and Wen ok, but plenty of people think Wen is just as bad or worse. If we all threw shoes at politicians we didn’t like every time they appeared in public there’d be chaos.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I would like to know what it feels like to feel nationalistic fury. I would really like to know.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Oh come on guys, couldn’t you see I was just joking here? Do I really need to put a big smiley to show that I wasn’t serious?
On the other hand, if anyone wants to argue that Bush didn’t do lasting damage to the humanity or that Wen is evil just because he is a high level Chinese official, well I have no desire to argue about it to begin with.
And just to be sure: I wish everyone would just go back to throw pies. Much healthier and tastier that way. And if there must be one on the receiving end of a shoe, let that be Bush or Cheney.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
DJ, you do a very good impression of an enraged fenqing. 😉
February 10th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@DJ:
I actually thought you were joking at first, but yes, the lack of a smiley threw me off 😉 Sadly, your rant was quite realistic!
February 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Heh as a reader for a while now, I detected a lot of sarcasm.
Still, I’m glad the student didn’t get expelled. Obviously there should be consequences for his actions, but everyone deserves a chance to make ammends. Of course, he’s also a grad student so maybe expulsion wouldn’t hurt him too much.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Of course, he’s also a grad student so maybe expulsion wouldn’t hurt him too much.
It rather depends what sort of a graduate student he is. Chances are he’s having to invest a lot of money for his course, which he wouldn’t get back. He may also need to complete his studies for his career.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
@Bxbq,
What if the shoe had hit Wen and caused slight injury (ok – maybe didn’t have to cause injury, just hit Wen in an undignified way)? Would your response be as measured? Just curious…
February 10th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Raj,
“…..who are the “activist scoundrels of the West”?”
There are too many to enumerate. You should know them if you have been around.
Allen,
“…… Would your response be as measured?”
Yes. I have mellowed out. More important, the incident would still be of little significance. A valuable lesson the Olympics taught me is that there will always be scoundrels, creeps and freaks, but you don’t have to worry about them. It is not your problem, as long as you keep them away from your property.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
bxbq
There are too many to enumerate. You should know them if you have been around.
I wasn’t asking for a list of names. I wanted you to be clearer in how you define who is an “activist scoundrel of the West”. For example, were you just talking about people who use violence, or does it goes further than that?
February 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Raj,
I believe he means someone who ‘cares’ China but knows nothing about China.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
May I ask what does “Bian Xiang Bian Giao” mean?
I went to your site and it appears that you are an academic of some sort.
Thanks. Happy Lantern Festival and Year of the Ox
February 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Wahaha
I believe he means someone who ‘cares’ China but knows nothing about China.
I have yet to come across someone who could be considered an “activist” yet knew nothing about the country in question.
It might be more appropriate to try to argue that they are misinformed or only know one side of the story, but the “X knows nothing about China” argument rarely washes. It just sounds like they’re being dismissed because one’s views conflict with their’s.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Raj,
One typical kind of “know nothing” person is one who tries to educate others what to do while he has no idea who others want most and care most ….
February 11th, 2009 at 2:42 am
lol, lame protesters. Stealing other people’s shtick. I would liked it more if he dressed up as braveheart.
@james
“Of course, he’s also a grad student so maybe expulsion wouldn’t hurt him too much.”
ba-zing!
February 11th, 2009 at 2:49 am
BXBQ:
“will always be scoundrels, creeps and freaks, but you don’t have to worry about them. ”
Oh yes…One just can’t get away from the likes.
Politics is the refuge of elected and appointed scoundrels, two-faced liars, cheats and blabber mouths.
Supreme examples: Decider GWB, and the current VP with his 35 year long battle with the Biden’s Foot-in-Mouth Disease
Creeps: people who give free cultural advices to another group of people whose language(s) they couldn’t or wouldn’t bother to master, hence having no idea but conjectures of what others want most and care most about. Here’s an example of the most common type of creeps found in South East Asian countries, with high concentrations in Korea, Japan and China including Taiwan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPyeyH31Aqg
Freaks: Religious fanatics of whatever faith and persuasions. ( I am waiting for Allen’s promised article on this.)… 🙂
February 11th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Bxbq, sorry but I think you took a serious short cut in your thinking. Of course things would be much more harmonious if nobody would actually bother to voice out (and/or throw their shoes) — but: wouldn’t silence simply perpetuate hegemonic narratives and convince our leaders (whoever and wherever they are) that they get away with their stupefying and all-too-convenient stories?
This story should not be told as one about the “activist scoundrel of the West” but as a story about civic courage that transcends narrow nationalist limitations. The expression of dissatisfaction can take on many forms — and this should be welcomed as long as it creates the possibility of change. Just my 2ct.
(Okay, you might say that there are more effective ways to voice out dissent than to get attention for throwing one’s shoe… but this holds true only in an ideal world that heeds attention to dissenting voices. I doubt that at the given venue anyone would have been allowed to ask a critical question or otherwise express their dissatisfaction. The difference between England and China and other countries in this regard is smaller than we may think.)
February 11th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Wu Di, what change should be created from this shoe throwing? Should Wen be shamed for invading Iraq? Or stop killing innocent Iraqi civilians? Should China pulled out of Iraq? Since Mr. Jahnke isn’t a muslin, he’s obviousely equating Wen with Bush.
It’s not even clear what the protester is protesting. If he is upset that Cambridge is cavorting with some dictator, why isn’t he throwing the shoe at the president of Cambridge?
As to weither Wen is a dictator (Wen is indirectly elected by the NPC), I’d like to remind Mr. Jahnke that neither the chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of UK are directly elected, and Germany was responsible for allowing Hitler to come to power democratically.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I’m happy we’ve made clear now that shoe throwing as such is only valid when protesting the invasion of Iraq, and not something else.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Charles Liu: In response to your question: Among other things, the shoe-thrower expressed that he was upset about so many journalists blindly believing the words of Wen Jiabao. So maybe his action was directed against mainstream media, against perpetuating dominant narratives in general, and against the passivity with which most people accept them.
It seems to me that the protester did not intend to hurt the feelings of the Chinese people in particular — his action was rather a sign of discontent with the state of the world in general. Of course we can’t be sure — maybe his shoe simply didn’t fit well.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Was it a Birkenstocks, Sanita, Haflinger, Scholl, Tatami, Papillo he threw because he discovered that his pair were in fact made in Dong Guan, China?
February 11th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Wu Di, do you know what Wen said? Anything in particullar that shouldn’t be believed blindly? Here’s the speech.
I must admit I didn’t know about the speech until I read this blogpost.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:55 am
To Charles #27:
“As to weither Wen is a dictator (Wen is indirectly elected by the NPC), I’d like to remind Mr. Jahnke that neither the chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of UK are directly elected” – do we really need to go through all that all over again?
February 11th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Charles Liu: And to your other question, what change would possibly be created by the shoe-throwing? Let me answer with Faulkner: “Between grief and nothing, I will take grief.” So-called ‘harmony’ based on nothing is not harmony, it is silence. All true harmony is based on grief and how it is dealt with.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am
To HKer:
what, Birkenstocks are made in China? 🙂
February 11th, 2009 at 8:28 am
To Charles # 31: Well, Wen’s speech is a great example of speaking without saying anything. So I guess there’s only two appropriate responses: falling asleep, or throwing one’s shoe. 😉
Well, actually I don’t think that particular speech was particularly bad (as far as political speeches go). Yet it may have been the only speech Mr. Jahnke actually attended in person… (Plus, in terms of people deserving a shoe thrown at them, Mr. Wen is not exactly on top of the list.)
February 11th, 2009 at 10:46 am
# 34
SKC,
My last pair of Levi’s 501 were made in Canada. I got them for – I think, 30 CND somewhere Vancouver, can’t remember…. My first pairs were probably made in Hong Kong then shipped to some sweat shop in some American military bases in Taiwan, Japan or Guam, or American Samoa (I’m just making this part up of course) to be tagged with “Made in USA,” and wha la, they were suddenly your pair of genuine, quintessential Original American Jeans. Which basically translates to huge price mark ups. Back in the day, before Shenzhen was a popular weekend excursion destination, I used to go to the factory outlet shops in Mongkok and Sham Shui Po to get my Levi’s 501 for like 15 dollars a pair. There were NO, as in Zero quality difference between my “Original” 501s and those pre-shipment 501s straight out of the HK jeans factories.
http://greatwide.blogspot.com/2007/06/made-in-china.html
50-250 dollar Nikes & Addidas sneakers and sports attires etc are all made in China. Why not Birkies?
February 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
One typical kind of “know nothing” person is one who tries to educate others what to do while he has no idea who others want most and care most
Wahaha, that is a two-edged sword of a statement. It may apply to non-Chinese and Chinese alike, especially in regards to an issue like Tibet.
All I’m saying is that it’s not good to make generalisations about “activists” unless one differentiates between those who use violence and those that don’t.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
My friend proudly showed me his shirt label Made in USA. The entire shirt except the buttons is made in China. The Chinese ‘refugee’ in NYC (or the illegal Mexican in LA) put the buttons in – the buttons and the thread are from China. You need to live in a cave to avoid Chinese consumer products. 🙂
February 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wahaha, that is a two-edged sword of a statement. It may apply to non-Chinese and Chinese alike, especially in regards to an issue like Tibet.
Raj,
That is true.
but common sense tells me you cant believe those who talk about human right of Tibetan people every day but never give a dollar to help Tibetan kids. Dont you agree ?
Who should I trust more on Tibet issue, a government pouring billions of dollar to make them live better or some people who have done nothing for Tibetan kids ?
Do you think you know what a group of people care and want most while you never care about their kids ?
_____________________________________________
Damn, I love the moral weapon !!!!!
February 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
” So-called ‘harmony’ based on nothing is not harmony, it is silence. All true harmony is based on grief and how it is dealt with…”
Wu Di
You reverse the order.
Materially and politically, Most things are built on harmony, though not all of them……
February 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Wahaha
but common sense tells me you cant believe those who talk about human right of Tibetan people every day but never give a dollar to help Tibetan kids. Dont you agree ?
You’re comparing apples with oranges. It’s up to the government to institute reforms to increase Tibetans’ standard of living – are you saying that China is so poor it needs to rely on foreign aid in the 21st century?
Foreign campaigners seek to exert pressure to institute a change in Beijing’s political and social policies in Tibet, which would not cost anything. Besides, campaigning costs someone their free time.
Who should I trust more on Tibet issue, a government pouring billions of dollar to make them live better or some people who have done nothing for Tibetan kids ?
Or, to put it another way, should you trust a government that carries out crackdowns on any form of organised opposition/public criticism of Chinese rule in Tibet, tells Tibetans whether they can have a picture of the Dalai Lama in their house, seeks to control the religious hierarchy in Tibet purely to solidify its own rule there, etc or should you trust people whose sole objectives are that Tibetans be able to live as they wish?
February 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“It’s up to the government to institute reforms to increase Tibetans’ standard of living ..”
I guess India has everything you mentioned.
_____________________________________
“should you trust a government that carries out crackdowns on any form of organised opposition/public criticism of Chinese rule in Tibet”
I dont see how West government would do differently to seperatists.
You are from Britain, show me a newspaper that is publicly pro- free-irish.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Raj,
My definition of activist scoundrels are those who care about getting attention to themselves and expressing themselves, but not the weak and helpless implicated in the issue. They use the misery of unfortunate people as a way to grab attention.
Wu Di,
No I am not taking a shortcut or being simplistic. There is nothing “Civic” about those punks and scoundrels. Your answer to Charles Liu’s question “what does shoe-throwing change” is unsatisfactory. Nobody can make the Chinese people take “grief” or any sort of crap from the activist punks just because Faulkner would enjoy it.
Keep in mind those scoundrels are the most useless people you can find anywere in the world. Remember that loser from Brooklyn who climbed to the top of a tower to unfurl a free tibet banner during the Olympics? This dude did not have a bank account and has never paid taxes. And he wants to make a change in the lives of the Tibetans? That is some thing to chucle about. Who financed these punks’ trip to China during the Olympics?
February 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
42, Whahaha
I guess India has everything you mentioned
So now India has a responsibility for making Tibetans’ lives better? Does the Beijing government have any responsibilities towards Tibetans?
I dont see how West government would do differently to seperatists.
Given that Sinn Fein is allowed to operate and be part of the Northern Ireland government, despite the fact it has always campaigned for a united Ireland, you’re clearly talking nonsense.
Compare that with Tibet where there is no alternative to Communist rule. To even speak of such a thing can lead to repercussions.
You are from Britain, show me a newspaper that is publicly pro- free-irish.
Which UK newspapers are not free Irish? All the mainstream ones that I can think of support civil rights and democracy in Northern Ireland (and would condemn any crackdowns in the Republic of Ireland).
+++
43, bxbq
My definition of activist scoundrels are those who care about getting attention to themselves and expressing themselves, but not the weak and helpless implicated in the issue. They use the misery of unfortunate people as a way to grab attention.
Well you’ll have to pardon me if I think that’s so vague you can extend it to include just about anyone.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Raj,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly
….
The Assembly has been suspended on several occasions, the longest suspension being from 14 October 2002 until 7 May 2007, a period of over four and a half years. When the Assembly was suspended, its powers reverted to the Northern Ireland Office
…..
what is Northern Ireland Office ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Office
The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) is a United Kingdom government department responsible for Northern Ireland affairs.
Please kindly stop talking about Tibet.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
*Sigh*
Wahaha, none of that means there is no scope to argue for a United Ireland within the UK. So the Assembly was suspended whilst the parties found a way to work together, so what? It is functioning once more and people in Northern Ireland can decide exclusively on a range of issues that are important to them. Even while it was suspended they still had civil rights to enable them to speak their mind and democractically elected MPs to put their cases forward in Westminster. And going back to what you said earlier, as I explained UK broadsheets back civil rights and democracy there.
There isn’t even multi-party politics in Tibet, let alone the ability for Tibetans to decide on any issues by themselves. There aren’t pro-Tibetan newspapers in Tibet, let alone China!
So your comparison is still ridiculous.
And I will talk about Tibet if I like, thanks.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Who suspended the assembly ? people of Northern Ireland ?
_____________________________
“And I will talk about Tibet if I like ..”
Am I talking to someone who believe that a child molestor has the right of being in the jury ?
February 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Am I talking to someone who believe that a child molestor has the right of being in the jury ?
Well unfortunately we can’t get rid of the CCP from Tibetan affairs – we have to include them in the process.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
so you admit your government is a molestor of the people in Northern Ireland ?
We didnt say that chinese government is, and your opinion is worth as much as the cry from a robber who complains that there are some robberies in his neigborhood.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
so you admit your government is a molestor of the people in Northern Ireland ?
Well, first of all it’s their government as well – they want to be part of the United Kingdom. Second they have civil rights, democracy and multi-party politics. Third they have a devolved government. So, no, I don’t admit it – I completely refute it.
We didnt say that chinese government is
Sorry, “we”? Is there more than one personality inside your head? If so please make it clear which Wahaha I’m talking to with each post.
your opinion is worth as much as the cry from a robber who complains that there are some robberies in his neigborhood
Actually my opinion is worth a lot more than that because I’m a knowledgeable chap who isn’t blinkered or childish, unlike yourself.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
You still dont get it.
If you are a child molestor, you are not qualified as a judge or a jury to judge others or judge if someone is a child molestor or not, whether the ‘someone’ is a child molestor or not is not the topic I was talking about.
Therefore, I politely asked you kindly not talking about Tibet.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
You still dont get it.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t accept it. I have not committed any crimes, so I am free to speak my mind. No mature adult would ever say that someone’s opinion doesn’t count because of their nationality.
You’re resorting to playground tactics. Grow up.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
so you dont deny your government is sort of ‘child molestor’ ?
February 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I’ve already given you the answer in # 50. I’m not going to keep repeating myself until I supply the answer you want to hear because you’ve got a chip on your shoulder about the fact many European and other “western” governments try to provide civil rights for their citizens, whereas the Chinese administration thinks it has the right to beat the shit out of them whenever it pleases.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
No, you didnt answer the question.
If they are so willing to be part of united kingdom, why was their assembly suspended by united kingdom ?
Who authorized United Kingdom to suspend the assembly that represented the will of people of Northern Ireland ? people like you ?
February 11th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
No, you didnt answer the question.
What I wrote – “I don’t admit it – I completely refute it.” That’s an answer, even if you don’t like it.
If they are so willing to be part of united kingdom, why was their assembly suspended by united kingdom ?
Because the parties couldn’t agree on key issues and squabbled amongst each other. This meant there wasn’t an agreement on forming an executive. When they eventually agreed to form an executive, the Assembly started up again.
Who authorized United Kingdom to suspend the assembly that represented the will of people of Northern Ireland ?
Are you completely brain-dead? Northern Ireland IS PART of the United Kingdom. The Westminster Parliament is the national legislative, ergo it has authority over every part of the country. Devolution was granted by Parliament so of course it had authority to suspend it.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Why is Northern Ireland part of Unted Kingdom ?
_____________________________________________
“Because the parties couldn’t agree on key issues and squabbled amongst each other…”
Well, that is business that should be solved by people of Northern Ireland, it didnt give the the british government the right to override their wills for 4 and 1/2 years.
BTW, if your index finger feels tired for downgrading my posts, please let me know.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Please explain why Northern Ireland is part of United Kingdom.
Later.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Why is Northern Ireland part of Unted Kingdom ?
Why is Tibet part of China? Why is any region part of any country? Because of History. If you want to read up on its history and how it became part of the UK, please do. But what happens now is more important to this discussion because the thread author was talking about modern-day matters.
The simple fact is that the people in Northern Ireland are afforded much better rights than Tibetans are. You don’t like that – tough. Perhaps you should develop a bit of courage and admit when China is in the wrong and could do things so much better, rather than try to drag everyone else down to its level.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:24 am
I didnt say Northern Ireland is not a part of United kingdom.
I am asking you why Northern Ireland is part of United kingdom.
Why ?
Cuz then I can replace “Northern Ireland” with “Tibet”, and “Untied Kingdom” with “China” in your answer. So next time, if any british goon and thugs try to make a case that Tibet is not part of China, I have an easy answer by a British gentleman.
Get it ?
February 12th, 2009 at 4:36 am
For the sake of discussion, I think we can all agree that Tibet, Northern Ireland or any other contested areas _are_ currently parts of other countries, whatever we may think of it. I’ve met people who say that Tibet is not part of China, but I always found that silly – it clearly is when the whole infrastructure and government is controlled by China.
In the same way, of course I disagree with the way the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states, but the fact is that they were part of the Soviet Union as long as they were occupied. I guess this whole thing comes up because saying that X is part of Y to some people means that one acknowledges that X is not occupied by Y. But this doesn’t follow.
As for whether Taiwan is part of China, I would say that it currently isn’t, at least not part of PRC. The reason is the same that Tibet is a part of China: it’s ruled by the government of PRC, but Taiwan isn’t. As simple as that.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:14 am
How did a British shoe thrower become a “US ass” in the parable?
February 12th, 2009 at 5:18 am
To Wahaha #47:
“Am I talking to someone who believe that a child molestor has the right of being in the jury ?” – that, and all your subsequent references to it, are completely useless comments, even in the context of your little exchange with Raj. It would be nice if, every now and then, your goofy examples actually had some relevance.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:29 am
To Wahaha #60:
“Cuz then I can replace “Northern Ireland” with “Tibet”, and “Untied Kingdom” with “China” in your answer…Get it?” – actually, as is becoming all too commonplace with you, there’s nothing to get. Currently, there is negotiated peace between Northern Ireland and the UK. Where is the negotiation between Tibet and CHina? And, in case you’re not clear about it, I’m not talking about the TAR CCP party head chatting to Beijing.
THe question has never been whether Tibet is a part of China today; the question is whether Tibetans want to be a part of China tomorrow. What is the impediment to your ability to comprehend the discussions of the past 9 months?
February 12th, 2009 at 5:43 am
@bxbq: “Keep in mind those scoundrels are the most useless people you can find anywere in the world. Remember that loser from Brooklyn who climbed to the top of a tower to unfurl a free tibet banner during the Olympics? This dude did not have a bank account and has never paid taxes. And he wants to make a change in the lives of the Tibetans? That is some thing to chucle about. Who financed these punks’ trip to China during the Olympics?”
In my view, people who have never had bank accounts or paid taxes should still have the right to protest. Just a thought.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Wukailong,
I didn’t know anything about BXBQ’s account of that protester’s financial status. Assuming it is true, then BXBQ’s question is relevant because I would also naturally suspect that pole climbing dude was a paid trouble maker. It wouldn’t be something for me to feel shocked about.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:47 am
@DJ: It’s in comment 43.
If the point is that he’s paid by somebody else, sure. I imagine it might not be too difficult to get help from relatives or friends, but I guess bxbq believes something more shady is going on. As to how he knows the guy’s financial status, I don’t know.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
THe question has never been whether Tibet is a part of China today; the question is whether Tibetans want to be a part of China tomorrow. What is the impediment to your ability to comprehend the discussions of the past 9 months?
SKC,
What is the impediment to your ability to comprehend the discussions of the past 9 months?
You accused chinese government for repressing the free will of Tibet people, right ? (which makes Tibet issue an issue of human right, not sovereign.)
Look at what your master did to the people of Northern Ireland.
Isnt it obvious that British government only allowes a puppet government exists in Northern Ireland ?
For god sake, the Northern Ireland assembly existed only since 1998, but was already suspended for 4 times, one of them lasted 4 and 1/2 years which is almost half of period it has existed.
WHO GAVE BRITISH GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY ?
Let us imagine if Russia government and China’s government had backed the people of Northern Ireland, and sent them millions of dollars each year TO THOSE who wanted free northern ireland, …..
February 12th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Who was financing the anti-China protests before and during the Olympics?
This may be old old news, but still worth revisiting.
Am I repeating Charles Liu? If yes, ignore.
Of course the charges have been denied by the parties involved, just like the Holocaust.
The source:
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/index.php?lang=en&mode=detailed-search&mcat=archive&string_and=&string_not=&date_start=&date_end=&string_or=Beijing+Olympics&x=7&y=4
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56147
Quotes:
“Several front organizations of German foreign policy have for years been supporting the Tibetan exile structures in Dharamsala, India. This includes support for organizational measures enabling the “government in exile” in Dharamsala to orchestrate its activities against the People’s Republic of China worldwide. Particularly the Free Democratic Party (FDP) affiliated Friedrich Naumann Foundation and the Heinrich Boell Foundation (affiliated with the Green Party) are cooperating with the “government in exile” and other exile Tibetan institutions. Front organizations of US foreign policy are working toward the same objectives. Already in the 1950s Washington was intervening in Tibet with millions of dollars, at the time, even supporting Tibetan armed uprisings against the People’s Republic of China. German organizations took up the question of Tibet around the end of the 80s, at a time when China was beginning its rise to become a global competitor of the west. The current activities are apt to greatly weaken China. These supplement other German-US measures aimed at thwarting the rise of their East-Asian rival….”
“Still another example for the intensive trans-Atlantic Tibet cooperation can be seen in the “International Tibet Support Network” (ITSN), which over the past few months was decisively involved in the anti-Chinese torch relay campaign. ITSN was founded within the framework of the “International Tibet Support Group Conference” held in Berlin in 2000, as a network of the Tibet initiatives around the world. Since the mid-90s the Support Group Conferences have been organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (affiliated to the German Free Democratic Party), to give the Tibet initiatives around the world the opportunity for consultations and coordinating actions. In the aftermath of the Naumann Foundation’s Fourth Tibet Support Group Conference, the ITSN established so-called Campaign Working Groups with the tasks of planning and carrying out campaigns.[3] At the Fifth Support Groups Conference, held in May 2007, the ITSN presented not only detailed plans for the “Olympics Campaign,” but also introduced Freya Putt of Canada, as the “Olympics Campaign Coordinator” for the period from May 2007 – September 2008. Freya Putt is one of the decisive organizers of the sabotage campaign against the Olympic torch relay.[4]”
“Without the Friedrich Naumann Foundation’s Tibet Support Group Conferences, the ITSN would hardly have been able to carry out the “Olympics Campaign” on a global scale. US finances were also an essential asset. ITSN received, for the period from July 2007 – June 2008, a special grant from Washington – furnished by NED. Beyond the current campaign, ITSN is seeking to insure the political clout of its member organizations for future projects. Training the members in how to raise finances and other politically useful skills.”
“Also active for the “Tibet cause” is the Green Party affiliated Heinrich Boell Foundation, which, like the FNSt works out of its branch office in India. According to its own indications, it “intensified the focus of its years long support for the exile Tibetan community at the turn of the year 2005/2006.”[9] They are now concentrating their support on two organizations that have their headquarters in the exile Tibetan “capital” Dharamsala. They are the “Tibetan Center for Conflict Resolution” (TCCR) that mediates conflicts that arise within the community and more particularly the “Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy” (TCHRD). The TCHRD publishes annual reports on Human Rights violations in Tibet and is very significant for the justification of Tibetan political demands. The Heinrich Boell Foundation writes that “taking into consideration the persisting – even though seemingly futile – demands for Tibetan self-determination, there still exists (…) an urgent need for documentation of human rights violations and the policy of assimilation carried out by the Chinese state authorities in Tibet, such as produced by the TCHRD.”[10] The TCHRD is also being supported by the “National Endowment for Democracy” (NED), a front organization for US foreign policy that has become notorious for sponsoring the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.”
February 12th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Isnt it obvious that British government only allowes a puppet government exists in Northern Ireland ?
Given Sinn Fein’s a part of it, I’m not sure that it is obvious – except to someone who is clearly divorced from reality such as you are.
Whereas I guess you believe the Tibetan government really reflects the will of the Tibetan people and not Beijing’s.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Who financed the Olympic protests in Beijing?
Who was behind the famous Three Women who Upstaged Beijing?
Let’s get information from the website of David kilgour. Dave is a Parliament Member of Edmonton, I guess that is in Candada.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/2008/Mar_31_2008_06a.htm
“It was supposed to have been China’s week – the Olympic torch ceremony kicking off the final countdown to the Beijing Games. Instead, protesters spoiled the party. Doug Saunders traces the seven years of planning to usurp the showcase…….”
Who do some of these women work for?
“An ITSN Olympic Campaign Coordinator, Freya Putt, hired June 2007 …. In April 2007 ITSN appointed an Olympics Coordinator (Freya Putt) to help the …”
This info is from the ITSN website. It is deleted from the site. But google it.
ITSN stands for “International Tibet Support Network”, which in its own words “regard Tibet as an occupied country and recognise the Tibetan Government in Exile as the sole legitimate government of the Tibetan people…”
Where do Western journlists go to obtain a picture of the protesters arrested on the Great Wall for unfurling Free Tibet banners? Go to Freya Putt, of course. Are you still wondering who sent those punks over to China????
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/08/protest-china.html“Melanie Raoul of Vancouver was arrested Tuesday in China.”
photo “Courtesy of Freya Putt”….
well done, punks.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Given Sinn Fein’s a part of it, I’m not sure that it is obvious – except to someone who is clearly divorced from reality such as you are.
Raj,
Who gave British government the right to suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly ?
and
Why did British government suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly ?
February 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Who gave British government the right to suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly ?
The UK Parliament, which itself gained legitimacy over Irish affairs (only Northern Ireland after Republic of Ireland became independent) through the Act of Union – this was approved by the Parliament of Ireland. Then there’s also the Northern Ireland referendum 1973 where it voted to stay within the UK and thus agreed to the political settlement of the day. The 1998 referendum which also passed agreed to the current political structure.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Raj,
Is Wikipedia controled by double o ?
Damn, hardly any information can be found about the activites of free Northern Ireland.
The following shows a little light about what is really going on :
….
The overall result of these problems was to damage confidence among unionists in the Agreement, which was exploited by the anti-Agreement DUP which eventually defeated the pro-Agreement Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) in the 2003 Assembly election. The UUP had already resigned from the power-sharing Executive in 2002 following arrests of Sinn Féin personnel on charges of gathering intelligence for use by terrorists. (These charges were eventually dropped in 2005 on the controversial grounds that pursuit would not be “in the public interest”. Immediately afterwards, one of the accused a Sinn Féin member, Denis Donaldson was exposed as a British agent.)
……
quite funny, isnt it ?
Act of Union, you mean the papers signed 300 years ago ? wow, wow wow….
and the 1998 referendum only showed the irish people dont like violence, in no way did it mean that British government has the right to suspend their government. in 2003, anti-agreement unions beat pro-agreement union, THE ASSEMBLY WAS ELECTED BY PEOPLE OF NORTHERN IRELAND, Why did British still suspend the assembly till 2007 ?
February 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
BTW, will you explain the following ?
_____________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election,_2007
At the 2003 election the DUP and Sinn Féin became the largest parties so there was no prospect of the assembly voting for the first and deputy first ministers.Therefore the British Government did not restore power to the Assembly ……
___________________________________________________________
Why “there was no prospect of the assembly voting for the first and deputy first ministers.” cuz DUP and Sinn Fein became the largest parties ?
What is even funnier is that when pro-UK party became the major party after 2007 election, then the NIA ‘regained’ the power. It is like whether the irish government elected by people of Northern Ireland has power or not is determined by british govenment, not people of Northern Ireland.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Act of Union, you mean the papers signed 300 years ago ? wow, wow wow….
Proves how much you know. The Act of Union was in 1800. And, yes it does confer legitimacy. Territories that are part of countries now have often been merged for centuries. But if the people of Northern Ireland wanted independence, they could get it by giving Sinn Fein a majority inthe Assembly and voting for it in a referendum. They could have got independence in 1973 as well, but they voted to stay part of the UK. I see you ignored that point.
in 2003, anti-agreement unions beat pro-agreement union
The largest party being the Democratic Ulster Party, which is Unionist. So you’re trying to tell me that people in NI don’t want devolution, they just want to be ruled by the national Parliament in Westminister?
Those same parties now support the agreement because their grievances have been settled. Unlike in Tibet where if you have a problem with the status-quo, you can shut up or go to jail.
THE ASSEMBLY WAS ELECTED BY PEOPLE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
As it always has been. More than the Tibetans have.
Why did British still suspend the assembly till 2007 ?
Because the Unionists and Republicans kept falling out over a number of issues and refused to work together. The Assembly had to be suspended so that policy could be made on devolved matters by someone (i.e. Westminster) – otherwise, with government in Northern Ireland paralysed by disagreements between the parties, none of these issues could have had any laws passed on them.
What is even funnier is that when pro-UK party became the major party after 2007 election, then the NIA ‘regains’ the power.
The Democratic Unionist Party was already the largest party in Northern Ireland before 2007. Again, your ignorance is quite astonishing.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
You are talkinging nonsense !!!
I am talking about that no agreement gave British govenment the right to suspend the assembly.
The UUP was not the major party, therefore British government wouldnt give the power back to assembly until their puppet controled the government.
______________________________________________
Show me which item on 1998 agreement gave British government the right !!!!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
THE ASSEMBLY WAS ELECTED BY PEOPLE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
As it always has been. More than the Tibetans have.
__________________________
Only when the government elected by them is pro-UK govenrment.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
By the way,
More than 50 % of Tibetans have been living with Han Chinese for hundreds of years.
I am sure that if they are asked the question “should Tibet stay as part of China ?” , they will answer “Yes”, UNLESS they are threated by those monks.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
You are talkinging nonsense !!!
So you’re telling me there was no referendum on independence in Northern Ireland, or if there was one that the people actually voted yes?
The UUP was not the major party, therefore British government wouldnt give the power back to assembly until their puppet controled the government.
The UUP has never had a majority of seats in the Assembly, so it has never had a monopoly of power. But given the UUP has not been the largest party from 2003 onwards your logic makes no sense given that devolution has been restored.
Only when the government elected by them is pro-UK govenrment.
When did they last elect an anti-UK government? Please name the date of the election and the party that held a majority of seats.
I am sure that if they are asked the question “should Tibet stay as part of China ?” , they will answer “Yes”, UNLESS they are threated by those monks.
Then why has China never settled the matter by holding a referendum? Oh wait, those highly-trained and heavily armed monks will threaten the Tibetans and the armed Chinese Police and military can do nothing. What useless fools they are, prouncing around in their uniforms but unable to help a poor Tibetan.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Can’t believe PRC was so soft on these activist scoundrels. They ought to be locked up in places like Gitmo for their crimes.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
In some ways, I really don’t want to get into this conversation between Raj and Wahaha because I don’t think much will be illuminated at the end.
However, I do want to make one point.
A lot of times, Westerners will tell their Chinese friends smugly that hey, look what freedom loving people we are, how open we are – in a country like Britain (or Canada), we even allow historically pent-up ethnic groups such as the Irish (or the Quebec French) to vote whether they want independence several times (ok that’s a simplification, but you get the point) and each time they have decided to stay to be part of the greater Union (UK or Canada).
But you Chinese… especially in Tibet … you hold onto power by force….
OK. I have said this many, many times. Political freedom and political stability are functions of many factors, including geopolitical strength. economic prosperity, etc. UK’s giving “referendums” at certain points in its history doesn’t mean a thing about its true liberalism. Would UK be so liberal if its survival is under any real threat (hasn’t happened in the last 200 years)? China can easily give “referendums” too when it becomes stronger and politically more stable (not that they should). If UK could rely on a convenient schedule of referendums for political legitimacy – why can’t China or any other political entity?
Furthermore, referendums are not magic bullets – they are part of the political process, just like any other. At certain points in history, referendums make sense. At other points, civil wars make sense. Depending on the situations, a whole range of political solutions, from peaceful civil rights movement to violent revolution movements, from liberal democracy to authoritarianism, all make sense. None is by themselves good or bad. All are legitimate politic tools. Which tool is most effective and should be used depend on a host of factors, including the specific economic, social, and political context of the times.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
” those highly-trained and heavily armed monks will threaten the Tibetans and the armed Chinese Police and military can do nothing. ”
Who killed civilian in 3.14 riots ? Chinese police in Tibet did the same thing British force did in Northern Ireland.
___________________________________________________________
” So you’re telling me there was no referendum on independence in Northern Ireland, or if there was one that the people actually voted yes ”
The right to suspend the assembly was not on any referendum !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland
….the principle that the people of the island of Ireland as a whole have the right, WITOUT ANY outside interference, to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent. The latter statement was key to winning support for the agreement from nationalists and republicans….
February 12th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
btw, Raj,
I am sure you know the so called “Reserved matters” that Northern Ireland Assembly do not cover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_matters
Let us see what NIA has no right.
constitutional matters
UK foreign policy
UK defence and national security
fiscal and economic policy
immigration and nationality
energy: electricity, coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy
common markets
trade and industry, including competition and customer protection
drugs law
broadcasting
elections and the registration and funding of political parties
…….
_________________________
See the last item ? funding of political parties.
Now, tell your government and other west government stop funding the exile government, then we can talk about the election in Tibet.
I will fully support an elected government in Tibet but Chinese government has full control of policies list above.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“In some ways, I really don’t want to get into this conversation between Raj and Wahaha because I don’t think much will be illuminated at the end.”
Allen,
How dare you claim I hasnt illuminated anything ?
Didnt you see ? Chinese government should learn from British government, let Tibetan people elect their own government, but the ELECTED government has no power over any important policies, economically and politically; and the funding for parties in government must be completely controled by chinese government. (how the party in assembly can survive without the help from British government ?)
Of course, they have the right to fight among themselves, and British government is automatically the judge.
Great Idea.
Thx, Raj.
Please dont forget telling your government and other west government to stop funding the exile tibetan government, then I am sure there will be good compromise from Chinese government or the evil CCP.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
@Wahaha … hehe.
No I wasn’t saying that what you said was not illuminating. In fact, I’d go one up further than you to say that democracy in general is a great charade where people get to vote but don’t actually have real leverage over the course of governance of their country. But that’s for another thread … in another time…
Anyways – what I really meant was that there are so much emotion between Wahaha and Raj that in the end, I sometimes would get a dizzy head rather than take away anything substantive from the discussion…!
But that’s probably more a flaw in me than you … or Raj! 😉
February 12th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Since I am at it, I’ll say it: referendums can be a charade. In the case of the second Quebec referendum, the results could easily have come out the other way with a slight change in boundaries of voting districts – voter turnout – advertising $ spent – previous decades of immigration patterns – etc. But we nevertheless take the results as a god send, voice of the people… Go figure!
February 12th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Great, BXBQ is back, and showing how “forgets nothing and learns nothing” is the best way to go through life.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Allen,
There is no tension from me THIS TIME.
I dont know how far Raj, SKC can take this disscusion.
I am thrilled to find out the “Reserved matters”, from which I think Chinese government can learn a lot.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Allen, that’s an interesting post that I fear misses the crux of the issue.
First, there is no smugness here or amongst most commentators. Northern Ireland has had a difficult history, and no one would go back and do the same things all over again. But there is hope now that would have been inconceivable little more than a decade ago. That is, at most, pride in people finding a way to bury the hatchet and work together for a better future. Why do so many Chinese people want to deny us our successes when they’re so quick to trumpet and demand recognition for their own, either historically or in the present?
Second, you’re wrong to say that the UK’s survival hasn’t been threatened for over 200 years. In just the last century there were two World Wars and the Cold War, all of which were a threat to our nation. I find it incomprehensible that you would sweep these under the carpet. They were extremely challenging times, yet in the long-run democracy survived every time. Whereas in China (the PRC anyway), regardless of whether there has been peace or war, good times or bad, it has always been authoritarian.
Third, you complain that the UK has the ability to call a referendum when it chooses. Yet China has never called a referendum, is not likely to and you, as a Han Chinese (I believe), don’t want them to. No one has said China must have a referendum now. But if it is not willing to ever legitimise itself by making Tibetan government accountable to the Tibetan people, either through referendum or election, then your point has no standing.
It is very logical to say that there cannot be any long-term peace if China continues to expect Tibetans to just accept Chinese dominion. So you have the perfect system of never having to offer democracy because the place isn’t “stable” enough, and without a political solution the Tibetans accept they will always be somewhat resentful and not obedient, thus justifying the need to wait indefinitely until they change their attitude – which they may never do.
Fourth, a referendum isn’t a magic bullet, but it at least offers principle of offering people to approve or disapprove of the way things are going where they live.
Does civil war ever make sense? I don’t think so. Neither does authoritarianism. Even when the UK has been at war it has not abolished rule of law, judicial independence, legislative oversight, etc. Why does China have to be any different? Oh wait, I forgot – China is a weak, fragile nation. Funny that – I hear Chinese say all the time about how it’s becoming a superpower and an example to others….
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If China isn’t ready for democracy or even civil rights, Chinese should stop boasting about how wonderful things are there. As far as I can see they’re the ones who boast most of the time, not the foreigners. If they want to keep boasting, they should drop the rubbish about how China can’t handle civil and political change at anything other than a glacial pace.
++++
Wahaha, first the Chinese government doesn’t even offer Tibetans that level of devolution. Second, that’s a list for Scotland not Northern Ireland. Congratulations, you have demonstrated that your research competancy is that of a 10 year-old with an internet connection.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Raj,
Thanks for pointing out my mistake cuz I dont have the habit of pointing finger at others unless I am perfect at that.
but I fully support your idea to let Tibetan people elect a government like scotland governmetn that has no power at all.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@Wahaha – The Northern Irish problem as it stands now is a failure to come to a power-sharing agreement. Otherwise, if you want to argue that it is a puppet parliament, you have to overcome the problem that Sinn Fein would not serve in it if it was. The dispute is not between the British government and the people of Northern Ireland, but between the Unionists and the Republicans.
Why does the UK control funding, registration etc. of political parties? Because the UK runs the elections, and therefore imposes the same restrictions on accepting funding from non-UK residents etc. as apply to the rest of the UK – are you saying that the elections were unfair? Even Sinn Fein does not argue this.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
here is for norther Ireland,
Reserved matters
Criminal law
Police
Navigation and civil aviation
International trade and financial markets
Telecommunications/postage
The foreshore and sea bed
Disqualification from Assembly membership
Consumer safety
Intellectual property
[edit] Excepted matters
Royal succession
International relations
Defence and armed forces
Nationality, immigration and asylum
Taxes levied across the United Kingdom as a whole
Appointment of senior judges
All elections held in Northern Ireland
Currency
Conferring of honours
International Treaties
_____________________________
Why does British government have to control ALL elections held in Northern Ireland ?
Why does British government have the control of assemby member (Disqualification from Assembly membership) ?
Why does NIA have no power over their financial market ?
and the reserved matter “Policy”, does that mean that British troop can take over police duty anytime they want ?
February 12th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Please read the link again
Yes, I know there are reserved powers, thanks. That’s why it’s called devolution, not independence.
But what you said was “Let us see what NIA has no right.” and then posted a list, despite the fact that it came under a heading saying in large, bold letters “Scotland”. It’s bad enough that you’ve been citing Wikipedia, which we all know can be unreliable. But given you can’t even use it correctly perhaps you should try to use more credible sources of information.
I fully support your idea that Chinese government should allow Tibetan people electing a government that has no power whatsoever.
You don’t consider education, health policy, cultural matters or finance to be useful powers then? That’s just some of the things that have been devolved to Northern Ireland.
BTW, why UK has to have the control over “elections and the registration and funding of political parties” ?
Possibly because Northern Ireland still elects MPs to Westminster so needs to follow national rules to ensure all elections are fair. Also I don’t know whether the different parties in NI are quite ready to trust each other when it comes to matters like that without outside assistance.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
@Wahahaha – The Scottish parliament most definitely has substantial powers, if it did not, the Scots nationalists would not serve in it.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Raj,
My post didnt pop up,
here is link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly#Reserved_matters
I fully support an elected government in Tibet that if Chinese government have all the control on the list, like chinese government can control “All elections held in Northern Ireland”.
but the first thing to do is that west government stop funding the Tibet exile government before we can talk about election, right ?
later.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
like chinese government can control “All elections held in Northern Ireland”.
The UK government doesn’t “control” elections. They’re run by the local constituencies. All it does is set national rules – e.g. whether seats are allocated by first-past-the-post, proportional representation, etc.
but the first thing to do is that west government stop funding the Tibet exile government before we can talk about election, right ?
But China doesn’t want to hold open elections – it has made it clear it doesn’t want to change. So why would anyone stop sending the Tibetan exiles money before China even suggested it would change its policy?
February 13th, 2009 at 12:51 am
# 82
“all make sense. None is by themselves good or bad. All are legitimate politic tools. Which tool is most effective and should be used depend on a host of factors, including the specific economic, social, and political context of the times.”
Good post Allen.
I think Wahaha is wonderful in voicing what I hear many Chinese are voicing – Right or wrong, he / they / we are all entitled to our POVs.
Things get emotional because cross-cultural correctness or sensitivity, common courtesy, or basic diplomacy is not used in dialogues. Adjectives and phrases like “You just don’t get it,” “brain-dead,” “Moronic,” “grow up,” “YOU need to do/know/understand this/that/in our country/ democracy…etc simply invite equal or stronger reactions.
The thing is, I don’t see much of such reactionary exchanges happening between Steve and others. Allen, Admin and Buxi are also very good at keeping their emotions in check – and hence are all very effective in getting their points across – Kudos to y’all. You are the reason I keep coming back. Please, please, please don’t let this mountain-moving blog be turned into another mindless China/West-basher.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:37 am
TQ, I echo your sentiments about FM because I feel that recently there’s been a slight deterioration in the quality of posts and too much tit-for-tat. We also seem to be going over the same themes repeatedly so perhaps people are just getting a bit frustrated. I don’t think this has been helped recently by BXBQ’s last two articles, which are slightly provocative and have a distinct West-bashing, Chinese flag-waving flavour to them.
I think it’s a good idea to revisit older articles on the main topics of contention and learn a bit from them, see how the discussions went before deciding whether to wind someone up with a new post. Everyone, keep it quality as I want continue to learn from this blog.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I think the Northern Ireland/Tibet debate has kind of moved away from the issue raised in the original post (the shoe-hurling protester). To return to that, the question that I want to ask is if you agree the shoe-hurler and the guy with the free Tibet banner are “activist scoundrels”, and should not be taken seriously, what activists are not scoundrels?
In the case of the shoe guy, I think we got to separate his actions from what we assume his sentiment is. Throwing a shoe at a person is assault, plain and simple, and it doesn’t matter why he threw the shoe. But what if instead of throwing his shoe, he had published a brochure on Tibet or Falun Gong or whatever his issue was, and distributed it before Wen’s speech? In my experience, anti-Chinese activists run the gamut from people who are almost totally ignorant of the issues to people who are exceptionally well-informed (in some cases, even ex-PRC citizens who have spent time in PRC reeducation work camps). You can’t just tar them all as “scoundrels” or “punks”.
I also take issue with the bit about activists protesting solely for the purpose of “getting attention for themselves”. This is probably true of some activists, but how can you prove it? Second, what the activist’s personal motivation may or may not be is irrelevant to the validity of the point they’re making. If I carry around a sign that says, for example, “Prisoners are abused by the US army in Guantánamo Bay”, because I’m trying to pick up a hot anti-American protest babe, but really don’t give a damn about Guantánamo Bay, that doesn’t make my statement any more or less valid, does it?
February 13th, 2009 at 2:51 am
(I do however agree with the general point that not claiming the shoe-thrower was a Dalai Lama/CIA funded stooge sent to humiliate Wen as part of a vast pan-‘Western’, anti-Chinese conspiracy headed by evil American neo-conservatives who hate and fear the PRC was a good thing.)
February 13th, 2009 at 3:16 am
@Lime # 100,
Great question.
I do not remember how many years ago, when I was in graduate school, I went to a colloquium in some social science, probably sociology. I do not know whether the speaker’s research has since been published. At that time he was a fresh Ph. D. from Stanford, presenting his dissertation at his job talk. He presented his findings from following a group of hard-core save-the-tree activisits in California, with a leading figure nicknamed “the spider woman”. She got the name from living on top of a tree for more than two years, refusing to get down on the ground. I guess that meant no showers, peeing and shooting crap from the treetop, anyway a lot of sacrifice. Her mission was to save some sort of red trees from being cut down by a lumber company that had bought them. The lumber company did all kinds of cruel things tyring to get her down, shining a spot light on her 24/7, using loudspeakers to blast noises at her. The spider woman was relentless. She seemed to relish every moment of the hardship. She had a cellphone, and she got the TV crews camped under the tree day and night, and she gave passionate speeches to the media through a set of teeth unbrushed for many months. She was in the spotlight and it invigorated her, nurturing and nourishing her soul. The social scientist was not interested in any of this, until the state government bought the forest from the lumber company; the trees were saved. The issue became moot. The activists mission was gone. Nobody was going to cut the trees anymore; the state promised and passed laws. Everybody should go home and live happily ever after, a perfect happy ending. The spider woman had no reason to stay in the tree. What happened to spider woman and her comrades? They had to leave the trees, and they they became depressed. Some turned into drundards and drug addicts. What was the moral of the story? Other people’s misery can be the only way some people find meaning for their own lives. They depend upon other people’s misfortune to have a sense of purpose and direction for their own lives. This story has since become my paradigm for activist scoundrels, or punk activists, or individuals with serious defects. Do they care about trees, Tibetants, Chinese oppressed by their government? Nah. They are too screwed up to care for anybody. They have to nurse the pain from their own defect and have no heart to spare for anyone.
Another prototype of this category of seriously flawed individuals is “the Grissly Man” from the documentary in dicovery channel, a former aspirant movies star turned away by Hollywood, long-time alcoholic, born-again save-the-grissly-bear-freak activist, and eventually food in the belly of an aging grissly bear, all in all, a useless good for nobody.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:37 am
To Wahaha #68:
“You accused chinese government for repressing the free will of Tibet people, right ?” – yep.
” (which makes Tibet issue an issue of human right, not sovereign.)”- well, actually, it can be both.
“Isnt it obvious that British government only allowes a puppet government exists in Northern Ireland ?” – as soon as something akin to Sinn Fein is allowed to exist in Tibet, and the CCP negotiates with them to come to a mutually acceptable agreement, then we’ll start talking parallels between Northern Ireland and Tibet. Until then, once again, you’re talking nonsense.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:48 am
I completely agree with bxbq’s assessment of these activist scoundrels – they are really “too screwed up to care for anybody.”
To be fair, China and rest of the world will have their share of these type of activist scoundrels. The question is when do they assert themselves in U.K.. The more interesting question then is should China crack down on such scoundrels?
How should the Canadian government justify cracking down on this ITSN’s Freya Putt?
February 13th, 2009 at 6:54 am
To Wahaha #79:
“I am sure that if they are asked the question “should Tibet stay as part of China ?” , they will answer “Yes”, UNLESS they are threated by those monks.” – how, might I ask, did you arrive at this certainty of yours?
To Allen #82:
Nice post.
“If UK could rely on a convenient schedule of referendums for political legitimacy – why can’t China or any other political entity?” – would you happen to have China’s schedule handy? I was wondering if I’m in time to catch the next one.
To Allen #87:
Quebec’s referendum didn’t have voter districts. It was a free-for-all, since they weren’t electing representatives, just answering a question. Voter turnout is almost always disappointing, but that doesn’t diminish the legitimacy of the result. We have the right to vote, but you can’t force people to exercise that right. And when you have a vote, you have to live with the result, assuming there’s no fraud and voter intimidation etc. Is voting the absolute pinnacle of society for higher vertebrates? Maybe not. Does voting cure cancer? Probably not. Is having a vote better than not? That, to me, is pretty obvious.
February 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@bxbq (#102): I know it’s difficult to recount stories others have told, but I’m wondering if you know what the friends of the spider woman were doing? Were they hanging out with her all day? I’m trying to understand where they belong in the story, that’s all.
I think it’s pretty obvious a lot of people do things not only because of their mission, but also because of the sense of meaning this mission gives them. It’s more exciting to be a rebel than to be part of the government that the rebels create. Still, I don’t see why wanting to be seen or adding meaning to your life necessarily invalidates the goals you strive to attain. In the end, didn’t the spider woman succeed? And how did this add to the misery of others?
I don’t think a person would live two years in a tree with all sorts of hassles just to congratulate herself. Obviously she believed in her cause, but when the cause was won, she got bored and even depressed. Somehow pathetic, but I don’t see why it makes her an “activist scoundrel.”
February 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@Wukailong 106,
I do not remember the the details of the Spider woman. I might have got her nickname wrong too. It might be “Spider Judy” or “Judy the spider woman”, or something like that. The spider woman might have been a small part of the speaker’s talk about the psychological factors perpetuating “activism”. It was a few years ago and my memories are scattered.
I was using the spider woman and the grissly man as metaphors to model part of the punk activist psyche. These two people, despite their punky streak, are not punks or scoundrels, strictly speaking, especially the spider woman. They changed things, for the trees and the grissly bear. The punky part of the spider woman, and especially the grissly man (a loser-drundard-turned-activist) is that they started their activism not out of compassion for the victims, but out of desperation in their alcohol-infused, empty, purposeless and unfulfilling lives. Using trees and grissly bears as tools to save their wretched souls is kinda ok, because even if you don’t do the trees and bears any good, there are only so many ways you can harm them with your wackiness and freakiness. (They could have found Jesus, like president Bush with his drinking haibt. That would work for them too.) Using victimized people, such as oppressed Tibetans and Chinese as tools to gain attention to themselves, as a psychotherapy laced with sensation-seeking, is of very dubious taste. It smacks of exploitation.
Scoundrels and punks piss people off mainly by violating their taste, not because of the harm they are capable of, although the harm they bring could be substantial. If you take the grissly man as an example, when he was devoured alive by the bear, he was not alone. He brought a woman who apparently had a sharp eye for well-adjusted men and great things in life. But she volunteered herself for the trip so she can’t complain. These deeply troubled people harm those around them as collateral damage. As for the Olympic protestors, and those who instigated the Tibetan riots in March 08, have they changed things for the better for the Tibetans or the Chinese? Have they not hardened Chinese nationalism and given the Chinese authorities the excuse, if not mandate, to crack down on Tibetans even harder? Do they even care about the consequences for the victims? Their only achievement was the eyeballs focused on themselves, for a fleeting moment. That is probably the only thing they care about anyway. The shoe thrower is an example of the senselessness and trivialness of these punks. His shoe-throwing was a weak and hapless way of drawing attention by being disruptive and a spoiler.
@Huaren104,
There is no need to crack down on the activist scoundrel and punks. They are distasteful. They are eyesours. But they have very limited capacity to do harm. They are pawns of their handlers, if they even have handlers behind them.
Moreover, there is no way you can completely insulate yourself from them. I have learned one useful insight from a psychologist friend. “All human traits are normally distributed. There are always extremities on the two ends (genius versus idiot).” Put in a more folksy way, “in a big forest, you have all sorts of crazy birds.林子大了，啥鸟都有。” As one goes through life, it is unrealistic to avoid running into one or two crazy birds, once in a while. Don’t sweat it. It is part of living in the world. The crazy birds have their rights too. Just try to keep them away from your property as long as you can.
The Olympics have given me a lot of wisdom, and made me very very contemplative and reflective.
Foarp,
I hope I have broken the writing into enough paragraphs.
I am looking forward to a productive day, full of compassion.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Charles, you really weren’t paying attention before were you? How can I put this? EVEN ACCORDING TO WEN JIA BAO CHINA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Did you get that? I hope you did.
Oh, and in case you did not notice, the NPC is not democratically elected, so please, leave it out.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I equate professional protesters to the professional mourners (the hired mourners at funeral to draw sympathy and attention to the deceased family and add to the deceased social prestige). I guess the end justifies the mean. Their motivation sure won’t validate the purpose one way or another, yes it draws attention, but it sure leaves a bad taste in the mouth. You can only chuckle at the display of their ‘grief’ or ‘anger’.
February 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@bxbq
“But they have very limited capacity to do harm.”
I’ve come to really like your thinking.
Actually, for me, the more I think about it, the more I have come to appreciate China’s government’s patience with these “activists.” Its a clear indication of confidence.
The Olympics has given a lot of pride to the ordinary Chinese citizens. That adds to their confidence. I simply love the momentum China has in development.
February 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
FORAP, SKC and Raj,
Let us cut the crap,
Why did British government set those items as reserved matters ?
Like “police”, “senior judge”, “defense” ?
Dont tell me that most people in Scotland and northern Ireland agree to stay in UK NOW, this may change in the future.
What is purpose of putting those ‘meaningless’ item if British government has nothing to worry.
We are talking about politics, so please dont give me some idiotic reasoning, like ” White horse is not a horse.”
Raj,
I dont know why and what Chinese government has to prove to west first.
Why cant we demand West do something to prove they have no intention to seperate China ?
If they insist they care about Tibetan people, fine, then explain why didnt they NEVER, I MEAN, NEVER help Tibetan people live better, how about sending 100 million dollars, other than the money to stir the pot, each year to help tibet living better,
Actually, what chinese government has done in Hong Kong has clearly proved anything you demand, like giving them the freedom as long as sovereign is not in danger.
What makes you think that you are qualified to judge us ? What make you, your politicians like Sarkozy think that you are superior to us that we have to prove something to you and your politicians WHILE YOU DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO US?
____________________________________________
If you talk about voting, then tell me what you will expect if you ask women in Saudi Arabia that if they want wear head scarves. The same for Tibetan people if they are dominated by those monks.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
White horse is not a horse
If you talk about voting, then tell me what you will expect if you ask women in Saudi Arabia that if they want wear head scarves.
Sorry, are you on crack or something?
Wahaha: “Is nice, go ping-pong martian brain stew today!”
I’ve had more coherent discussions with random sentence generators.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@wahaha – Look , go check out the Sinn Fein, Scots Nationalist, Plaid Cymru and English nationalist websites yourself. None of them claim that the British government has fixed the elections themselves, all but one of them wants greater autonomy, Sinn Fein wants unification with the Irish republic (RTE, the Irish Independent, and the Irish Times are all there for your reference if you don’t trust media based in the UK), the Scots nationalists want independence, and Plaid Cymru wants greater autonomy as do the English nationalists . You obviously know, frankly, f#&k all about the UK if you think the referenda and the involvement of the nationalists in devolved government was faked or coerced. Some people in the UK want English/Scots/Welsh independence, some want unification with the Irish Republic – but in the meantime who is supposed to rule the UK? Until further notice it will be the elected UK government. If any part of the UK wants independence they will have to win a referendum in the relevant area first.
Put simply, the UK is not the PRC – We’re a democracy, with all the problems that come with that. We can’t just shoot anyone who disagrees with central government.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:52 am
@Wahaha, FOARP, & Raj
Alright you guys, try looking at it this way. The comparison that Wahaha is trying to make (I think) is that the presence of Tibet within the PRC is fundamentally no different than the presence of Northern Ireland in the UK. If the UK and the PRC and their respective governments are all legitimate institutions, (s)he’s right; Northern Ireland and Tibet are comparable.
FOARP & Raj (again, I think) are suggesting that the key difference is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK through consent of its people, as shown by the results of the two referendums discussed above (as an aside, if you accept the referendums as legal and legitimate, then you have to accept Northern Ireland is part of the UK and is therefore subject to the decisions of parliament, including the suspension of the NIA- so it was the people of Northern Irleand themselves that gave parliament those rights).
Tibet, on the other hand, has never had a referendum on its presence within the PRC, right? But, then again neither has Shandong or Fujian, or any other province. The PRC government established itself through force and maintains its rule, not just in Tibet, but across the whole nation, through force. So if you’re saying PRC rule illegimate in Tibet, then why not say its illegimate in Shandong? What I think you guys are really arguing about is the legitimacy of a government that maintains its rule through force.
That makes Northern Ireland an exceptionally bad choice of analogies, as it is one of the few parts of the UK that has been allowed referendums on independence. I suggest you look at Devonshire or Yorkshire, as they, like Tibet or Shandong, have not had the luxury of an independence referendum in recent history.
(note: For the record, I’m not saying that Devonshire or Yorkshire’s inclusion in the UK is illegitimate, or that there should be referendums. Likewise, I’m not saying that Shandong’s inclusion in the PRC is illegitimate either.)
February 14th, 2009 at 2:14 am
@bxbq (#107): Thanks for the long and informative answer! Actually, I agree with several of your points as written there.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:51 am
@Lime #114,
Why do you suppose that Northern Ireland has had a referendum on independence from the UK, but Devonshire and Yorkshire have not? Surely, it’s because independence is an active, current political issue under discussion in Northern Ireland, but not in Devonshire or Yorkshire, because few people there are interested in it. The failure to hold a referendum on a topic that people aren’t interested in doesn’t make the UK any less legitimate.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:24 am
@Otto
#116
I wasn’t suggesting that that it made the UK less legitimate at all! Obviously the reason Northern Ireland has had referendums, and independence is a political issue there is because it has a historical and cultural identity that is different (or more different) from the rest of the UK. This, of course, is why Wahaha is trying to draw a parrallel between it and Tibet. His (or her) interpretation of the perspective of Raj, FOARP, & other critics of the PRC-Tibet relationship is that they are arguing that Tibet should not be part of the PRC because it is culturally heterogeneous from the rest of ‘China’, and that this is hypocritical because they do not seem to have a problem with Northern Ireland being part of the UK (or at least I think that’s what he’s trying to say).
He is partly right, I believe, because obviously the cultural heterogeneity of Tibet within the PRC makes it a visible target for people critical of the CCP regime. But I think that Wahaha has missed the deeper problem that Raj and FOARP have with the PRC (bearing in mind, these are just my guesses at their perspectives in trying to untangle this mess). In a legal sense, Tibet’s relationship with Beijing is no different than Shandong’s. I don’t think that Raj or FOARP would argue that the people of Shandong deserve to be physically coerced into being part of the PRC against their collective will any more than the Tibetans do just because they are more culturally ‘Chinese’ (and if they did argue that, then Wahaha would be right in accusing them of hypocrisy).
I believe the real problem is that Raj and FOARP don’t think the rule of a state that maintains it rule solely through force is legitimate rule. Tibet is just any easy issue to attack the CCP on because it is widely assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the Tibetans do not want to be part of the PRC at least in the Anglophone world and Europe.
My point is that comparing Northern Ireland and Tibet just confuses the issue. In strictly legal terms, Tibet’s relationship with the PRC is no different than Shandong’s. And if the UK and the PRC are comparable, then it would make more sense for Wahaha to argue that the UK’s control of Devonshire is comparable to Tibet, as the fact Northern Ireland has a state-recognised independence movement makes it the odd case.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am
To LIme #114 and #117:
excellent posts. I hope Wahaha takes the requisite time to read and digest what you’ve said.
I think one difference between Tibet and the other provinces is that those other provinces weren’t forcefully “liberated” in 1959. So the manner in which the CCP came to rule over TIbet as opposed to the other provinces is somewhat different, though I agree that the manner in which they continue to maintain that rule is the same. But such differences may add to the impression that, if anyone were to question their continued inclusion in CHina, it would be the Tibetans.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
@SKC #118
You said:” I think one difference between Tibet and the other provinces is that those other provinces weren’t forcefully “liberated” in 1959″
Well, other provinces were forcefully “liberated” in 1949. You Cantonese people were “forcefully liberated” by CCP troops came from the other end of China who didn’t speak Cantonese even thousands of them spoke Korean.
I can’t see much difference in this regards.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Lime
Tibet is just any easy issue to attack the CCP on because it is widely assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the Tibetans do not want to be part of the PRC at least in the Anglophone world and Europe.
The issue has moved on from independence. It comes down more to a very clear point that even if Tibet is to remain as a part of China the people there need to be afforded better rights. Whether Tibetans want independence or not they still deserve to be treated much better.
My point is that comparing Northern Ireland and Tibet just confuses the issue. In strictly legal terms, Tibet’s relationship with the PRC is no different than Shandong’s. And if the UK and the PRC are comparable, then it would make more sense for Wahaha to argue that the UK’s control of Devonshire is comparable to Tibet, as the fact Northern Ireland has a state-recognised independence movement makes it the odd case.
Who said that the UK and PRC are comparable? They’re not. The former is a democracy with good civil rights, the latter an autocratic state with relatively poor civil rights.
Furthermore the PRC’s relationship with Tibet is not the same as it is with Shandong. Shandong has been a reasonably consistent part of China for a very long time – it was just another province being fought over by the KMT and CCP. However, by the time Tibet was invaded the Civil War was effectively over and the KMT were nowhere to be seen there. The CCP was establishing Chinese control over an area that no Chinese government had had direct control of at least for decades and some would argue for long than that. There’s a difference between retaking a province that is actively part of a civil war and siezing a region that was the subject of a past territorial claim.
February 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hm, Why is it that rude people are often wrong even though they regurgitate right information?
Politeness being the result of good education and upbringing, it is therefore common to see polite people shying from dogmatic arguments. They avoid sarcasm at the expense of others. Before offering their POVs, they always allow others to fully voice their POVs first. Then offer their own as a consideration for the other to see things from a different perspective. As a result, polite people usually wins not only the argument but also make new friends. This truly proves that not only are they are smart, but that they know that they know, and are never in a hurry to show off, hence their politeness.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
@Raj, 121
Who said that the UK and PRC are comparable? They’re not. The former is a democracy with good civil rights, the latter an autocratic state with relatively poor civil rights.
I’m not saying they are comparable, but that is obviously one of the basic assumptions of Wahaha’s attempt to draw a Tibet-Northern Ireland parrallel.
The issue has moved on from independence. It comes down more to a very clear point that even if Tibet is to remain as a part of China the people there need to be afforded better rights. Whether Tibetans want independence or not they still deserve to be treated much better.
Furthermore the PRC’s relationship with Tibet is not the same as it is with Shandong. Shandong has been a reasonably consistent part of China for a very long time – it was just another province being fought over by the KMT and CCP.
Why don’t the people of Shandong deserve to be treated better too? My understanding is that Tibetans have the same political rights as everyone else in the PRC (almost none), and the same restrictions on religion and public expression that Tibetans have to deal with are shared by people throughout the PRC. I don’t see why just because Shandong was ‘retaken’ from the ROC earlier than Tibet was ‘liberated’ from the Dalai Lama’s government, and that the former was a historical part of ‘China’ that its people deserve less.
Look at it this way. If the Guomindang, which did consider Tibet part of the ROC’s territory, had managed to invade and occupy it before the CCP forced them out of mainland Asia, should we see the Tibet-PRC relationship any differently?
February 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Lime,
I think I understand your point better after comment #117, thanks. Regarding your comment #122, I don’t think many people would argue that people in Shandong don’t actually deserve to have more political rights. However, I suspect that an accurate poll would show that the CCP-led government is fairly popular in Shandong, while it is fairly unpopular—extremely unpopular, perhaps—in Tibet. In my mind, this makes the issue in Tibet more urgent, if it is correct that the Shandong people basically support the government, even though they’d like it to do some things differently.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I was in China when the Iraqi journalist threw the show at Bush and PRC got a huge laugh at it. It was one of the top news in CCTV, Xinhua, China daily and everyone knew about.
A couple of months later, China was on the receiving end when the PRC leader was attacked with a shoe and there was total silence on the part of PRC media in China and PRC govt reacted angrily.
Umm! That speaks to the volume of media and information being fed to the citizens of PRC and as a mouthpiece of the government’s policies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jamesreynolds/2009/02/the_semiattacked_politicians_c.html
February 14th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
@Raj #120,
“The former is a democracy with good civil rights, the latter an autocratic state with relatively poor civil rights.”
I think I simply have less patience than Lime. I think a lot of your arguments are founded on this “fact” that a country is “democratic” with your version of “good civil rights” (whatever that is and for whatever duration in history you think of) automatically entitles that country to whatever – higher moral ground, better standards of living, unable to wreck havoc on the rest of the world, enslave another group of people, etc, etc..
Bullshit.
That type of argument is too religious for my taste. Its not practical.
@Khechog, #124
Welcome to the world. If CNN, Fox, and any media in the U.S. do not have the interest of the U.S. in their hearts, I’d bet you they go bankrupt real fast.
If China catches up to the U.S.’s standard’s of living in the next 5 decades – and if you are around to see it – you might just come to think China’s form of media is better. U.S. govenment then might just reform CNN, Fox for the better. 😛
February 14th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
automatically entitles that country to whatever – higher moral ground, better standards of living, unable to wreck havoc on the rest of the world, enslave another group of people, etc, etc..
Bullshit.
The only bullshit is coming from you. No one has said anything about the “automatic entitlement” you refer to. If someone tries to compare the UK to China I am quite justified in explaining why they are not comparable. Don’t throw your toys out of the pram because you don’t like the way I justify it.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:02 am
you might just come to think China’s form of media is better
What, like CCTV’s sweeping of the bad news under the carpet and producing endless drivel about how wonderful the government is?
The Chinese media isn’t all bad, but it lacks a thoughtful, international perspective. It certainly doesn’t present anything new or different in media reporting.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:46 am
@Raj, #127
Hey, by chance do you read and understand Chinese?
Also, help me understand. You are saying the Chinese media and any other media are the same – they all “lack a thoughtful, international perspective.”?
February 15th, 2009 at 3:51 am
OH, just ignore that guy…he is all over the China-bashing blogsphere like mildew in spring…
Speaking of the Media, ain’t this the truth? “You kill me? (%#@*!) I kill me…LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRyry_B7TY&feature=related
February 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@huaren (#125): “If China catches up to the U.S.’s standard’s of living in the next 5 decades – and if you are around to see it – you might just come to think China’s form of media is better. U.S. govenment then might just reform CNN, Fox for the better.”
50 years is a long time. I’m sure CCTV, CNN and Fox (if any of them are still around) will be quite different by then. Also, I don’t think that China’s media will be that distinctive by then – it’s not that different now, unless it reports on Tibet, Taiwan or what the Party is doing.
Also, while we’re at the Chinese form of media – how many people here enjoy listening to the long lists of names of leaders attending a certain meeting? I would enjoy getting rid of that.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:31 am
@TQ, #129
I hear ya. I am wasting my time with that guy.
@Wukailong, #130
My point is that as long as a country is better off than the rest at any given moment, the rest tend to assume everything that country does is right and the best.
Because you “enjoy” watching something in certain format, etc., doesn’t make you “right” though, or does it?
Ha, and I think 50 years is actually short!
February 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am
To BMY #119:
“I think one difference between Tibet and the other provinces is that those other provinces weren’t forcefully “liberated” in 1959″…
“Well, other provinces were forcefully “liberated” in 1949.”
Yes, absolutely true. And if Canton/Guangdong had repelled the CCP, I might still be a hker (not to be confused with the HKer). But another difference between Tibet and the other provinces, IMO, is that Tibetans are much more culturally unique than if you compared one average PRC citizen with another. And the other thing is that, as far as I know, Tibetans might be more unhappy with the current arrangement than any other group in China today.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:43 am
To Huaren:
“as long as a country is better off than the rest at any given moment, the rest tend to assume everything that country does is right and the best” – how can you possibly believe that statement? Look at all the grief the US gets, and rightfully so. If anything, bigger trees attract more wind (that might be a Cantonese phrase, I hope it works in Mandarin).
““If China catches up to the U.S.’s standard’s of living in the next 5 decades – and if you are around to see it – you might just come to think China’s form of media is better.” – those are big if’s. But if China’s media stays the same in 2059 as it is in 2009, then regardless of how well China’s standard of living gets, i still wouldn’t think much of them, or trust them as far as I can throw them. However, there’s also the hope that China’s media can, or will be allowed to, reform itself. That I would like to see.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:06 am
@huaren (#131): ‘Because you “enjoy” watching something in certain format, etc., doesn’t make you “right” though, or does it?’
No, but you said that “if you are around to see it – you might just come to think China’s form of media is better.” If it’s still like that (showing endless meetings and praising the government), I won’t at least think PRC’s news programs are better than the competition. There are some pretty good programs, though, but it’s not like they’re uniquely Chinese.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:43 am
May be I am just easy to please, but I love CCTV 9. I’ve learned so much about China from watching Travelogue, Rediscoverying China, Dialogue, Center Stage, Up close, Learning Mandarin with Da Shan, and many other cultural programs they have. For Example: Center Stage:
http://english.cctv.com/program/centerstage/01/index.shtml
I don’t watch a lot of TV — Esp. in HK or HK TV – too goddamn much commercials, Um, pardon my french.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
#125 huaren,
I am not sure what you mean by Chinese media system being better than the US even if China becomes more developed in the future. China’s media is part of the propaganda department and as a moutpiece of the government or authorities to dessiminate govt policies to the mass. One of the foundation for a functioning democray in any progressive country is free and critical media that stands for fairness and justice and for the people.
Open society, transparency and free flow of information/ideas are based on media that is independent from the goverernment. That is simply not the case in China.
Not only China doesn’t have a free media but they also restrict foreign media to certain areas such as Tibet where apparently no foreign media is allowed. So that’s why there is more scrutiny to issues such as Tibet when govt is trying to hide the truth. Isn’t it? If they allow free access to place like Lhasa similar to access given to even places within the country such as Beijing and others for foreign media, perhaps they will be less interest to the plight of the Tibetans around the world.
Unfortunately most of the expat Chinese are overcome with nationalism and with strong han chauvinism support the Chinese govt instead of trying to understand the Tibetan people’s fight for greater freedom, justice, truth etc. So instead of being critical of the govt policies, they believe the Chinese media and support the regime. That’s very sad and infact hurts the development of more political rights and freedom for not just the Tibetans but millions of rest of the Chinese citizens.
So my advise to the Chinese friends is that be more critical of the CCP PRC govt policies as it’s good for the country as all of that incredible economic development in the last 30 years of Deng Xiopeng’s policies could all evoporate with lack of timely political reform. So instead of being critical of the western scoundrel activists, perhaps little thanks for their interest and concern for the welfare of strong China is not too far off.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am
@SKC #133, WKL #134,
Hmm, try read my original post (#125) – all I intended to say was what I wrote. I said nothing about China’s form of media changing or remaining stagnant.
@Khechog, #136
Sorry to say, but I have heard from your camp too many times – always the same religious arguments.
Surprise me – tell me you donated money to help with the 2008 Sichuan earthquake victims.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:14 am
@huaren (#137): It’s quite clear what you wrote, but please consider what further conclusions can be drawn from it. Those implications are quite unclear, to say the least, and would warrant some further discussion. Based on your answer to Khechog, though, you don’t seem to be that open to discussion.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:16 am
@huaren: I donated to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake victims, btw. Does that prove or disprove any of my points?
February 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am
To Huaren #137:
dude, I read your post. Pretty sure reading it again isn’t going to bring me much further enlightenment.
“I said nothing about China’s form of media changing or remaining stagnant.” – perhaps I’m pointing out the obvious…then again, to some, maybe I’m not. But something either changes, or it remains stagnant; I can’t really think of a third option…can you? So if Chinese media will be the same then as it is now, it will be as useless to me then as it is now. But if it does choose to change, I’m hoping it changes for the “better”.
It’s also curious that you characterize Khechog #136 as using the “same religious arguments”. I don’t see the words “religion”, “Buddhism”, or “Dalai lama” even once in his post. Perhaps you would benefit from reading his post over.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“A year ago I would be choking back vomit when reading news about the shoe-thrower and his likes.”
That’s the most unintentionally funny line I’ve read in a while
February 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
If there is ‘Han chauvinism’, then there must be ‘Tibetan chauvinism’. Is one better than the other?
February 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
@ dan: Don’t you have to be a majority to be considered chauvinistic? I always thought it meant a powerful majority talking down to a weak minority, but I could be wrong.
I find it interesting that I’ve come across some Han chauvinism on the net but I never came across any while in China. My Chinese friends always spoke very respectfully about Tibetans and their culture.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
#137 – huaren.
To answer your question, yes, I not only donated money but volunteered in the Red Cross fundraising drive events for the Sichuan Earthquake and Burmese Typhoon in the local Chinatown.
Now my question to you is that after the Sichuan Earthquake and after the Olympics, there was a strong earthquake recorded in Tibet last October with the loss of many livestocks and people, did you know and did you donate money?
Perhaps you didn’t know as obviously the Chinese media briefly mentioned but did not report the many casualties and loss. Worse, the Chinese government did not accept any assistance offered from foreign countries (yes it’s true and check the news source) and did not allow any foreign media to the affected areas. Due to political senstivity in Tibet did the Chinese government refuse assistance and thus jeopardizing the lives of many Tibetans because of Security/Image concerns over peoples lives (especially Tibetans)?.
So I wouldn’t start labelling people of ‘anti-China outside forces’ when folks like the Chinese right activists and outsiders who are critical of the CCP PRC government policies and tactics of their own people and minorities such as the Tibetans. Instead as I had mentioned, they are representing the millions of voiceless Chinese for fairness, justice and freedom.
Just as no one is labelled as ‘anti-American’ when they are critical of the US government policies such as the war in Iraq. The fact that Obama won gives testiment to the dissenting views in action of truly People Power.
No one would believe that there is conspiracy to cover-up truth from the western media. Instead there is healthy competition to break the news, scandals, controversy between different news organization whether it be BBC, NYTimes, Washington Post or even CNN. Sure there is tendency to highlight negative in the western media on anything but I wouldn’t accuse them of biased towards China when they report of shortcomings. We have witnessed media in action such as Watergate that brought down Nixon, all the scandals and news break-outs that you can read daily in NYTimes and others.
Whereas the goal of the media in China is to cover-up any critical views of the government policies, corruptions, scandals, controversies, and show only the positive aspects of government in action such as PRC leaders meeting leaders from other countries which is not too different than the previous Chinese regime of other countries kow-towing to the emperors.
When the billion citizens grow up in this education system of distorted history of China and with the use of nationalism, their news media, censorship at their disposal, I can see how the clever minds in the top CCP decision makers can influence the mass of outsiders attacking China and the use of bogeman when the CCP feels threatened of their control. So with the lack of transparency and fear for those seeking truth (activists), the CCP has perfected this technique and brings this to a different level than any other regimes in the world, I am incredibly amazed at this sophistication in-action by the CCP machinery that is no match to the best political minds in any western countries.
The fact that majority of the expat Chinese who now live in the free world support this regime is just incredible as we saw last year before the Olympics and now in blogs like this.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
steve,
I always thought Chauvinism means excessive or blind patriotism and has nothing to do with being majority or minority. The context in which I posted that question was if any ones speak up for China and be branded as ‘Han chauvinist’, then by the same token, would that make a ‘Tibetan chauvinist’ if one were to speak for the Tibetan cause. Of course, I could be way off and need to be send off to re-education camp.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Hi Dan~
That’s why I was puzzled, without the definition it didn’t sound right. Reading your definition, I have another question for you. To be considered a “Han chauvinist”, would you have to be Han and living in China, or would it also apply to Han living outside China, or apply to anyone taking up the Han cause? Of course, my question would also apply to “Tibetan chauvinism”.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
” My Chinese friends always spoke very respectfully about Tibetans and their culture.”
Steve,
That is so so sos so so so TRUE.
What’s a “Han Chauvinists”?
Sounds just like a moronic racist term to me.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@SKC, #140
I meant figuratively.
I thought I was writing to Khechog. Are SKC and Khechog one and the same? Or Khechog is a new recruit and you are his supervisor? LOL.
@Khechog, #144
I’ll say it once more – you sound religious to me: democracy, human rights, transparency, chauvinism, freedom, blah blah blah blah blah.
You said you donated and helped with fundraising for the earthquake victims. For that, I will refrain from calling you a activist scoundrel.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Steve,
That is my biggest problem with this term “X-chauvinist”. By definition, chauvinism also means undue partiality to one group. I don’t know the answer to your question. In fact, I have that question myself, hence that post. I noted this term in other blog and have been wondering about it ever since. It is always applied to ‘Han’ Chinese arguing on the side of China, and every time when the exchanges become heated, the bomb would drop: ‘…you Han chauvinistic pigs are so…’ almost automatically. So I wonder, if ‘Han’ Chinese defend their country, their ‘people’ and are called the C-pigs, won’t that term equally apply to those defending the exile Tibet’s interest?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Dan~
I tried it on Wiki and they actually have it listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism
I know Wiki isn’t the most trustworthy source but because it’s referred to so often, I’d guess the people you’ve run into on the web got their definition from there.
I never heard the term “fenqing” in China but first heard it here on FM. I think “Han chauvinist” is the English equivalent. The people I dealt with when I was there were mostly between 23 and 35, which sure seemed young to me at the time. But they never had that attitude. Maybe it was because they were from the elite schools, or maybe it was that I spent most of my time in Shanghai and they tend to have a more “international” outlook? I really don’t know why it’s so different from reality to the web. It seems TommyBahamas has also had the same experience, so I’m not alone.
@ TommyBahamas: To expand on that thought, the Han Chinese I knew who had been to Tibet felt that trip was the highlight of their life and uniformly had positive impressions of the province, not just the landscape but also the people. It echoes exactly what “Back to Lhasa” talked about. So why is there such a disconnect on the net?
February 17th, 2009 at 1:36 am
To Huaren #148:
“I meant figuratively.” – you meant what figuratively? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you?
“democracy, human rights, transparency,…freedom, blah blah blah blah blah” – yes, you would have to have some sort of strange religion to think China provides any of these things today, and it might require a similarly devoted faith to believe that she could attain some of these things in the future. But the reach should exceed the grasp, or what’s a heaven for…
February 17th, 2009 at 3:19 am
@Steve (#150): I think there’s a difference between Fenqing and Han chauvinists, though only a subtle one, or maybe you could say that the groups largely overlap. Fenqing are the angry nationalists throwing around epithets like “traitor” to anyone who’s against their extreme agenda, and Han chauvinists are the ones talking about the superiority of the Han (mostly against minorities, but sometimes also believing in the future dominance of China). The authors of the book “China can say no” don’t seem chauvinist to me, but the ones saying that Tibet can only be made better with China’s help have a sort of chauvinist agenda.
I agree with you and TommyBahamas that most Chinese aren’t fiercely nationalistic. The fenqing are a vocal minority, much like the libertarians in the West.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:36 am
@ Wukailong #152: Thanks for the explanation. I guess fenqing are the Chinese equivalent of the Republican contigent that a few years ago was saying things like “you’re either with us or against us” and calling people “un-American”, “unpatriotic” or when they were really desperate, “French”, if they disagreed with anything the Bush administration touted. 😛
I hadn’t heard of the book “China Can Say No” but the title was swiped from that ultranationalist Tokyo mayor who wrote the book during the “bubbling years” called “The Japan That Can Say No”. Of course, back then the “no” was to the USA, but now he seems to want to say “yes” to the USA, who today are his very best friends. What a hypocrite!
Every Chinese person I met loved their country, but they weren’t all crazy about their government. I think some people confuse the two, thinking any criticism directed against a government is also directed at its citizens. Probably the most common comment I’ve heard while traveling is that the person I was talking to loved Americans but intensely disliked our government. I just nodded my head and said, “Hey, I didn’t vote for the guy.”
I remember back in the 80s when I’d be in Japan, everyone there just assumed their economy would continue to grow at the same rate and would overtake the United States in 2020, something like that. They just assumed double digit growth would last forever. I heard the same thing in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore. Now I’m hearing it in China. I think the biggest difference is that China is so huge so when she hiccups, the world shakes. But though I keep reading comments saying this growth will last for decades and China will overtake the United States by 2050 or whatever, I think back to those days in Japan and feel pretty skeptical… export driven economies, high savings rate, weak currency, large investment in American dollars, etc. Sounds awfully familiar.
I’m wondering what TonyP4, Hong Konger and Jerry think about this since they’ve also been through those days and can make a comparison.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:29 am
To Steve:
“I think some people confuse the two, thinking any criticism directed against a government is also directed at its citizens.” – I’d say, depending on the company, many people, and at times perhaps most people, fail to make that distinction, when the government in question is China’s. It’s a unique “quality”. If someone said to me:”the Harper government blows”, I certainly wouldn’t take that as an affront to Canadians from sea to shining sea, and I don’t think most of my fellow Canadians would either. In fact, currently, about 65% of Canadians would agree with such a sentiment, based on some polls.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@SKC, #151
Ok, you have no idea. I am not surprised.
#154,
Canada is kinda nobody – people don’t really bother to even criticize your government. U.S. see you as raw materials up north. You don’t dare to do anything to piss us off. We’d be wasting our breath.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
To Huaren:
I have no idea of what you speak, and neither do you. Hardly a concern of mine, but you should really look into it. But if at any time in the distant future you find that you have a worthwhile and coherent point to make, then I’d be happy to hear it. You take all the time you need. In the meantime, I’ll occupy myself with more rewarding pursuits.
I have no interest in criticizing the US. Ahh, but the CCP, that’s a different story. BTW, you completely missed the point of #154, but who’s counting.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:04 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29236480#29238891
Here’s an interview with Hillary Clinton about her Asian trip about human rights in China. It seems that she still doesn’t learn. She claims that the massive unemployment in China is an human rights issue because ‘there’s alot of human suffering.’ Meanwhile, the western propaganda painting a gloom and doom picture in China’s factories shutting down while exports from South Korea and Japan is suffering even more than in China.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
FOARP,
Look, you didnt answer my question why those items were needed.
Senior Judges in NI must be appointed by British ?
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Lime,
The point I am trying to make is that the issue in Tibet is about sovereign, not human right isse.
Is there human right issue in Tibet ? Yes, but it is no difference from the other areas in China.
Maybe you heard about the riot in Wenan, why didnt West cover it like it did on 3.14 riot ? Compared to how Chinese police mistreated Tibet people, there were at least 10 times more mistreatment towards Han chinese by police. Why didnt West mention that ?
Isnt it obvious that West politicians and media have been lying and misleading Western people ?
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Khechog
____________________________________________________________
…We have witnessed media in action such as Watergate that brought down Nixon, all the scandals and news break-outs that you can read daily in NYTimes and others….
____________________________________________________
How naive of you ?
Who ruled America ? you think those politicians rule US ?
Those riches behind politicians ruled America, who cares how media bashes their attorneies ? you dont like them, fine, give you some new attorneies of them.
Give us some examples how those riches have been treated by Media. Think of that, Citi used 50 million dollars of taxpayer mony to buy luxury plane. Can you imagine how they waste money during good time ?
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Raj,
Look, I dont have that much time to think, I am not trying to win a debate, I just hate this disgusting moral attack by West. Yes, it is disgusting. So what I am trying to tell you is having a good look of how your countries did in similar situation. Cuz your media is light year away from integrity.
Your excuse for the treaty between NI and British government is typical “White horse is not a horse.” do you understand what that means ?
You cant explain why British to put those ‘stupid and ‘pointless’ items in the treaty, then stop talking about Tibet, as you dont have any point,
You cant even name a single thing done by your government to prove your sincere care about Tibetan people or Chinese people, for god sake.
Imagine what if Russia and China had sent millions of dollars to NI people, how would British government have treated whoever wanted free NI ? pretty much like they treated indians.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Trolls? shine them on, fight back (throw their words back at them, they are DUMB)
and they are trying to shut you up, so don’t let them!!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Yes, it is disgusting.
Not my problem if you think it’s disgusting to care about someone other than yourself.
do you understand what that means?
What do you think?
You cant even name a single thing done by your government to prove your sincere care about Tibetan people or Chinese people, for god sake.
Did I have to? Why were you incapable of googling some examples?
http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/633
That took me 10 seconds to find. Are you that lazy?
Imagine what if Russia and China had sent millions of dollars to NI people, how would British government have treated whoever wanted free NI ?
Tibetans were treated poorly by China before the modern donation campaigns were organised – nothing would change if the money stopped flowing.
As for Northern Ireland, groups like Sinn Fein (and arguably the IRA) have been given large amounts of money by American groups. Yet there was not anywhere near the level of oppression in NI as there has been and still is in Tibet.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Raj,
So you still dont have answer why those ‘stupid’ and ‘meaningless’ items were in the treaty, right ?
As a result, your attack on Tibet issue is disgusting. Do you look at mirror in the morning why you brush your teeth ?
Oh, about money, I am sorry I made the mistake, I mean the Tibet. and I googled again and again, I couldnt find a link that show UK gives any money to IMPROVE THE LIFE of Tibetan people, hopefully, you will be able to come up with something.
and I just googled, UK gives China about 40 million to China each year. now China is returning the favor.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486452.0.China_to_aid_recession_recovery_by_doubling_UK_exports.php
BTW, you are not talking about the right of free speech, you are talking about the right of farting in an elevator, which I dont think you are entitled to.
Now you can downgrade my post twice, thx.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:15 am
@Wahaha: “Now you can downgrade my post twice, thx.”
I hope none of you (Raj, Wahaha) are downgrading each others’ posts. I have downgraded posts I found offensive or filled with abusive language, but I don’t downgrade stuff that’s just arguing back and forth.