Chinese think tank investigation report of 3.14 incident in Tibet
Filed under:culture, General, politics | Tags:report, think tank, tibet
Add comments
Their findings are astonishing. They find that a new Tibetan aristocracy has taken over power. This aristocracy is even worse than the old Tibetan aristocracy. In the old system the aristocracy was reliant on some sort of accord and agreement with the people, since they were dependent on the people to pay taxes. The new aristocracy get all their funding directly for Beijing (Central government) due to “stability” reasons, and thus they do not have any incentive to care about the well-being of Tibetans.
They show how the new aristocracy cover up their own shortcomings in governance and lack of qualifications by pointing fingers at foreign forces and the Dalai Lama. This new aristocracy came to power in the cultural revolution. In other parts of China, this type of unqualified leadership was purged in the 80s, but in Tibet (due to their absolute loyality to Beijing), they were kept in power, up untill today.
They point to specific educational policy problems and find that the younger generation of Tibetans who grew up in a “liberated” Tibet has stronger Tibetan national identity than the elder generation.
The report can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df4nrxxq_91ctcf6sck
—————————————————————————
3.14 events Tibetan social and economic causes of the investigation report
Legal Research Center, Public League
【Contents】
Preface. 1
First, the rapid modernization process in the Tibetan economy and social change. 3
1, Central led the rapid modernization process. 4
2, a specific path to speed up the process of modernization under the social consequences. 7
Second, 70,80 was born during the survival of the Tibetan plight of young people. 12
1, the existence of serious problems in basic education. 12
2, vocational education and lack of social opportunities. 13
3, living in a more open process of modernization of the relative deprivation of a catalyst to strengthen the national consciousness. 14
4, on the national historical and cultural traditions of the lost and forgotten. 15
Third, the existence of Tibetan governance structure of the main problems. 16
1, the evolution of Tibetan governance structure. 16
2, under the regional autonomy of the Tibetan problem in the power structure. 19
Fourth, the Government has dealt with 314 incidents of errors in the follow-up. 21
Five, at this stage, the complexity of the issue of Tibetan religion and culture. 22
6, conclusions and recommendations. 24
Appendix:. 26
(A) possession of an area with Guardian Recalling historical and cultural background. 26
(B) ethnic Tibetan areas in the state policies, laws and regulations change carding. 30
(C) compilation of research interviews. 30
(D) contact form research object. 30
There are currently 4 comments highlighted: 37251, 37435, 37477, 37482.
299 Responses to “Chinese think tank investigation report of 3.14 incident in Tibet”
Trackbacks
- Freedom’s Herald » The New Aristocracy in Tibet
- An investigative report into the social and economic causes of the 3.14 incident in Tibetan areas | Fool's Mountain: Blogging for China
- A Chinese think tank investigates the roots of the March 2008 violence « Tibet Talk
May 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Who are these Tibetan aristocracy? Are they Tibetans or Hans? I wonder if Beijing has done anything about this?
May 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
These new Tibetan aristocracy ruler compromised with the hardliner Han Chinese has been prevelent since 1970s and Hu Ya Boang in 1980s tried his best to change the system. But, CCP has never shown interest in this, where the CCP’s policies are only to exploit the natural wealth and complete annexation of the Tibetans into Han culture.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
@Tony
Thanks for posting this social research paper. This paper has a pretty good coverage on several reasons that triggered 3.14 Lhasa event. Besides the intentional push and exploitation by some exile Tibetans, one deep-rooted problem discussed earlier in this paper, and I also mentioned at an earlier thread, is that some of younger generation of Tibetans feel marginized by a rapid changing society due to their lack of experience, skill and resources to join the on-going process of industrialization and modernation. Their discontent was than targeted towards people from Hui and Han communities who brough in skills and established business networks.
I think leasons have been learned since last year to provide native Tibetans with a helping hand as well as resources so that they can better compete for business opportunities and join the market place with a somewhat equal footing.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@tenpa #2
Actually, Hu YaoBang had to take some blame on the incompetency of some local Tibetan officials. Hu in 80s ordered an abrupt withdraw of a large number of experienced Han cadres back to inland. The process went so quick (to make sure 80% officials were native Tibetan) that it almost paralyzed Tibet. No sufficient training was given to local native officials afterward.
The rural situation in Tibet is quite similar to that of inland China in 80s’s. But the social-economical issue was solved by a boom of rural industrialization that moved many younger generation into productive work force. They are still the main driver for current economical activities.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:41 am
This is one of the more insightful reports (or synopsis) by any Chinese group on the current state in Tibet. Most of these “new aristocrats” are Tibetans and this phenomena is not new — it has always been the case. They came into power in the 90s. Most prominent among them are people like Ragdi. Most Tibetans have been not benefited from the economic progress of China. Most are marginalised. Chinese occupation in Tibet and “billions spent by central government” to “help Tibet” is simply to keep this class of Tibetans and Chinese happy.
Blaming the exile Tibetans or the Dalai Lama for the ongoing struggle in Tibet is ignoring the facts and China will pay the price of this ignorance.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
@Shane9219 # 4
The reports did say that, Hu Yaobang had withdrawn a large number of Han cadres but, there isn’t third person to verify it. Usually, it is observed that, in papers CCP has written everything in okay. Take the examples of population census in Tibet and other UN and international laws, which CCP has fully signed but….
If the native Tibetan cadres were incompetency in the 80s, then the question arise…..who to blame for this? Besides, the Cadres boss in every section had and has been always Han Chinese, which morally disgraced the New Tibetan Aristocracy, where, they are in position but have no right to take decision for their own place (country). If one read the rural Tibetan situation in Tibet to China in 80s, it was not quite similar because the official census shows the Tibetan population in decrease and Chinese in double increase. which means, socially and economically they are better. Most importantly, Hu Yaobang, himself had reportedly said in 1980 that, ‘what happen to the Central Govt. fund, has it been thrown into Yarlung Tsangpo’.
Even in the boom of industrialization, it is only given chances to the mainland China and neglected other Minorities areas including Tibetan areas (Kham and Amdo too). That is the reason why the protest were not only in TAR but whole of the Ethnic Tibetan areas. Actually, if you observed the Chinese economics, the booming of industrialization and economics stated only in 1990s. For this one can refer, the latest book on China of the late premier Zhoa Zhiyang (released May, 2009). As far as my knowledge, i think that, CCP policy to till 1980s was to fully wiped out the Tibetans from the civilisation but, that couldn´t, due to exile Tibetans and the Dalai Lama voice. So, presently CCP adopts the (nuclear) population of Han to assimilate the Tibetan, like what had already been happened to Mongols (inner) and Manchus.
In one way, can read this report as a deviation of actual ethnicity, civil and political problem of Tibetans to the simple economics one by the Han Chinese. So, that their actual position of the aims to Tibetans will remain same, which is to assimilate.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
@tenpa #6
” the Cadres boss in every section had and has been always Han Chinese”
This is not the actual situation in most part ot TAR. It’s true to some CCP party posts at provincial level.
“Even in the boom of industrialization, it is only given chances to the mainland China and neglected other Minorities areas including Tibetan areas (Kham and Amdo too). ”
Your observation is correct. Industrialization got a quick and substantial start around East and Central part of China. Those areas have easy access to sea transportation routes, capital and technologies from overseas, in particular from HK and Taiwan. This unbalance was well-recognized, and mostly driven by market economy. It will take some years for this industrialization process to get propagated deep into China. At policy level, the government needs to pursue a more balanced development model.
This trend already got started in 2000, as we already see a much better infrastructure there like access to roads, highways, airports, rails and power grids. Since these regions are years behind other regions on development, a lot more are still needed to invest in human capital and infrastructure. By tradition, Tibetans prefer to stay in their own regions, so they need to come out more to learn new opportunities and establish stronger business network. Many Eastern provinces now have special classes for Tibetan students. Tourism in Tibet has now taken a fly after the openning of Tibet-Qinghai Railway in 2006.
“The “Grand Western Development” Project encompasses two million square miles and 300
million people spread across eleven provinces and autonomous regions: Guangxi Zhuang,
Xinjiang Uyghur, Ningxia Muslim, Tibet Autonomous Regions, and Yunnan, Sichuan,
Shaanxi, Guizhou, Gansu, and Qinghai provinces, as well as Chongqing Municipality in the
west”
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/22/content_316800.htm
“Major tasks to develop the western regions at present and in the time to come, Wen said, should include increasing farmers’ income, stepping up agricultural and rural development, protecting the environment, returning farmland to forest and pasture, and accelerating construction of infrastructure facilities.
Wen also stressed the importance of developing the western regions in other ways, such as readjusting the industrial structures and speeding up the development of public health, culture and education.
In addition, Wen urged faster reform and opening up to the outside and greater development of the non-public sector of the economy in the western regions.
China initiated the western development strategy in 2000 to help the relatively backward west catch up with the more well-off east. The strategy is supported by a series of preferential policies for the development of the western regions, including more investment, preferential tax rates and flexible policies.
In 2003, China invested about 200 billion yuan (US$24.3 billion) in infrastructure projects in the western regions, occupying 55.2 percent of the country’s total annual investment in the region.
Eight key projects were completed last year, including three road construction projects, an airport extension in Shaanxi Province and four west-east electricity transmission projects.
The gigantic and technically challenging Qinghai-Tibet Railway project has stretched its track length to 317 kilometers, with 195 kilometers newly finished last year.
Another significant project is China’s west-east natural gas pipeline project, starting from Tarim of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region to Shanghai. The 3,900 kilometer gas pipeline used 11.65 billion yuan (US$1.4 billion) last year, and brought the total fulfilled investment to 21.6 billion yuan (US$2.6 billion). “
May 20th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
@tenpa
” So, presently CCP adopts the (nuclear) population of Han to assimilate the Tibetan, like what had already been happened to Mongols (inner) and Manchus”
This not true. The army-related settlement in Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang etc in earlier 70s’ has a special historical background of its own. It came out of the need for border region security due to the total break-down of Soviet-China relation. Soviet posted a strong army presence along its border with China. Later settlement in Xinjiang was triggered by Soviet invasion of Afghanistan In 1979 due to the same reason.
There is no similar large settlement in Tibet region. China and India had a brief border war in 1962. However, because of the existence of Nepal and Bhutuan, India’s army has not been able to pose a significant threat.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
@ Shane9219
The whole of your arguments says that, other minorities are not able or are not worthy to develop themself. Thus, you are justifying the Han Chinese annexation and population transfer in the regions. I am not saying this: ‘that the Han has out number Mongols and Manchus, other’. Read the Chinese official census, says: 20 m. Han and 4 m. Mongols; 27 m. Han and 3 m. Manchus; and 16 m. Han and 7 m. Uigyurs. And, here comes the census of Tibet, the official TAR is 92% Tibetan and 8% Han, but not given any status on the other Tibetan areas related to TAR. Again one have to look, how the Chinese census is recorded, they have the system that, those migrated to other regions were not count in the new regions but only at their birth place. Which means the number of Han Chinese living in TAR or other Tibetan areas will never may be list in the census though, they are living there long time back. And of course, the PLA and other armed forces will not count where some of them were living with the families and taking the full opportunities of business and other. If one look at the Tibetan areas in 1940s and CCP annexation in 1950, the whole of areas were completly inhabited by Tibetan, where as some traders and their families do existed.
Quoting from newspaper, that too the only channel will not be a good sources of information. Though, lots of development has been happened and initiated in Tibet(s) and other minorities areas, which is being done on the CCP policy of ‘pumb with money, everything will clam and later on justify to rule” and ‘black or white cat doesn’t matter, if it can catch mouse’.
Lastly, i am very sure, that traditionaly Tibetan have been or would like to remain in thier own place and would not like to come out, but it does not means that, they can’t develop themself. Since, civilisation of Tibetans to till 1951, Tibetans has been living on thier own. And there are many countries in this world, who are able to survive and develop as well as, tough, being isolated or landlocked. CCP claims that, they have liberated Tibet and Tibetans from Imperilist, yet Tibetan and its culture has been heavenly destroyed by Han Chinese in last 60 years. If it has not been, why not CCP let International media to coverage Tibet(s) during the last year protest and after then freely, like what it had allowed to do so in the case of Sichuan Earthquake, which was really very sad to whole human kind. But, ultimately, the common people suffered due to poor infrastructure in the area, specially, the schools’.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
For gods sake, it is not jobs and income that cause trouble in the Tibetan areas. It is the cruel and high handedness of the Chinese Government leaders in Peking depriving Tibetans there way of Life, religion and freedom. The Tibetan people in Tibet suffered immense under the Chinese occupation or under foreign domination.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
So long as the CCP hardliners rule Tibet, Tibetans will remain a third class citizens.Tibetans have survived without the Chinese(Hans) till 1951. In the above discussions no one really mentioned how much China gained from invading Tibet and Control ofTibet’s water, which is source of water to china, India and rest of the Asian Countries. China made billions of Dollars by exploiting Tibet’s natural Resources, mining, forest. Tibet’s rivers have been diverted to China as Yellow river is drying up due heavy industrialization in China. I just want to thank all people involved in this research. I hope the mainland chinese knows about their Brutal Regime lies.
As long as Tibet’s is run by the Beijing’s puppet Tibet and Tibetans will never be happy, stop blaming everything to the outside and separatist.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
This time around China is effectively seeding the plant of complete Tibetan indepence by not making themselves trustworthy. China thinks that they have the power & resource to shape the Tibetan problem but I call that tactic is very disrespectful for tibetans & lack the will to find the solution whereas Tibetans from all parts of the world are more united for the common cause & morale is very high, thanks for the heavy handed of china.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
@tenpa #9
“status on the other Tibetan areas related to TAR”
Those areas around TAR are traditionally multi-ethnic regions, are they?
” but it does not means that, they can’t develop themself”
Totally agreed. As a Han, we would like to see Tibetan lead the development of Tibet regions as much as possible. However, history tells a different story. And we have to agree that, when a region is lagging in development, people have to keep a balance between development and the pride of their tradition.
Tibetans have a strong sense of self-tradition and devotion towards their religions. But it does not mean Tibetan population would like to sit still and do nothing to improve their own lives. Tibet’s younger generation with better education won’t allow you to do that, so does the older generation that can travel. Then the question you have to face is that how you are going to solve such social-economical issues and how to reconcile the need to develop and resistence from religions and traditons, and how to achieve a balance, etc.
I was stroked by a segment video I saw last year. A mid-age Tibetan from Amdo said to a video camera from NYT with quite discontent that “Han people in the city live in multi-story buildings, have wide streets and drive cars, but we Tibetans in the country side live in small flat houses, have no good roads and ride motorcycles”
So you can see both the desire for improving living condition and their discontent due to the lack of it. But before people can develop themselves or their place, people got to open their mind and welcome some changes.
Before Deng established a new foundation based on pragmatism for China’s reform and open-up, China’s ideology was conservative and rigid. Such old thinking are very much against change. The past 30-year told a very different story, China opened its door to the world, and we see lots of changes and rapid development.
Yes, not all the changes are desirable comparing to old times, but the benefit of development far out-weight the price of social changes. Actually, with better economical condition, people can pour more resources towards the preservation and developing of their cultures and tradition. That is exactly what are happening inside China right now. As long as people care their culture and tradition with their heart and mind, there could be a win-win outcome in the end.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
As long as Tibetans are not given good modern education such like the Chinese enjoy in mainland China, Tibet and Tibetans will be always live 3rd class citizens.Many Chinese are coming into Tibet to take state job exam because they could not compete in main land china, these Chinese take all the jobs, but the TAR administration cannot stop that because TAR is run by the Chinese and Chinese govt puppets who only fulfill their own pocket and don’t see the welfare of Tibetans. Free Tibet so that Tibetan can rule their own land.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
@Shane9219
It’s amazing how you try to turn facts and reduce Tibetan pro-independence demonstrations to mere economic grievances. This is not new and this is exactly what Beijing wants us to believe. But this is pure misinterpretation of facts. What do you do of the heavy presence of the Tibetan national flag and slogans such as “Tibet is independent”, even in places thousand kilometres away from Lhasa?
To all of you, please read the following piece from Jamyang Norbu, and in particular his remarks about the absence of looting. It clearly deals with the real motives behind 2008 demonstrations:
It’s Not the Economy, Stupid!
As for your remark that “lessons have been learned since last year to provide native Tibetans with a helping hand as well as resources so that they can better compete for business opportunities and join the market place with a somewhat equal footing”, let me give you this translation of a Tibetan pamphlet:
“[If, under China] Tibet were built up, the livelihood of the Tibetan people improved [so that] their lives surpassed those of human beings as lives of happiness that made the deities of the Divine Realm of the Thirty-Three embarrassed; if we truly had this given to us, even then we Tibetans wouldn’t want it. We absolutely wouldn’t want it.”
I know Tibetans well enough for having spent decades with them and much time in Tibet, and I know that, like all of us, they love creature comforts. But believe me, they don’t want it from the occupying power, and even if they take advantage of Chinese-made facilities every day, they rate their independence much higher that anything else.
But your ignorance is plainly highlighted when you ask: “Those areas around TAR are traditionally multi-ethnic regions, are they?”
The actual TAR amounts roughly to the territory administrated by the Tibetan government in Lhasa when Chinese troops invaded in 1949. But thousands of square kilometres extending east of the TAR were exclusively inhabited by Tibetans. True, other ethnical groups could be found, but this was only in the far northeast, in the traditional province of Amdo (presently divided between Qinghai, southern Gansu and northern Sichuan), and even then, those groups were not traditionally settled there but brought by various Mongol and Muslim invasions.
Look at an administrative map of China and analyse things at county level. Through the ethnic status of the so-called “autonomous” counties and prefectures, Chinese cartographers did a pretty good job at mapping ethnic distribution prevalent in the early days of the PRC. Their maps clearly show the presence of Mongols or Turks within Tibetan lands, and precisely highlight “multi-ethnic regions” as you call them, such as the Jishishan Bon’an, Dongxiang and Salar Autonomous County (Gannan prefecture, Gansu province) or the Serkhog (Datong) Hui and Hor Autonomous County (Heibei prefecture, Qinghai province).
In fact, a map of all Tibetan “autonomous” counties, prefectures and region amount pretty much to what Tibetans claim as their country, or what is often referred to as “Greater Tibet”. Now if you take into account that most of 2008 demonstrations came from the extreme limits of this traditional Tibetan territory, then you realise that China has to deal with a proper national movement and not just economic grievances.
I understand that it must hurt to loose one quarter or so of one’s own territory, but China has no choice. The only way to get away with Tibet is to accept its right to independence and secession. Then, maybe, Tibetans will consider staying with China.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:39 am
@Christophe
“It’s Not the Economy, Stupid! ”
Yes. That is true to some hardliners in the exile community and foreigners like you. They will NOT get anywhere if they insist on independence, and Christophe, you will not get anywhere.
“I understand that it must hurt to loose one quarter or so of one’s own territory, but China has no choice. The only way to get away with Tibet is to accept its right to independence and secession. Then, maybe, Tibetans will consider staying with China.”
You must be drinking hard, get drunken more 🙂
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:30 am
Shane9219 Says: Tibetans have a strong sense of self-tradition and devotion towards their religions. I am happy that at least a you recognizes that fact. The core issue in Tibet today is not development or economics but Tibetan’s aspiration for Han rulers to understand the Tibetaness of a Tibetan people which is at stake. They don’t appreciate atheist Communist cadres to go to the monastery and teach them how to be patriotic. They don’t like the Communists rulers to lecture them about the concept of incarnation which is developed within the Tibetan civilization for thousands of years. Just as China does not like the west to lecture them on human rights issue.
Mao Tsetung had said in 1956 “Even if I fart, it must be a socialist fart and better be fragrant”. Tibetans wish the 21st century Chinese to be more reasonable now that they are open to the world. Trust and harmony should be cultivated through love and understanding and not exchanged with money.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 am
“The only way to get away with Tibet is to accept its right to independence and secession. Then, maybe, Tibetans will consider staying with China.” – I like that. Akin to “if you love something, set it free, yada yada”. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. People want choices. Tibetans, I presume, would also want choices. If given the choice, they may very well choose what they’ve already got. But being deprived of that choice makes people yearn for it, more and more as time goes by.
Perhaps Shane would understand this a bit better after being put into a scenario where he has no choices. He might appreciate the freedom of choice a little bit more, and not be so stingy about giving it to others.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
@J. Dorjee #17
Your points are well taken. I did not touch much the religion belief side of Tibet issue, did I? Because I don’t think I am much qualified on it.
I agree with you that Tibetans deserve to practice their religions in the way they would like to. Indeed, that has been mostly the case in recent years. More free-flow of goods, personal and information with Tibet-in-exile community were allowed as well.
Then, here came an issue. Had some Tibetans-in-exile use this opportunity and channels to strengthen their influence for Tibet Independence cause? Had they use monasteries as the ground for their political activities? Clear-eyed people can find an answer to those questions.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
@S.K.C
I think you have to understand, given your own Canadian background, is that China has gone through a very different nation building process than many European countries. Besides China lost much of her territory due to foreign invasions in near-modern times. There are still quite a few territorial issues like Taiwan and South China Sea. The Tibet issue has its root from British invasion. Given all the related background, it is not appropriate to apply utopia-like European thinking onto China.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
“Besides China lost much of her territory due to foreign invasions in near-modern times.” – this is true. I believe HK was “leased” to the Brits in 1898, and Macau to the Portuguese at around the same time. And the Japanese took some real estate in the 1930’s, though that was relatively short-lived. But by the modern times, those have all been returned. It seems that China’s history of losing territory in yesteryear, and her insistence on maintaining “territorial integrity” today, are unrelated things ie the former doesn’t justify the latter. If choice is somehow utopian and European, then those are certainly concepts that China is in dear need of importing…with the requisite Chinese characteristics of course.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
The problem with most of the Chinese leadership is that neither they understand the depth of the religious belief of the Tibetan people nor they make an effort to do so. Tibetan cadres in TAR also like to appease the Beijing leadership and so keep them in dark. Hence there is always an under current resentment from the Tibetan people which is very conveniently dubbed as ‘ spillitist activity. The recent report by the Chinese think tank of 3.14 incidents in Tibet should act as eye opener for the leaders. If such investigation is conducted in a free and fair atmosphere it would be even more revealing.
Freedom of religion universally would mean freedom to preach and practice which is totally banned in Tibet today. Only religious rituals such as burning incense and going round the monastery is allowed. Sorry, There is no such thing as free flow of information in Tibet today.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Nobody really cares that there is no free flow of information from tibet. Tibet will be isolated and left to stagnate while the rest of china tries to modernize. Tibet is not an issue in china. It’s only a issue to people outside of china with bloated egos and nothing more productive to do.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
@Shane9219
Do you seriously think that exiled Tibetans and Westerners had any influence of these demonstrations, or are you just echoing what the Party ask you to bark? Do you remember that when Mao sent the PLA to Tibet, his first motive was to free the country from imperialists, whom, if we include missionaries, did not amount to more than half-dozen? Why so many Chinese always need to feel the victims of foreigners?
Besides, you don’t reply to my point. How do you explain so many Tibetan flags during demonstration? Did exiled Tibetans or some white devils like me distribute them and ask the people to stage pro-independence demonstration? Were Tibetans requested by some kind of dark force to forget their true grievances, which are, according to your wisdom, principally economic, and take the risk of being tortured or shot for something they don’t believe in?
As long as you and your compatriots display such a patronized attitude towards Tibetans, consider them as mere puppets and denigrate their criticisms, there is little chance Tibetans ask for anything less than independence…
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am
@Christophe 24
You really have no idea how many NED funded Tibetan NGO’s out there. On top of that, the US government want to set up an US embassy in the TAR region, probably Lhasa so that they can report on ‘human rights abuses’ and monitor on social, economic and cultural developments within the TAR region.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/05/20/china-slams-us-foreign-affairs-bill-proposal/
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
@pug_ster
You would be surprised how well I know about these NGO. What you forget is that these NGO are the largest nests of “Middle Way” supporters, who refuse to ear the word “independence” and who even manage to get rid of “Free Tibet” banners in demonstrations abroad. It goes the same for the US government which don’t want to ear about anything else than “autonomy”. Common, do you sincerely believe that these guys are behind pro-independence demonstrations…?
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Dear Chrostophe and other tibetans here, its quite a waste of tile talking with posters like Shane.. and pug_ster, who when they run out of arguments will revert to either ‘baised western media’ or that Chinese territorial are “sacred issues” to the chinese and Tibet has always been a part of China.
So many of these fenqings complain about being labelled ‘brainwashed’ and then in the next sentence will paint all Tibetans as either as manipulated by the west or duped by the dalai lama and his clique. I honestly belive now that their motivation is never to have a honest discussion but to waste time and create more cyberjunk.
Tibet libre!
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
@Christophe 26
NYC is a hotspot for those Free Fibet activity. Do me a favor, go to google, type in “Free Tibet NYC” and click on “I’m feeling lucky” and this website even have an US address too:
Students For A Free Tibet
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org
602 E 14th St # 2
New York, NY 10009
(212) 358-0071
Of course, according to you these NGO’s don’t exist in the US. That’s one just on top of the list. There must be at least a dozen more US based NGO’s that has ‘Free Tibet’ on it.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
After reading what colin has to say at 23,.” Tibet will be isolated and left to stagnate while the rest of china tries to modernize. Tibet is not an issue in china. It’s only a issue to people outside of china with bloated egos and nothing more productive to do”, I am sure that the 50 cent party is really active. Tenzin is right, we should not waste time talking to senseless people!!
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
On tibet, what we are seeing is the passage of history. Tibet is a non-issue. Period. All the balking from the activist groups outside of china will not make one iota of difference. The actual tibetans in china will learn to assimilate and progress with the rest of china. The outside activists and TGIE will wither away and be forgotten. I know several tibetans from TGIE who left Dharamshala. They are left because they see that TGIE and their movement is futile. They left so they can move on and raise a family with a better future somewhere else. China is getting ever stronger, and the western backers of TGIE ever weaker on a relative scale. It doesn’t take rocket science to conclude that the fate of the tibet independence movement and TGIE is doomed. What we have mostly is, again, bloated western egos harping on their definition of what is right, and some people (such as the students in SFAFT) with nothing better to do making the noise.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@pug_ster 28
Obviously, you haven’t got my point. Read again my comment, more carefully.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
@colin 30
Tibet is a non-issue? Why then Beijing bother so much…? Why all of you, 50 cent soldiers, are you wasting your time commenting on the issue…? Maybe are you a non-person…?
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
@ colin30,
sadly for you Tibet is an issue not because of us Tibetans and western sympathisers outside. But it is an issue because Tibetans inside Tibet makes it so with their courage and determination for freedom. Tibetans and Tibet will be free someday to choose their own destiny. You may have nothing but contempt for us Tibetans and our aspirations, but our determination for independence does not rest on people like you. People like you will be left behind while open-minded and realistic Tibetan and Chinese people will find a solution. My prayers are with you.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
@colin30
the fate of Tibet and Tibetans will be and will always decide by the Tibetans. the cause of one cilivisation will not or will never effect by some individual way of life. Besides that, the issue may be a non-issue and have problem or trouble some with you. but, it is confirmed that, it is not you and me, particular individual, who is going to decide the fate of Tibet and the Tibetans.
Looking back to the history, it was the Tibetans, who decided to stay within the framework of Chinese constitution (17 point) and it is again Tibetans in Tibet and TGIE are asking the rights, given on the Chinese constitution. So, the matter will be decide by these two nations, which has great historical relations dating back to thousand years.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
@tenpa 34
Who are you trying to please? Sorry to contradict you, but never the Tibetan people “decided to stay within the framework of Chinese constitution”. In 1951, the so-called “Seventeen Points Agreement” was signed by representatives of the Tibetan government while people in Eastern Tibet were raising against the occupying forces. Tibetans never accepted this agreement. As for 2008, demonstrators didn’t ask for “autonomy” but for independence. Here again, it’s only the Tibetan government in exile which insist on the so-called “Middle Way Approach”.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
@J. Dorjee
Let’s use a line from Deng: “let truth come from facts”. Tibetans today already enjoyed a great deal of religion freedom. You may bring up the fact that 14th DL is a taboo subject in Tibet, that is because he is a political figure in exile. Tibet can certainly improve to a better religion situation if 14th DL truly reconcile his position with center government, and give up his exile government.
Discussion of improving religion situation is always welcome, provided practice of religion is truely for religion purpose and be patriotic in nature. Buddhism has been enjoying a true renaissance inside China.
The government already gives official recognition of Tibet Buddhism religious degrees.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180661.htm
“BEIJING, April 13 — Years of pious study and devotion have paid off for nine Tibetan Buddhist monks in Lhasa. The nine were awarded the religions’ highest degree of traditional Lamaism in a ceremony in front of the famed Jokhang Temple Sunday.
A Lamaism degree is similar in achievement to a doctorate and is the goal of every Buddhist monk. But instead of playing “pomp and circumstance” at the ceremony, awards are presented amid prayer, chanting and rapid-fire debate in which degree-seekers must demonstrate their knowledge of scripture.
For the nine Yellow-sect monks who took part, it was a dream come true.
INTERVIEW: Losang Lungtok, Buddhist monk of Tashilhunpo Monastery (ONE OF THE 9) “I entered Tashilhunpo Monastery at 16 years old and took the tonsure and became a monk at 17 years old. It has been 20 years since I began to study intensively the Buddhist doctrine at 19 years old. I hope to pass down my knowledge of Buddhist philosophy imparted by the masters to more young monks after I return to the monastery.”
Only 22 Tibetan Buddhist monks have obtained Lamaism degrees since the tradition was revived in 2005 after an 17-year suspension. “
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@Christophe
Heard enough of foreignerw like you. For foreigners who adocate Tibet independence, they are not welcome here. Period.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
@SKC #21
I suggest you do a better learning about China’s history before putting more shallow comments out. If you are originally from HongKong, try to learn more about how your ancestors struggled there.
China lost two vast swaths of territoriy to Russia through treaties like Treaty of Aigun and later Treaty of Peking.
“The border between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China had long been an issue of contention. The Sino-Soviet border was a legacy of various treaties between the Qing Dynasty and the Russian Empire, the Treaty of Aigun and the Treaty of Beijing, in which Russia gained over 1 million km² (400,000 mi²) of territory in Manchuria at China’s expense, and another 500,000 km² in the western regions from several other treaties. These treaties have long been regarded by Chinese as unequal treaties, and the issue partially arose again with the Sino-Soviet split, with tensions eventually leading to division-scale military clashes along the border in 1969”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sino-Russian_Border_Agreement
China also has some important territorial disputes with Japan.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@J. Dorjee
“Only religious rituals such as burning incense and going round the monastery is allowed. Sorry, There is no such thing as free flow of information in Tibet today”
The above statement is SO untrue if you ever visit Tibet and knew the situation on the ground. Please read my post #36
The government even gives official recognition of various Tibet Buddhism religious degrees.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/13/content_11180661.htm
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 am
@Shane9219 #37
Instead of appointing who is and who is not welcomed here — and instead of insulting our intelligence with more lies from the unfamous Xinhua — why don’t you reply to my questions?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 am
@pug_ster #28
By the way, SFT (Students for a Free Tibet), which definitely fight for Tibet’s independence, has strictly no official access to Tibet. I insist on this point: NGO — in Tibet — are the largest nests of “Middle Way” supporters. And these folks, would it be simply to get their Chinese visa, are ready to go to unexpected extends of treason, especially if we consider that most of them have a past of “Tibet activists”…
Whatever you believe or expect us to believe, demonstrations in Tibet are absolutely genuine, they were not driven by economic grievances but by national considerations, and China alone can be blamed for that.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 am
Christophe,
I wouldn’t recommend wasting your breath on this forum. The people you’re talking to are not really interested in discussion.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 am
Shane says:
Heard enough of foreignerw like you. For foreigners who adocate Tibet independence, they are not welcome here. Period.
Such a welcoming place, foolsmountain. If Shane doesn’t agree with you, you have to leave!
Admin, this is why you have such a one-sided membership. You never try to stop people telling others to get lost. Would you visit a website for a second time if people told you to go away?
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 am
@Raj,
I said numerous times I welcome everyone here. I guess you probably could pay more attention to what I say than the words by a guest commentator? 🙂
As to your assertion. 1) that’s not true. Please see my comment today to colin in another thread. 2) My time is limited and that’s up to commentators themselves to keep a civil discussion. 3) Readers have the power to vote down the comments they deem inappropriate.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 am
I personally see nothing new in Shane’s or Colin’s behaviour, and I must admit that I enjoy it: frankly, reacting in such a manner, isn’t it completely counter-productive…?
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:46 am
Admin, Allen,
I am curious why is this topic on Tibet not on the front page of this blog?.
This is such an important research being carried out by Chinese from China (Beijing University law students and researchers) in Chinese language on Tibet and surprised that this heading has not been put on the front page. I believe this is first of its kind of a field research done by an organization in China that is not affiliated with any government agencies or its many media organizations.
I have found many Chinese, as we see in this blog, complain about biased reporting from western reporters, Tibetan exiles on Tibet and now you have Chinese researchers from this most prestigious university in China under the auspices of this influential Chinese think tank, went to Lhasa to conduct this field research after 03.14 event and this report deserves to be heard especially outside like in this forum even if it’s censored in China. If some of the previous topics on Tibet such as Nimrod’s posting of a Chinese teachers accounts of her experience in Tibet then why is this report of this significant and findings hidden and not on the front page.
As I have said before to agree the main findings in the report that if I was a Chinese taxpayer I would be mad as hell for squandering billions of Renminbi by these officials in Tibet both Tibetans and Han Chinese that doesn’t benefit the Tibetans and Chinese people but benefits the few officials who benefit enormously with the current stalemate and will ensure that there is no solution to the Tibet problem.
These findings need to be exposed, especially to the Chinese taxpayers, so that these inept, extremely corrupts officials in Tibet don’t get their way that hide behind being supposedly tough on idealogical and hyped up their imaginary separatist enemies and anti-China forces.
So this topic definitely deserves to be put on the front page so that more can see and participate in this blog. I almost missed this entirely since it’s hidden and would like to contribute more if this was put on the front page.
I don’t mean to complain again and do appreciate you publishing this but do need to equal voice or coverage when a report comes out that is critical of the Chinese government policies on Tibet especially from an entirely Chinese source written in Chinese and what more unbiased reporting do you expect on Tibet when it’s so hard to get factual reporting out of Tibet under this climate of fear and repression.
I trust it’s an oversight from your part and not a deliberate plan to suppress.
Thank you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5368440/Chinese-report-on-Tibet-reveals-the-roots-of-unrest.html
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 am
@Colin
You have expressed the true WISH of the CCP leaders openly now. You wished that Tibetans will be assimilated as Chinese and disappear like the Manchus, You wished Tibet becomes a non issue and that if you hide a truth long enough it will be forgotten and that TGIE will wither away. You have every right to wish. You can even wish to have one solid big star on the red flag instead of 5. Unfortunately things are happening exactly opposite of what you are wishing. It is time for you to be practical. Now it is Chinese intellectuals not westerners who begin to talk against these very destructive wish of the CCP, after all , Chinese people is not a bunch of leaders in Beijing but upholder of legacy of a great ancient civilization.
@Shane
I like the line from Deng also: “let truth come from facts”. You said “Tibetans today already enjoyed a great deal of religion freedom”. Generally speaking Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. Article 36 of the constitution also says, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.” Can some one conduct a public teaching/preaching/sermon in Lhasa today like in the rest of the world? Surely not, because you will say that people have the right not to believe. Therefore, Hong Kong’s basic law which the PRC incorporated wrote the line specifically ‘ including freedom to preach’ after the freedom of religion!! Obstructing these important manifestations of Tibetan Buddhism carried over for centuries hurts people’s feelings.
Tang Danhong, mainland Chinese poet and documentary film maker from Chengdu, Sichuan, wrote in her article ‘Tibet, Her Pain, My Shame ‘ has observed and asks, “Other than those voices that the rulers want to hear, have we ever heard the Tibetans’ full, real voices? Those Han Chinese who have been in Tibet, no matter if one is a high official, government cadre, tourist or businessman, have we all heard their real voices, which are silenced, but are still echoing everywhere?”
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
@Khechog #46
It’s always a pleasure to hear from genuine members of Tibet-in-exile community. I think the purpose of this forum is to “move mountains of mis-understanding” by building bridges, not to widen any existing gulf.
“As I have said before to agree the main findings in the report that if I was a Chinese taxpayer I would be mad as hell for squandering billions of Renminbi by these officials in Tibet ”
I agree totally. Accountability is also important in every place. Look at what’s going on in Iraq.
‘Billions lost’ to corruption in Iraq’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8055776.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/world/middleeast/15iraq.html
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 am
@J. Dorjee #47
I agree with you that Tibetans, as well as the rest of Chinese in general, should be able to enjoy more religious freedom. Let’s say the government is moving towards that direction, and more need to be done.
However, one also needs to be realistic. There are always social constraints placed upon the practice of religions at a given specific times. You probably know the history of Mormon Church in US and that certain branch of it is still under presecution, and in some earlier times, the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
To Shane:
didn’t know about the Russian treaties. Thanks for the info.
So, China signed some treaties in yesteryear that she came to regret. And in more modern times, she has renegotiated them. Mind telling me how that relates to your “China lost much of her territory due to foreign invasions in near-modern times.”? And how does that justify, explain, or support her fascination with territorial integrity today? And how does any of that remotely address the fact that Tibetans may be agitating from within, and not invading from without?
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
@Khechog #46,
I agree that’s an important topic.
The reason that this piece is not on the front page is
1) The original report has not been translated.
2) The author of this post did put serious effort into writing a high quality post. For example, a simple definition of the “new Tibetan aristocracy.”
Similarly, I did not put the post about Amy Yee’s article on the front page because it’s not original content, but mainly a cut-and-paste from published material.
With that said, I do like to hear more Tibetan voices on this forum. Will you please consider becoming an author of this blog? Please send me an email if you are interested.
I am also thinking about to set up a special forum For Tibet related issues (when I find time). Otto suggested that before but not many people responded. If any of you are interested in managing that forum, please let me know.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
admin, with all due respect I know you’re not on here 24/7. But given that, as far as I can see, the only consequences of rude behaviour to others is a slap on the wrist (bar the rare occasion you delete a comment) then why would anyone pay attention to you?
It’s up to you, but I would like to see a mandatory code of conduct that was enforced. Even if it meant I would have to be more polite when I didn’t feel like it I would take note.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@Raj,
A mandatory code of conduct is an excellent idea. Could you please write a draft rules as a post so we can come up with something transparent and enforceable?
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Could you please write a draft rules as a post so we can come up with something transparent and enforceable?
I will have a think about it, but it may be better for you to draft the rules and then I can give feedback on them. Otherwise some of the usual suspects will complain.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
@Christophe 41
By the way, SFT (Students for a Free Tibet), which definitely fight for Tibet’s independence, has strictly no official access to Tibet. I insist on this point: NGO — in Tibet — are the largest nests of “Middle Way” supporters. And these folks, would it be simply to get their Chinese visa, are ready to go to unexpected extends of treason, especially if we consider that most of them have a past of “Tibet activists”…
Whatever you believe or expect us to believe, demonstrations in Tibet are absolutely genuine, they were not driven by economic grievances but by national considerations, and China alone can be blamed for that.
Of course SFT has no access to tibet since it is blocked by the great firewall. But any person can access these sites thru proxy servers. Tibetans who get a Chinese Visa are essentially guests of China. So if they decided to come to China gives China more of a reason to deport them. Not because of the Chinese government, but if some Chinese National comes to some western country and protest against the government, he will probably expect to get deported too.
I believe that Western Governments are exploiting the grievances of the Tibetans in China and around the world. NED indirectly gives millions of dollars to support these Tibetan NGO’s every year to support their cause. As a result, this money are funded these Tibetan websites which the Westen Media use them to write up stories about their grievances. This in fact, get more Tibetans to join their cause. Months before the 6/4 incident, these NGO’s like the VOA rile up the college students to support their grievances when these NGO’s are using them to destabilize the Chinese government. For the past 15-20 years, that’s that the US funded NGO’s do, they support the Tibetan’s grievances.
Before you think the legitimacy’s of these Tibetan’s websites, think about this. Let’s say here in the US the American Native Indians who have grievances against the US government got funds from the Chinese government to start their NGO’s. The Chinese government pay anything from their Lodging, support, setting up websites, writing up newsletters,.newspapers, flyers to other Indian Tribes so that they can recruit other Indians to support their ’cause.’ They also have the official CCP’s media support. I’m sure if the Chinese government does that, the US government would not be happy. This is why the Chinese government doesn’t think the Tibetan’s demonstrations are not genuine, because they receive funds and other kinds of moral support from Western governments.
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@pug_ster Says:
Generally countries support other organizations when it is in their interest. Western countries support to Tibetan cause is being pro-truth, pro-justice and not necessarily anti- China. If China thinks that the American Native Indians are going through the same plight as the Tibetans in Tibet today, China should, as a wealthy nation go and support them just like they support Maoists in Nepal and Communist party in India or the military junta in Burma.
But to say that the Tibetan demonstrations are not genuine is again underestimating the Tibetans and wishful thinking. Bulks of the Tibetans are in India and Nepal and they keep on demonstrating because they are in democratic countries and can express their opinions. You seems to be discussing the symptoms and not the disease and have a notion that money can buy everything. The genuineness of the demonstrations in Tibet last year which continues even today in Yunan,Chengdu and other Tibetan areas outside TAR, in spite of China government spending millions of Renmibi is self explanatory.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@J Dorjee 56
Generally countries support other organizations when it is in their interest. Western countries support to Tibetan cause is being pro-truth, pro-justice and not necessarily anti- China. If China thinks that the American Native Indians are going through the same plight as the Tibetans in Tibet today, China should, as a wealthy nation go and support them just like they support Maoists in Nepal and Communist party in India or the military junta in Burma.
But to say that the Tibetan demonstrations are not genuine is again underestimating the Tibetans and wishful thinking. Bulks of the Tibetans are in India and Nepal and they keep on demonstrating because they are in democratic countries and can express their opinions. You seems to be discussing the symptoms and not the disease and have a notion that money can buy everything. The genuineness of the demonstrations in Tibet last year which continues even today in Yunan,Chengdu and other Tibetan areas outside TAR, in spite of China government spending millions of Renmibi must be investigated.
The problems is that it is not in China’s interest to defend the American Native Indians because it does not affect China’s sovereignty, whereas China’s neighbors like India, Nepal and Burma does exert some influence. I personally don’t like what China’s doing, but I think it is a necessary evil as NED funds pro-democracy movements in those same countries. This kind of information war is unfortunate but necessary.
Yes it seems to me to say that money can buy influence and yes it can. And that’s the sad fact.
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
#51, Admin,
Thanks for your response.
I must admit I haven’t read the entire report as I haven’t found an English version. So will ask my significant other to read for me the original in Chinese.
Looking at the table of contents as shown above on Tony’s posting provide excellent summary of some of the grievances. That’s the sort discussions we should be having instead of idealogical and history quagmire. I still think that this particular topic should be on the front page so that more can see and participate. As I have said I will contribute once I read the entire report and it’s on the front page.
I am not sure if I support a separate forum on Tibet as it will bring like minded on one side and the opposing on the other as we find the usual suspects. I don’t blog on Tibetan forum for that reason and want to discuss with mainstream Chinese, so putting Tibetan issue topics under the China blog is just fine.
Ironically Tibet is not even given true autonomy within China as it’s name only and the key decisions are made from Beijing, so when it’s direct rule from Beijing. Strange analogy but the point is let’s not create separate forum on Tibet when Tibet proper is not even autonomous within PRC.
The biggest contribution Tibet can make to China and Chinese people is to share its rich Buddhist culture and spirituality. If the current government sees Tibetan culture, identity and spirituality as asset instead of liability and a threat to China, then there is good future for Tibet to be part of China. That attitude from the PRC doesn’t exist at this time and instead the PRC CCP makes it quite political, idealogical.
I have no doubt that once it’s CCP govt attitude changes and there is more freedom of information, the Chinese people will definitely warm up to the Tibetan culture and more importantly its Buddhist tradition as we have been seeing recently in China and outside in Chinese diaspora for many years of Chinese people supporting Tibetan Buddhism. Just as Russians after the collapse of its communist empire, went back to its Orthodox Christian culture big time, the Chinese people will also do the same to draw strength from its Confucius Buddhist culture.
I can have good discussion with those Chinese who are proud of their Buddhist culture and even if one is is nationalists, I don’t see a problem. Those will be the majority soon that will view the Tibetan buddhist culture in positive terms and many will become patrons. Tibetans will have no problem working with those as was done centuries before.
On the other hand, there is no future for Tibet to be part of China if the majority of the Chinese who we see sometimes in the blog as well that do not value Tibetan Buddhist culture and worse feel deep contempt either one has become born-again, evangelical type in another religion (eg. Korea, a Buddhist country in less than 50 years is now only 50% Buddhists), Han-chauvinistic, self-serving personal gain in wealth and power as in the current leadership in TAR and CCP.
At this time the latter is more prevalent but the trend is that as China opens up and become more transparent, the former scenario of China is more likelihood of good future for Tibet as part of China.
So can you put this topic on the front page as it’s an important topic for discussion on Tibetan grievances that Chinese (taxpayers or not) should understand.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@Khechog
Thank you very much for the insightful and heartfelt comment. This post is now both on the front page and the Letters page. I hope we will soon able to have the English translation ready for discussion. Allen would love to do the translation but he is on vacation now.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Khechog, I would pose a question to you that, todate, I have not found a satisfactory answer:
“Would it be okay if the Chinese treated Tibeteans in the same way we Americans treated the Native Americans?”
After all, the way we treat our subjugated indiginuous people seems to have given us not only legitmacy, but also praises that what we’ve done has allowed the indiginuous people to be “contempt” with their subjugation.
Now, some specifics:
– We took over the Native American’s land completly (there’s no contiguous territory like the TAR) and placed them in tiny pockets of desolate land called “reservations”. When valuable discovery is found we relocate them to even more desolate land so we can reap what we desire.
– We created law that forbids them from arming themselve, if they do we are not responsible for their total annihilation. Their only recourse is our legal system that presumes our rights over theirs.
– We outlaw their religion and forced them to practice a hybrid form of Christianity
– We decimated their population to the point of extinction.
What do you think? BTW, I’m American; I am not from Mainland China, have never been citizen of the PRC.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Admin,
Thank you for responding to my request.
I will contribute when I have more time to share my knowledge and my experiences from frequent travels to China and talking with Tibetans especially inside Tibet.
Charles, Sorry, I made commitment not to respond or engage in discussion with the folks who I think fit into the latter scenario of China from my previous posting. However I will say one thing: Two wrongs don’t make it right and as far as I know all these countries are deeply remorseful of their action 50-100 years ago with some spending billions in compensation and in Canada, the government recognized the Natives along with Quebec as a nation status within Canada. US and Australia are not too different. I can’t condemn the children what their parents did but if it’s happening now in 21st century, we would be outraged. That’s all I can say.
I will instead focus my energy and resource on the current situation/policies in Tibet and the best of future Tibet as part of China and will discuss with realistic, sensible, rational folks (no offense) and that includes Tibetans too.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“I can’t condemn the children what their parents did but if it’s happening now in 21st century, we would be outraged. That’s all I can say.”…and well said indeed. You’ll have to forgive Charles…he can’t help himself but to compare and contrast.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
SKC and Khechog, most of those things I mentioned are still happening TODAY. But if you wish to let America off hook, I understand and thank you.
I would also note (some present company excluded) the duplicity in mere “outrage” for our own transgressions, yet demand the Chinese of things we can’t measure up ourselves. As American I feel we should not scream bloody while ignoring the bloody ground we’re standing on (again, some present company excluded.)
Alas, my quest for introspection continues…
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Which of the things you mentioned constitute the “most” portion of your “most of those things I mentioned are still happening TODAY.”?
“As American I feel we should not scream bloody while ignoring the bloody ground we’re standing on” – perhaps Americans have more unrepented guilt than meets the eye. I think Canada is doing a good job of correcting our past wrongs. And your constant approach that one can’t offer criticism of China until America is “perfect” is simply an excuse to never criticize China. I’d say people (even Americans) have a greater capacity for multi-tasking than that.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
SKC, perhaps you are not as familiary with our treatment of our native population is because you are not American.
Everyone of them is still happening today in America (1) (2) (3) – even the genocide is debatable, as Native Americans have the lowest life-expectancy in America, some 20 years less than average American.
I never said one can not criticize China; I’m appealing for introspection in light of the hypocrisy and duplicity I see.
Like I said, my quest for introspection continues. You may have the last word.
(Citations provided for Otto Kerner.)
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Charles, none of those things are still happening today. At least do us the favour of twisting the truth instead of just plain making things up when you’re trying to distract us with red herrings. Pathetic.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
@J. Dorjee #56
“If China thinks that the American Native Indians are going through the same plight as the Tibetans in Tibet today,”
When you put up a broad and sweeping label like above, where do all the facts come from?
Tibetan, Qiang, Han and Hui ethnicities intertwined and racially intermixed each other over a very long period of time. Most of the times, those regions were in peace and co-development, but there were also times of wars and conquering. That has been part of the nature of history, but nothing ever came even a bit close to as what you described “the same plight” as American Native Indians, as we all knew what American Native Indians had been through under European white settlers.
By looking at the history of ethinicity migration in China, one can agree that modern Tibetans have their bloodlines from Qiang and Han, so do Han’s bloodlines from Qiang and Tibetan. Let me share with you a Tibet scholar’s blog here. The author is Doushi or 多识仁波切
多识仁波切不但精通佛学，同时也精通藏、汉语言学以及历史、文化等诸多学科。他用两种文字撰写出版了十多本涉及多学科的图书。尤其是1997年以来出版的《爱心中爆发的智慧》系列书系，享誉海内外，被誉为“来自喜马拉雅的智慧财富”“有关佛教哲学、佛经解读及藏传佛教知识最为权威、经典、最为畅销的汉文读本之一”“华语世界研读、学修藏传佛教的必备之书
http://duoshi.tibetcul.com/33888.html
华锐人文历史探源
By 多识
“居住在黄河、湟水以北，青海东北部，祁连山脉的藏人称为华锐藏人。这块地方属青藏高原东北隅，藏语称byang rgyud(北部地区)，宋元以来称“北蕃”。
现在使用藏汉语系，藏缅语种中的藏语的各民族，在古代称羌戎。“羌”与“戎”并非民族的差别，只是生产方式上的差别。居无定所以游牧为生者为“羌”，定居务农为生者为“戎”。在藏语中至今称农民为Ruang wa(戎娃或戎巴)，农、戎音近意同。“羌”字《说文》释：羌，西戎牧羊人也。
羌族是中国古代一个历史悠久的古老民族，他们长期生活在中国的西部地区。根据史料记载，在东汉时，中国西部有羌人部落150多个。
认定藏族为古羌人的根据，一是史料，二是文化特征。其一，如《新唐书》称：“吐蕃本西羌属，盖有百五十种，散处河、湟、江、岷间”。《一统志》称：“西蕃即吐蕃也，其先本羌属”。吴天墀《西夏史稿》中说“宋人所谓的吐蕃，也叫西蕃，有时更明确地认作是羌族”。黄奋生《藏族史略》中说“历代史学家的看法说明，羌、藏是一个民族”。等等。”
http://duoshi.tibetcul.com/33888.html
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@SKC #50
“China signed some treaties in yesteryear that she came to regret”
That is absolutely NOT true.. Those un-equal treaties were signed becasue of foreign invasion or wars imposed by foreign powers. Read more China’s history, I would suggest to you again .
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
More info on China’s Qiang ethnitcity
羌族歷史記憶
http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/5016
承祖先大禹胸怀 建立西夏:羌族历史探秘
http://cathay.ce.cn/history/200807/16/t20080716_16176849_3.shtml
Kasidawen – Syncretism of Qiang and Tibetan dances, a different branch of the same origins
http://traditions.cultural-china.com/en/17T2874T8562.html
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Shane you’ll have to forgive SKC for not wanting to read or understand China’s history, as it might get in the way of his constant faulting and demonization of the Chinese government, communism, whatnot.
BTW, here’s the translation of the article in 67, for those who don’t read Chinese:
Historical accounts and the origion of Huarui people
By Doushi
“Residing next to Yellow River, north of Huang River, north-eastern Qinghai, Tibetans of Qilian Mountain are clled Huarui Tibetan. This area is part of north-eastern Tibetan Pleatau. In Tibetean it is called Byan Rgyud (northern territory), it is called “Northern Barbarian” in Song Yuan Dynasties.
Now employing Tibet-Han language family, Tibeto-Burman language ethnics were called “Qiang Rong” in ancient times. “Qiang” and “Rong” were not different ethnicities, rather differenciating their livlyhood. The nomadic herders were “Qiang”, while the farming settlers were “Rong”. To date Tibetan refers to farmers as Ruangwa or Rongba. “Qiang” according to [Illustrations] means western Rong sheep herders.
Qiang tribe has a long history since ancient China. They have long lived in Western China. According to historical records from Eastern Han period, there were over 150 Qiang settlements in Western China.
Asserting Tibetan’s lienage from ancient Qiang people is based on, one is historical writing, two is cultural characteristics. For example, [New Tang Book] says: “Tufan belongs to western Qiang, having 150 homestead, distributed among Chu, Huang, Yangtze, and Min mountain. [Unification Chronicle] says “Tufan are western barbarians, originally belong to Qiang”. Wu Tianchi’s [Western Shia History] says “Song refere to Tufan as western barbarian, sometimes more clearly as Qiang people”. Huang FenShen’s [Tibetean History] says “historians in the dynasties explained, Qiang, Tibet are one ethnicity”, etc.
http://duoshi.tibetcul.com/33888.html
But I wouldn’t hold my breath, as the ancient texts showing effective administration of Tibet by past dynasties probably will be ignored by the “Feng Lao” (angry laowai) SFT type 😎
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 pm
@Charles Liu #70
Thanks for making the translation. It is very close and I enjoy reading it. Maybe it is a good idea to translate the entire article from Doushi.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
To Shane:
“That is absolutely NOT true.. Those un-equal treaties were signed becasue of foreign invasion or wars imposed by foreign powers.” – what on earth are you talking about. Your own link speaks of renegotiations in 1991!?! Was China still being victimized then? Good grief. I mean, how much longer can you milk the whole “woe is me, poor China” bit?
And again, how does any of that have anything to do with the fact that the Tibet issue revolves around the potential of Tibetan Chinese to no longer want to be Chinese? I think you have your “invasion” arrow pointed in the wrong direction on that one.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
@S.K.C
By following your logic, one may assume the reason that you run away from HongKong was because China “invaded” HongKong. So you don’t want to be a Chinese, and rather be a Canadian.
I hope you can learn some history and make positive contribution to the discussion, not endless and pointless bickering.
““That is absolutely NOT true.. Those un-equal treaties were signed becasue of foreign invasion or wars imposed by foreign powers.” – what on earth are you talking about. Your own link speaks of renegotiations in 1991!?! Was China still being victimized then?”
The border agreement with Russian in 1991 was simply to resolve some minor unsettled border dispute issues.
Russsian goverments of various times never renounce and give up Treaty of Aigun and Treaty of Peking. Soviet Russia under Lenin made a good gesture and revoked some other unequal treaties, but not those involving major territorial claims.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
To Charles:
I’m not American, so I’m not familiar with the specifics of the Native American plight. Given the garbage links you managed to Google, if that’s all you’ve got, then neither are you.
The first link is to a prison activist site that documents injustices toward African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. If your point is that Native Americans are specifically targeted, you haven’t come within a football field of making it. Not to mention that the claims even on that site are unsubstantiated.
Your second link is to an act from 1887. Does that count as “today” in your book?
Your third link says the President MAY abrogate treaties. Since you’re the American expert, perhaps you can first find a relevant treaty that a president has actually in real life abrogated, then we’ll talk, k?
As for the life expectancy discrepancy, that is a legitimate issue. But it’s hardly “genocide”, at least in the sense most sane people would understand it. And since the compare/contrast schtick is your specialty, might I point out that Tibetan life expectancy is also less than PRC citizens overall. In your parlance, there must be a goose/gander reference in there somewhere. Perhaps you’ll find it.
“I’m appealing for introspection in light of the hypocrisy and duplicity I see.” – yes, there are issues regarding treatment of minorities that need to be raised, in the US and Canada. If nothing else, your links show that that is in fact happening. And you know what, as I’ve said before, you seem aptly qualified to start a blog for Native Americans. But since this is a blog for CHina, perhaps you can try to stay on topic, at least once in a while.
I think Otto’s last word in #66 aptly describes your post in #65; and I hope I’ve shown you here why it is most definitely so.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
To Shane:
“one may assume the reason that you run away from HongKong was because China “invaded” HongKong” – yep. Though I’m not sure how this logically follows anything we’ve talked about to date, but if you say so…
So your version of appropriate history would be that all treaties that China ever signed be ripped up, and that all territorial disputes involving China be resolved in CHina’s favour? What are you, a real estate agent? And again, that milk was spilled a long time ago. How much longer do you plan on crying over it?
And if territory that China has historically lost should be returned, then what of Tibet? Perhaps China would be equally gracious and give that back too?
I’m no expert in Chinese history; but if such expertise gets one to think like you do, then no thanks.
BTW, in case you’ve forgotten:”And again, how does any of that have anything to do with the fact that the Tibet issue revolves around the potential of Tibetan Chinese to no longer want to be Chinese? I think you have your “invasion” arrow pointed in the wrong direction on that one.” You take your time.
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
@S.K. C
You are just spoiled, and keep making endless bickering to cover your igorance. Sure look like you can not distinguish black from white.
Tibet had been under China’s administration for centuries, not to mention the cultural and ethnic bond.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:12 am
“Tibet had been under China’s administration for centuries, not to mention the cultural and ethnic bond.” – oh yes, the history bit. Didn’t you forget the “inheritance” angle, or are you saving that for later? Of course, this doesn’t begin to answer my question, but I’m not sure you noticed the difference. Rather than fixating on centuries ago, maybe you can start with 1959.
“You are just spoiled” – ouch, that hurt! Now, what else you got?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Segments from 承祖先大禹胸怀 建立西夏:羌族历史探秘
http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/5016/4
“藏族
羌族雖然將藏族視為他族，但羌族以不同的方式來說明他們與各地藏族的關係。大體而言，他們認為黑水的藏族與羌族關係最密切，其次是與羌族生活方式接近的四土人(嘉戎藏族 [Jiarong Tibetan])，與羌族關係最遠的則是草地藏族(遊牧的安多藏族 [Amdo’s nomad Tibetan])。
接近藏族區域的羌族村寨中人，自然與藏族關係較密切。在松潘埃期溝，一個三十多歲的羌族告訴我，早些時並沒有所謂的羌族、藏族之分。小時候他分不清楚自己是羌族還是藏族。甚至於這兒許多中年以上的藏族、羌族還記得，在小姓溝、熱務溝、黑水、松潘草地一帶(據說可遠到龍溪、紅札)，曾存在兩個人群組織一一牛頭部(加喝)與羊頭部(鄂博喝)。這兩種人群組織打破所謂的藏、羌之分。譬如小姓溝羌族中，埃期村人是羊頭部，大爾邊人屬牛頭部。一個原住熱務紅土區的藏族老人對我說，他在藏區時是屬於羊部落的（9），後來寨子遭瘟疫、強盜，人死的死，遷的遷，於是他到同屬羊部落的埃期村中做入門女婿。現在，關於牛頭部與羊頭部的記憶在小姓溝中幾乎消失殆盡，只有少部分人知道此名稱以及含混不清的分佈情形，以及兩種人群在建築上的差別(方形門柱是羊頭部落，圓形門柱是牛頭部落)。但是在小黑水知木林一帶的「藏族」中，這種記憶還很深刻、普遍。
無論如何，小姓溝羌族認為熱務溝紅土區的藏族與他們關係密切。前面埃期村羌族所說的「七兄弟」故事，其中一個兄弟到紅土去：這也說明了在埃期村羌族的心目中，紅土藏族與他們有些親緣關係。當地三、四十歲的羌族都還記得，「從前與紅土的人沒有太多的隔閡，現在分藏族、羌族，說多了也就有隔閡了」。黑水人說的話與小姓溝、松坪溝、赤不蘇的羌話相近。因此，儘管羌族對黑水人的生活與日常行為頗有批評，但仍然認為他們與自己關係密切，或認為他們應該就是羌族。在埃期村羌族的「七兄弟」故事中，黑水人也被認為是其中一個兄弟的後代
…
語言、生活、文化上的相似性，都被用來拉近藏、羌問的距離。嘉絨藏族與羌族在語言、文化上某些相似性是客觀存在的事實，但羌族強調這種相似卻是相當主觀的。無論如何，在許多羌族心目中嘉絨藏族是與他們有密切關係的人群。
雖然如此，在羌族的觀念中藏、羌之間的界線也是非常明顯。他們普遍認為，藏族野蠻而好作亂，對國家不忠。相反的，羌族忠於國家，而且國家有難羌族人就出來解圍。這種族群界線表達在許多強調羌、漢、藏三者關係的歷史記憶中。譬如，前面提及流傳在茂縣與松潘之間的樊梨花故事便是一個例子。
這故事出於中國民間流傳的《薛丁山征西》章回小說。主要內容是：唐代時西番哈迷國造反，由薛仁貴率領的大軍推進到「寒江關」時受阻。後來寒江關守將之女樊梨花(羌族的祖先)與仁貴之子薛丁山成婚，才解除危機。最後，幸賴武藝高強的樊梨花，唐軍才打敗西番。這個社會記憶的結構意義，事實上還是說「國家有危險時，羌族就出來」，並以平亂者與叛亂者劃分羌族(樊梨花)與藏族(西番)的界線。在講述黑水叛亂事件時，羌族人也對於他們如何幫助解放軍打下黑水的事津津樂道。羌族所居的阿壩州是藏、羌夾雜地區。在這樣的族群環境中，尤其不時有藏獨活動傳聞的情況下，嚴守羌藏間的族群邊界對羌族而言是必要的。更重要的是，羌族認為他們與漢族在族源上有密切的關係，這也是他們要和與華夏作對的藏人劃清界線的原因。
漢族
漢化村寨的羌族以及城鎮中的羌族知識分子，以許多歷史記憶來強化他們與漢族的關係。前者主要以孫悟空、樊梨花、諸葛亮與孟獲等野史、傳說來銓釋羌族與漢族間的關係，後者則以「歷史」來證明羌族與漢族的關係。在本質上兩者並無不同。以下是兩位羌族知識分子的說法：
20．我認為漢人羌人都是同宗，以前都在黃土高原。後來黃河沖積扇形成，向東遷了，農耕。這邊只是遊牧，吃不飽肚皮，就發生戰爭，這就是黃帝與炎帝。羌與姜是一體的。
21．漢族，整體的漢族實際上還是羌族，因為漢族的出現在西漢以後才有這概念。以前一、兩千年就有羌族，甲骨文中有羌族沒有漢族。漢族事實上是個個少數民族融合成的。漢族中大部份還是羌族‘羌族與藏族不同，他不願成為一個獨立的王國，對中央政府一直是很擁護的。
在前面我們也曾說過，羌族歷史記憶中一個重要成分便是厂羌人為大禹後代创，許多漢族知識分于也有同樣的歷史記憶。因此羌族不完全是對華夏而言的「邊疆異族」，他們像是一種介於華夏與少數民族之間的族群。城鎮中羌族知識分子以身為如此的羌族而自豪。這樣的羌族認同，在現實政治上的意義反映在一位羌族知識分子的話中：
22．羌不謀華娃。羌族自古就擁護皇帝，不搞分裂。國家有危險時，羌族就出來。
因此，某些為漢族出兵助戰的記憶，如清末羌族到廣東作戰之事，如前面提及的樊梨花故事，羌族助征黑水的故事（10），以及古史中的大禹治水、李冰治水故事（10），都在羌族城鎮中廣泛流傳。
——————————————
（10） 許多羌族知識分子或近公路村寨的羌族皆認為，自大禹以來治水便是羌族的傳統工程技術。因此他們認為李冰與二郎也是羌族。
村寨中的羌族對羌、漢間的「過去」有另一種記憶。我在松潘、汶川附近都曾採集到類似的故事。
23．我們那兒，有與漢人打戰的故事。大概是說，漢人很狡猾，羌人很笨。打來打去，最後分不出勝負。兩個人就分地皮，到處去作記號，最後以此分地盤。羌族的人，以兩邊的樹打結做記號：漢人埋石做記號。漢人最後放把火，羌人所做的記號都沒了。漢人將石頭翻出來，結果好的地都歸漢人。羌人沒有地盤了，就上山了。
24．松潘一個孤兒，赤，很有本事，帶著羌兵要打成都。走到灌縣的白沙嗎?還是那個城的時候。漢族兵怕打不贏羌兵，就用計謀。在城外編了一雙草鞋，五尺長，立個扁擔五丈長。另做個假的屎五尺高，用紅薯玉米等。羌兵走在這就嚇到了。怎有這麼大的人。於是往後撤兵。漢人就往後攆。攆到松潘，兩個民族就坐下來談判。以後就一同修橋補路，一同過年過節。
25．不是那個諸葛亮七擒孟獲嗎?捉了放，捉了放，後來孟獲說那麼談和好了。怎麼談和呢?諸葛亮說，我只要借一箭之地。就是射一支箭距離的地方。孟獲說，那能有多少地?行，就這樣。後來箭射出去後，諸葛亮使詐，派人將箭帶到遠遠的地方去插，打箭爐還是那裡?於是灌縣一帶平地都是漢族的了，羌族就上山了。
羌族知識分子以「歷史」來詮釋羌族與漢人之間，或與漢人化身的國家之間，密切而友好的關係。以上這兩則故事則顯示，在日常生活中與漢人接觸的村寨中羌族，如何以「過去」來表達他們心目中的漢、羌之別。這些記憶說明，羌族將自己視為一個老實易受騙的民族，相對於漢族的聰明、狡滑。他們以兩種對比一一居於山上與居於平地，老實與狡滑一一來詮釋羌、漢的族群邊界。”
…
“傳統中國邊緣的「羌人」與現代中國境內少數民族的「羌族」，最主要的差別便是：前者是對漢人而言的邊緣異族，而後者，除了仍被漢人視為華夏邊緣外，他也是一個建立在「認同」上的民族。這種變化的主要動因，還是由於民國革命以來，特別是社會主義中國建立以來，華夏由傳統「中國人」轉變為「中華民族」的核心人群。傳統「中國人」由異化的邊緣來凝聚：強調邊緣人群的異質性，也等於強調華夏間的同質性，藉此由邊緣強化華夏認同。而「中華民族」則是，在民族國家架構下，一個與現代中國相對應的民族。現代中國建立後， 「中國」需要一個確定的實質邊界；由於華夏邊緣人群對中國人的凝聚非常重要，所以他們都被劃入「中國」與「中華民族」之中。
與傳統中國正史對四裔人群的記載相比，民國以來的邊疆民族史研究可說是一種建立、塑造「中華民族」的集體歷史回憶活動。以「羌族歷史文化」來說，這種回憶首先由漢族歷史學者主導。在中共政權成立之後，國家的行政力量與國家教育深入村寨中，並貫徹執行民族平等與對少數民族的優惠政策。在學習漢文與漢文記載的歷史記憶之後，岷江上游人群也開始在華夏的歷史記憶中發現、塑造自己。從此，「羌族歷史文化」成為漢族學者與土著知識分子間，或羌族人民與漢族人民間，共同的歷史回憶活動。藉由如此的歷史回憶活動，岷江上游人群成為「中華民族」的一部分；這個傳統的華夏邊緣更牢固的與華夏結合在一起”
May 24th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Actually, the segements above were taken from
華夏邊緣的維持：羌族歷史記憶
By 王明珂
三、羌族邊緣：羌族對其他族群的歷史記憶
http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/5016/4
五、華夏邊緣的維持：由羌人到羌族
http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/5016/6
May 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am
《華夏邊緣：歷史記憶與族群認同》序論
By 王明珂
“什麼是中國人? [What make you a Chinese]
中國人，無疑是全世界人口最多的族群。除了居住在中國大陸的十二億多人外，在全世界還有數千萬人被認為，或自認為是華人或中國人。然而，究竟什麼是中國人?這問題不僅困擾著許多研究中國的外國學者，甚至，也困擾著許多「「國人」一尤其是處於邊緣地位的中國人。
在美國，兩代之間對於中國認同的差距，經常是華裔家庭的夢魘。許多年長的華人始終難以明白，為何他們的子女能否認自己是「華人」。在東南亞，雖然常受挫於自己的華裔身分，許多家庭堅持華人認同已有數百年歷史；是什麼力量使他們如此?對此最激烈的爭辯，或者說「中國人的定義」受到最嚴厲的挑戰，可能發生在近十年來的台灣。由於統一派與獨立派激烈的爭執，由於大陸中國的武力威脅，在這兒許多人辯論，更多人困惑，到底他們算是台灣人?還是中國人?而對於在大陸的中國人來說，他們也無法理解，為何在台灣，部分中國移民的後代可以否認他們的華夏祖源?
在本書中，我將詮釋「什麼是中國人」。但並不是說，讀者看完了這本書，就能知道他是中國人，還是台灣人、美國人。以「中國人」為研究對象，我的野心是建立一個族群理論，來詮釋一般性的人類族群現象。基於對族群現象的了解，我相信一個族群理論如果能回答「我們是誰」，這一定是個有問題的理論。事實上，現代族群理論希望解答的問題是：「為何我們要宣稱我們是誰」，因此，透過對「中國人」這個族群現象及其本質的認識，希望我們可以理解為何人們要宣稱自己是中國人(或台灣人、美國人)，為何有認同矛盾或認同變遷。”
http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/4588
“華夏邊緣研究 [the Study of Ethnicities at the Edge of Huaxia Civilization]
以上所提到的，無論是對當代中國人與中國社會本質的研究，或是對古代中國人的溯源研究，重點都在體質、語言、文化風俗、生活習慣等「族群內涵」上。在本書中，我將採一個截然不同的角度—由中國人「族群邊緣」的形成與變遷，來解答「什麼是中國人」。對此，我有一個簡單的比喻：當我們在一張紙上畫一個圓形時，事實上是它的「邊緣」讓它看來像個圓形。
熟悉現代社會人類學族群理論的讀者，自然會了解，這個強調「族群邊緣」的研究取向，深受美國人類學家Fredric Barth的影響。近年來，我將之結合有關「集體記憶」(collective memory)或「結構性失憶」(structural amnesia)的理論，在一些論文及通論性文章中曾片斷的表現我對「族群本質」(ethnicity)的看法。在這本書中，我希望能以「中國人」這個族群為例，更清楚的、更有體系的說明我的觀點。
在本文開始之前，我先簡要的說明我對族群本質的看法。首先，如當代許多研究族群現象的學者一樣，我懷疑「族群」是一有共同的客觀體質、文化特徵的人群，而認為，族群由族群邊界來維持：造成族群邊界的是一群人主觀上對外的異己感(the sense of otherness)，以及對內的基本情感聯繫(Drimordial attachment)。其次，我強調族群邊界的形成與維持，是人們在特定的資源競爭關係中，為了維護共同資源而產生。因此，客觀資源環境的改變，經常造成族群邊界的變遷。在這一點上，我贊同「工具論者」(instrumentalists)的立場：族群認同是人類資源競爭的工具。
第三，族群邊緣環繞中的人群，以「共同的祖源記憶」來凝聚。因此，個人或人群都經常藉著改變原有的祖源記憶，來加入、接納或脫離一個族群：如此造成族群邊界的變遷，也就是族群認同變遷(ethnic change)。第四，由於族群的本質由「共同的祖源記憶」來界定及維繫，因此在族群關係中，兩個互動密切的族群，經常互相「關懷」甚至千涉對方的族源記憶。失去對自身族源的銓釋權，或是接受強勢族群給予的族源記憶，經常發生在許多弱勢族群之中。最後，在一個族群的內部，也經常形成不同的次群體，互相競爭著到底誰對本族群的「過去」有詮釋權。因此所謂族群現象，不僅是兩個互動族群間的關係，還包括族群內部的兩性間、階級間、地域群體間的關係。在本書中，我將說明我對以上這些族群本質與族群現象的看法。
在族群邊緣，人們強烈的堅持一種認同，強烈的遺忘一種認同，這都是在族群核心所不易見到的。這也使得「邊緣」成為觀察，了解族群現象的最佳位置。因此，讀者將發現，我的目的是要研究「中國人」，但我研究的對象卻不是在中國大陸十二億典型的現代中國人，也不是漢唐至明清典型的古代中國人。反之，我的研究對象是處在「中國邊緣的人」。所謂「中國邊緣」，我是指時間上的邊緣、地理上的邊緣，也是認同上的邊緣。譬如，在中國人即將形成的邊緣時間(新石器時代晚期至商周時期)，居住在黃土農業邊緣地區的那些人群。又如，春秋時代，華夏東南邊緣的吳國人，他們在當時由非華夏成為華夏，因而也是華夏認同的邊緣。又如，現代的台灣人，他們徬徨於維持中國人認同，或放棄中國人認同之間，因此更是處在中國邊緣。以及，羌族，一個處在中國西南邊緣的少數民族。
”
作者簡介
王明珂，1952年出生於台灣。國立台灣師範大學歷史系(1979)及歷史研究所(1983)畢業，美國哈佛大學東亞系博士(1992)。現任職於中央研究院歷史語言研究所，並會任教於師範大學、政治大學與東吳大學等校。主要研究範圍：中國邊疆民族史、族群現象與理論,歷史與社會記憶，以及遊牧社會的歷史與人類學研究等等。近年来從事羌族社會文化、歷史記憶與族群現象的田野調查研究。
May 24th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Languages, Cultures, and Ethnic Identities of the Black River Tibetans
Prof. Wang Ming-ke
Abstract
Lying on the northeast edge of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, the high mountains and
deep valleys area of the basin of the Black River, one of the tributaries of the Min
River, have always been the point of confrontation between China and Tubo kingdom
since the Tang dynasty. Thus in modern times while people living at the lower reaches
of the Black River are deeply influenced by Han culture, people at the middle and
upper reaches are more influenced by Tibetan Buddhism. During the Qing Dynasty
and the early stage of the first Republic era, people living between Luhua (蘆花) and
Waboliangzi (瓦缽樑子) were called Xifan (西番) or Bolozi (猼猓子) by Chinese
people.
The dominant ethnic group in this area speaks the “Qiang language” which is a
member of the Tibeto-Burman language family. However, for the people themselves,
the local dialects are extremely varied. Thus, the language of rGyalrong Tibetans was
once the lingua franca of local chiefs. Many of their culture and traditions are similar
to the Qiang people living in the area below Waboliangzi. In the first half of the
twentieth century the people living at the middle and upper reaches of the Black River
are notorious for being brutal and savage. There are often violent fights and killings
among themselves. Therefore during the first half of the 20th century, no any ethnic
group in the neighboring area would consider the “Bolozi” as “our people.” After the
“Nationality investigation” in the modern time and especially the nationality
identification campaign between the 1950s and 1960s, people living between Luhua
and Waboliangzi of the Black River are classified as Zhang people (or Tibetan
people).
This paper aims to take the “Qiang language speaking Zhang people” in the east
of the Black River as an example to explore the connection of language, culture, and
religion with “nation” and the multiple boundaries of “Tibetan Culture”. This paper
also tries to explain that the modern ethnic and cultural phenomena we have seen in
this area are the products of historical and social changes based on the local niche of
human ecology; under the modern concept of “nation” and nationalism, they thus
become the proud “Tibetan people”.
http://www.mtac.gov.tw/pages/93_970902/wang_ming_ke.pdf
黑水藏族的語言﹑文化與民族認同
By 王明珂教授
摘要
在青藏高原的東北邊緣﹐岷江支流黑水河流域高山縱谷地區﹐自古以來便是
漢與吐蕃勢力交持之處。黑水河下游的人群深受漢文化影響﹐中﹑上游人群則受
藏傳佛教影響。由蘆花到瓦缽樑子間的人群﹐在清代及民國初年曾被中國人稱作
「西番」或「猼猓子」。他們的上層土司﹑頭人們以嘉絨藏語為「官話」﹐他們的
子民所說的則屬於「羌語」﹔許多文化習俗也與瓦缽樑子以下的「羌族」類似。
這些黑水河中﹑上游人群以殘暴﹑落後著稱﹐他們之間也常在相互的暴力仇
殺之中。以致於在二十世紀上半葉﹐沒有一個族群認為他們與自身是「一個民
族」。在經過近代「民族調查」之後﹐以及 1950-60 年代的民族識別之後﹐黑水
河蘆花到瓦缽樑子間的人群成為藏族。本文的主旨在於﹐以黑水東部「說羌語的
藏族」為例﹐探討語言﹑文化﹑宗教與「民族」之間的關係﹐以及「藏族文化」
的多元邊緣本質。並藉此說明﹐近代黑水地區所見的一些民族與文化現象﹐是一
歷史與社會文化過程下的人類文化生態體系﹔在近代「民族」概念與國族主義下﹐
他們才成為驕傲的「藏族」。
…
結語
在本世紀之初﹐我們探討一民族的「二十一世紀文化」自然有些困難。現況
描述是一方法﹐但它卻不保証在此一世紀該民族文化不會改變。因而﹐本文以歷
史來說明當代「黑水藏族文化」的形成過程。將一當代民族文化置於歷史過程中﹐
我們才可能了解當代民族認同與其文化的深層意義﹐也因此可能對於該民族文化
在二十一世紀的展演與變遷﹐有一新的觀察與理解角度。
以此而言﹐黑水「說羌語的藏族」之民族認同及其文化表現﹐是基於本地資
源環境與社會結構﹐在漢﹑藏兩大文化圈之歷史發展影響下所造成的結果。以黑
水地區所見﹐結合我在羌族中所見之語言﹑文化現象﹐我們可以作以下推測﹕在
岷江上游的羌﹑藏族地區﹐原來分布著說藏緬語系「羌語」系統語言之人群﹐由
於各地方群體往來溝通少﹐此種語言在本地有很大的差異性。他們信仰各自的與
共同的山神﹐並以各層次的「弟兄祖先故事」聯繫一層層的親近群體。後來﹐在
漢﹑藏兩大文化與政治勢力的影響下﹐黑水河下游人群仍部分保存其本土語言﹑
山神信仰﹐與弟兄祖先故事歷史心性﹐但也接受漢式的佛﹑道文化﹐普遍習漢語﹐
受中國地方官府管轄﹐並受漢文化影響而有了「英雄祖先歷史心性」﹔黑水河中
游人群﹐其本土語言保存較好﹐但受藏傳佛教影響﹐山神信仰被納入藏傳佛教諸
神體系之中﹐「弟兄祖先歷史心性」消失殆盡﹐或者說﹐在此「諸神信徒」取代
「英雄或弟兄祖先之後裔」﹐以至於已無「歷史心性」可言——「歷史」在此完
全消失。
這樣的「黑水藏族」﹐顯然為當代漢﹑藏﹑羌民族區分中的一個邊緣異例——
在語言上他們說的是「羌語」﹐在文化上他們接近「藏族」﹐而在主觀認同上﹐在
民族化之前他們非藏也非羌﹐每一小地域族群皆自稱是「爾勒滅」。透過這樣的
異例﹐我們可以了解「民族」（藏族）的近代建構性。在另一方面﹐由此亦可見
黑水人成為藏族的一部分﹐或當代藏族的形成﹐並非是憑空的近代想像與發明﹐
而是經歷了一個歷史過程。這歷史過程﹐並非是典範「藏族史」或「中國民族史」
所宣稱的歷史﹐而是各種核心與邊緣人群互動關係下所造成的歷史。黑水人由極
端受鄙視的「蠻子」﹑「猼猓子」﹐成為今日以自身民族身分為榮的「藏族」﹐此也
黑水藏族的語言﹑文化與民族認同
顯示「後現代主義」解構學者對近代「國族主義」與「少數民族化」之負面評價
並非十分公允。在另一面﹐「文化」並非只是主流人群所強調的「燦爛的」民族
服飾與「神秘的」宗教儀式﹔經濟生態下人們的風尚﹑價值觀與行為﹐更是文化
重要的面相。以此而言﹐在國家所維繫的秩序下﹐黑水人殺人搶劫之事少多了﹐
但偷﹑騙﹑拐之事仍然頻傳﹔此「文化」顯然因其邊緣性經濟地位仍未有改變。
因此對於「漢族」或「藏族」核心群體來說﹐體認「黑水人」成為兩者「邊緣」
之歷史與生態因素﹐也應有所作為以補償其居於「邊緣」的劣勢地位。
May 24th, 2009 at 4:04 am
“5·12”大地震灾后的黑水藏乡
Black River Tibetan Region after 5-12 Sichuan Earthquake
http://www.tibet.cn/news/xzxw/shjj/200809/t20080929_430019.htm
May 24th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Someone shared with me a similar research paper by Prof Wang in English, below is the link
“From the Qiang Barbarians to the Qiang Nationality: The Making of a New Chinese Boundary”
Wang Ming-ke
http://ultra.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/~origins/pages/barbarbook4.htm
May 24th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Khechog #58,
I know we’ve butted heads before – and will probably continue to in the future. But as far as common ground is concerned, I am one of those Chinese nationalist who is also very proud of China’s Buddhist tradition. Not only are my family devout Buddhists, but in fact, one of my uncles is a devout follower of Tibetan Buddhism (he was originally from Sichuan and has a mixed Tibetan ancestry).
From a Taiwanese perspective, I also see Chinese people from all over the mainland reaching back to their traditional roots culture as China becomes more prosperous – and that includes – as you say – rediscovering and appreciating the significant role Tibetan Buddhism and culture has played in molding Chinese culture and history – and I hope and am confident – will play its part to continue to mold China’s future development.
I agree with you that if the Chinese people as a whole do not appreciate Tibetan culture, religion, and people, then Tibetans as a whole should not care about the Chinese nation – and Tibet should have the opportunity to leave and develop as an independent people / nation.
Look forward to translating the study (if others haven’t already) soon when I get back.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Shane, can you remind us what the relevance of all this material about the Qiang is to the thread? I seem to have lost the plot at some point.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:06 am
@Otto Kerner
Most of these research materials are to support my post #67. However, they should be regarded as relevant and crucial background materials for current Tibet-China discussion.
Through serious research done by Ethnologist like Prof Ming-ke Wang and Tibetan scholar, Doushi, one can see there are strong cultural and ethnic linkage between Han and Tibetan people. Yet this important part has been missing in arguments from western Tibet scholars as well as members of Tibet-in-exile community, let alone to many average westerners who like to join the debate but know little about Tibet and China. Their basic view is that Tibetan people and Han people are two separate population without any commonly shared root. The unique adoption of Lama Buddhism by Tibetan people enhanced such view. Yet, the study of ancient Qiang people revealed an important missing link.
Qiang people are indeed very ancient people in China, contributed and merged into various other ethnicity groups over a long period of time. Ethnology research clearly showed several branches of Tibet people are originally from Qiang. The materials presented here covered Tibetans from Black River, Jiarong and Huarui regions.
Qiang people are also important sources of Han ethnicity. In Chinese mythology, Yan emperor (or Flaming emperor) and Huang emperor (Yellow emperor) are both the ancestors of the Huaxia people, including Han ethnicity. Yan emperor was a Qiang.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Is #86 the new justification du jour of why Tibet has always been a part of China, and more importantly, must always so remain?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Shane, the idea that Tibetans could live as close as the have to the Chinese empire and have zero cultural influence would be silly. If held to this standard, no two peoples can be considered separate if they live anywhere near each other. So, French are Germans, Chinese are Japanese and vice versa, Iroquois are Hurons, etc. However, it seems pretty clear that Chinese cultural influence on Korea, Japan, and Vietnam has been a long stronger than on Tibet. Does this fact have some kind of relevance to modern political borders? I think most people would say no.
I still don’t think I see the relevance of this material about the Qiangs. As the article linked to in #83 shows, the term “Qiang” has been applied by the Chinese to a variety of disparate tribal groups living in a given region at different times. Only in the last 60 years has it been applied consistently to a particular group of communities. That being the case, if the Tibetans really descended from “Qiangs” and if the Hans really are descended from a “Qiang” (although the only evidence you’ve given for this is a legend), we still have no way of knowing if “Qiang” means the same thing in both cases. Even if it did, we would be talking about a split that occurred thousands of years ago, and therefore has very little relevance to anything today. If you go back thousands of years, English and Sanskrit have a common ancestor.
Moreover, the three Tibetan groups that you mentioned are all in Amdo, in northeastern Tibet. I don’t find it at all surprising that there were “Qiang” groups living in that region 1200 years ago who were assimilated to Tibetan culture and are the ancestors of some of today’s Amdo Tibetans. However, Tibetan culture originates from the vicinity of Lhasa and Shigatse, which is a long way away from Amdo.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:11 am
An absolutely belated responses to Otto and Willaim Huang from the other topic on Tibet “April 29thMy Tibetan Students and I” which I am going to respond here:
“#249 Otto Kerner Says:May 7th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Khechog, Would you mind expanding on your comment in #200 that, “in return for this legitimacy, Tibetans want all Tibetan inhabited regions to be incorporated into one administration in order to protect Tibetan culture when the entire population is less than 6 million Tibetans”? I fear that this will always be a major obstacle to an agreement even if a relatively reasonable government appears in Beijing, because the Chinese will always be afraid to have such a large land area under a single autonomous government. The formula that I have suggested is that the same pro-Tibetan reforms should be enacted in the TAR and all of the Tibetan autonomous prefectures separately, rather than combined into one big autonomous region. Is there a fatal flaw in this idea?”
Otto, There is nothing wrong with your suggestion of implementing genuine autonomy to Tibetan inhabited areas equally without combining into one but then it doesn’t make sense from efficiency, cost and administration. I don’t see a problem if the reforms are implemented equally but why. Currently PRC’s constitution and demarcation does delineate the Tibetan inhabited areas into 5 provinces and 6 prefectures and autonomous regions over a contiguous areas. I am sure it costs enormously more to administer five than one to look after Tibetan ethnic people. Eg. duplication in beaurocracies to look after Tibetan culture, religion eg. arts, language, textbooks etc.
I don’t know any other ethnic races made into like this eg. All Uigyur people are in Xinjiang Autonomous Region, same with Mongolians. Huis are an exception and little strange as I still didn’t get a response from my previous question from any Chinese that if a Han becomes Muslim, does he/she become Hui (I am digressing)?.
I do understand your point that this proposal from the Tibetan to incorporate all Tibetan inhabited areas into one is being manipulated by the PRC CCP officials into saying that Tibetans want 1/4 of PRC land and is trying to separate. The whole premise of the current Tibetan proposal which I must say has a 90% support from the Tibetans is that Tibet will remain part of China as is win-win for both so who is talking about separation when Tibetans want to be part of China given that Tibetans get genuine autonomy. I know there is deep suspicion from the PRC and many Chinese. Independence sounds romantic but the reality is I believe it’s over-rated. Eg. look at east Timor and many countries in Africa. So I rather be part of the future super-power than being poor, backward independent country. That’s how I think HH Dalai Lama feels deep in his heart to have a win-win solution.
Now if this proposal of making all into one is the main obstacle for serious negotiation and acceptance of this compromised proposal to the Chinese government, but seriously it’s just red-herring. I don’t think Tibetan leadership would be so obstinate in this condition in order for the negotiations and settlement. I am pretty sure and you may agree that once Tibetans drop that condition PRC-CCP will demand more concession. So far, there has not been any serious negotiation and Tibetan side has been making one concession after another over the years.
Good questions from William and here is my response:
“William Huang Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 2:46 am
@ Khechog #200
“Thanks for the information on your experience about Tibet and Tibet history. My concern is the following:
If your view is the representative opinion of majority of Tibetans, it is my opinion that the gap of mutual understanding between Tibetan and Han Chinese are so large that there will be no agreement to be reached”
William, I am a strong proponent of HH Dalai Lama’s middle-way proposal and after studying it and traveling in Tibet, majority of the Tibetans (over 90%) will have a no problem with this proposal. In fact even the Tibetan exiles which some think are the hard-line, radicals, voted 90% in favour of this middle-way proposal on a referendum 10 years ago.
“Do you believe two conditions you stated are achievable given the current Chinese government (CCP) position and geopolitical atmosphere? If not, is there any short term solution to improve? If the ball is at Chinese government’s court, what should they do? Is there anything Dalai Lama/TGIE could propose?”
As I have stated above to Otto, although I can’t speak for the Tibetan leadership, if the condition of the all Tibetans into one administration is the main obstacle, once the negotiation starts, these can be discussed and I believe Tibetan leadership under HHDL will not get in the way for the win-win solution to be reached. In terms of the other point of PRC-CCP demanding Tibetans to accept that Tibet has always been part of China, the proposal on table has accepted that Tibet is and will become part of China.
If there was going to be case in front of some international court to debate and decide if Tibet was part of China from ancient times, and if the verdict unequivocally was that yes Tibet was part of China from ancient times, then I don’t think Tibetans would have a problem accepting the decision. However, I don’t think the verdict is going to be that simple when the history shows that Tibet had remained independent most of the time with long and rich civilization, written, spoken language, unique culture, indigenous to the land. Let the historians decide if Tibet was always been part of China from ancient times instead of demanding the Tibetans to declare by PRC-CCP government.
“Do you believe or expect that a different government other than CCP (e.g. a democratically elected) will accept these conditions? If yes, why do you think it’s possible?”
Certainly if the government is democratic and there is freedom, the truth will come out. With the change of government, I believe Chinese people will demand a formation of truth and reconciliation commission setup to expose all the lies, atrocities and crime against humanity perpetrated by CCP rule in China and Tibet. Only then will the healing process begins and truth will come out. Then the Chinese people will hear and truly understand how much Tibetans suffered (far more than Chinese) under CCP rule and their grievances. So the healing begins and harmonous society between the Chinese and Tibetan people will began in earnest.
Tibet is not unique situation. Look at Quebec, Nunavut as part of Canada, Scotland part of UK, Basque part of Spain, many ethnic autonomous states in India, Lapland in Scandinavia etc. Based on historical and uniqueness in language/culture, I believe Tibet has more right for autonomy than any of the above cases.
“Do you think majority of Tibetan people will accept anything less than the two conditions you stated? If no, and your answer in 2) is also no. What do you think Tibetan people should do?”
The ball is entirely in the PRC CCP’s court. Tibetans have made concession and will continue to if the negotiation starts in earnest yet CCP has not made one concession yet to the Tibetans as I have said it appears CCP doesn’t understand win-win situation.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:14 am
@Otto Kerner
The key of these materials are in ethnological linkage. With ethnological linkage, it comes with shared culture, naturally speaking. Cultural influence could be very broad, may or may not have any implication on ethnological linkage.
The material in #81 that covers Black River Tibetan can be a good example. Because those Tibetan people in upper Min River have been living next to Qiang people side by side for centuries. They are ALL original Qiang people, despite been called Tibetan and Qiang in modern time. In #69, you may see the common culture shared by both Qiang and Tibetan people. One can also easily see the common culture shared by Qiang and Han people. Many of these document are in Chinese. Hopefully, you can read them, especially the one from Tibetan scholar, Doushi. Charles did a partial translation in #70.
According to history, the notion of Han people emerged relatively later during Han Dynasty, while Qiang was recorded much earlier. From both genetic and ethnological evidence, Han people is a very diverse group of people.
As a side note, Prof Wang mentioned the Chief of Black Water Tibetan was given a senior official title after 1950, but later exiled to India in 1957. The ROC government in Taiwan then asked him to lead an exile effort against PRC government. Maybe someone from your community knew him.
There is no doubt that many branches of Tibetan are indeed ancient Qiang people. This is still a conservative statement from limited research materials I can find. It did take me some time to come up this collection.
“if the Hans really are descended from a “Qiang”
This is a well-known and regarded fact by people inside and outside China. That is why I did not spend too much effort on this. However, the linkage between Qiang and Tibetan people are not widely discussed.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Otto, I tend to agree with you that cultural or linguistic affinity doesn’t automatically mean there must be in a single nation. How a nation is formed is often caused by a combination of many factors, and how a nation is held together is all about the will and ability of the people.
Having said all that, many linguists do consider Tibetan and Hanyu are from the same language family. A school of thought is that most Qiangs (羌) were descended from the mythical Yandi. There are many Qiang descendants settled in Qi (齐) of the Warring State. Some linguists are even basing on modern day Tibetan to deduct the possible pronunciations of some ancient Qi words.
On the other hand, Manchu-Tungus Language (满语) and Mongolian (蒙古语) were from a different branch (Altaic). It doesn’t stop those being a part of the modern-day China…
May 25th, 2009 at 4:39 am
#83, Shane,
Thanks for your posting of the link on Qiang people. I wouldn’t get your information on Tibetan history from Chinese government propaganda sources and its websites i.e. tibet.cn etc as you lose credibility immediately.
I haven’t figured out whether to put you in camp 1 and camp 2 from my earlier posting as its my prerogative that I have no time for discussion for folks whom I considered to be camp 2. You do show great interest on Tibetan issue and history.
I have great interest to the people living in the Tibetan/Chinese border areas such as Qiang in Sichaun, Naxi in Yunnan. I have met them and can tell you that they are far more closer to the Tibetan people in every way. Some are Tibetan buddhists but majority practice the old Tibetan shamanistic pre-Buddhist religion Bon. There are two kinds and they practice both i.e white and red. The differentiator being one practice animal sacrifice whereas the ‘white’ doesn’t.
I glanced over that paper on Qiang and to me the historical accounts shows that Tibet was independent, powerful with rich civilization/culture and Tibetan nationalist would consider these people to be minorities of Tibetan nation. They are Lopas, Monpas, Sherpas along the Indian/Nepalese border and some are part of the 55 minorities of PRC. I don’t have time to go over the details.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:49 am
@Khechog
The bulk of these materials are from research done by Prof. Wang Ming-ke, who is a Harvard educated ethnology scholar from Taiwan (his papers are hosted by several Taiwan Institutes), and from Doushi, who is both a senior Lama and a well respected Tibetan scholar. So your argument of CCP propaganda (similar to many such mentioning of yours before) is so irrelevant here. Sorry to point that out.
You have to read, understand and respect those research of serious scholars done over many years. How much you can get from a simple “glancing” of few minutes? I also strongly urge you to talk to Prof Wang Ming-ke if you got any question. You may find someone to help from western Tibet study community.
“I have great interest to the people living in the Tibetan/Chinese border areas such as Qiang in Sichaun, Naxi in Yunnan. I have met them and can tell you that they are far more closer to the Tibetan people in every way. Some are Tibetan buddhists but majority practice the old Tibetan shamanistic pre-Buddhist religion Bon.”
“pre-Buddhist religion Bon” or the aboriginal religion is a piece of evidence showing a shared root between Qiang and Tibetan people.
If I am correct, Buddhism was first introduced to Tibet region by Princess of Wencheng of Tang, at a time when Buddhism was spreading widely in inland China. “The princess was a Buddhist and, along with Songtsän Gampo’s Nepalese wife, Bhrikuti Devi, is said to have introduced Buddhism to Tibet.[3]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Wencheng
May 25th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Allen,
Thanks for your response. Yes we disagreed on many including historical accounts but it’s true that future Tibetan cultural and people survival is based on Chinese, who hopefully will become the majority and are proud of their Buddhist culture that appreciate the rich and unique spiritual tradition that Tibetans have kept.
Imagine if the current PRC-CCP leadership sees Dalai Lama as a solution instead of an obstacle to the Tibetan problem, then I could imagine him busy just serving the spiritual needs of the Tibetan and Chinese people in PRC instead of serving the world but that’s dreaming now.
Here is an article on Dalai Lama which you will find interesting with the dual role he carries. I don’t agree with the latter part in the article as I have found Tibetans in Tibet, especially younger educated generation, to have strong identity and are very proud of their cultural heritage and increasing expressing it. So there is hope.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/25/opinion/opinion_30103507.php
From exile came liberation for the Dalai Lama
By WILLIAM PAGE
Published on May 25, 2009
ON MAY 10, Fareed Zakaria interviewed His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama on CNN. During the interview, His Holiness admitted his policy of non-violence had failed to win autonomy for Tibet, and also noted that he might be reincarnated outside Tibet. This dual vision typifies the Dalai Lama’s outlook – in political matters, a pragmatic realism; in religious matters, an unwavering commitment to his own tradition.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:15 am
@Khechog
I don’t think Mr. William Page’s argument and encouragement of Tibet Independence hold any magic power nowadays. A well-known Tibet scholar, Robert Barnett, has changed his tone considerably recently.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:52 am
@otto #88
“the three Tibetan groups that you mentioned are all in Amdo, in northeastern Tibet. I don’t find it at all surprising that there were “Qiang” groups living in that region 1200 years ago who were assimilated to Tibetan culture and are the ancestors of some of today’s Amdo Tibetans. However, Tibetan culture originates from the vicinity of Lhasa and Shigatse, which is a long way away from Amdo”
I would agree if you argue that Lama Buddhism originated from the vicinity of Lhasa and Shigatse, but certainly not Tibetan culture. We know that 14th DL is from Amdo, so were many other influential Tibetans.
I mentioned in #93 that Buddhism were first brought in Tibet region (to Tibet court actually) by Princess Wencheng in Tang Dynasty.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Shane, the Dalai Lama was born in 1935, which has nothing to do with the history of Tibetan culture. Tibetan culture was spread by the Tibetan empire in the 7th century, from its base in the vicinity of Lhasa. Also, Wencheng is just a myth.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:13 am
@otto
“the Dalai Lama was born in 1935, which has nothing to do with the history of Tibetan culture.’
I am really surprised by your statement regarding 14th DL. What I meant to say originally is that Amdo Tibet has been a very important region to the development of Tibet culture, not simply a remote place like you mentioned.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Shane…
Tibetan language (written) is closer to Indian languages than any form of chinese. Nalanda University is the source of Tibetan Buddhism, that has influenced all aspects of Tibetan culture for centuries. Tibetan culture as we see today has closer links to the the himalayan region and the indian subcontinent. Some historains even beleive that the first Yarlung king, Nyatri Tsenpo, was an Indian prince who stumbled into Tibet after the great mahabarata wars. So should we gather from this that we Tibetans are Indians?
Yes the present Dalai Lama is from Kumbum, Amdo. But his seat is in central Tibet – Lhasa the capital. No one is arguing here that Amdo and Kham areas are remote places with no influnce in the growth of Tiebtan culture. Some of teh most important scholars and Tibetan personalities, even few Dalai Lamas, Panchen Rinpoches and Karmapas came from these areas.
All your psudo-intellectual evidences prove nothing. I can quote you another 10 harvard scholars, french scholars, and Tibetans scholars who will prove the utter foolishness of your argumenst. Princess Wangchen was essentially a war booty who was sacrificed by the Chinese emperor to save his empire. But I think you couldnt care less. You just need all these talking points to essentialy defend Chinese colonialism.
Linguistic classification of various languages are as arbitrary as different joyrides in disney. Just because they are bunched together doesnt prove anything.
Khechog la, I would tone down your asserttion about 90 percent of Tibetans for the middle way approach by His Holiness. I think things have changed a little inside and outside Tibet since the brutal crackdown that continues to this day after 2008. I think the nationalist response of many Chinese have made Tibetans inside aware that ultimately the Chinese will never treat Tibetans as equal.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@tenzin #99
Now that’s quite a bit revisionism in that. After Songtsen Gampo united Tibet, the military power of Tibet was respectable, but it couldn’t do anything more than making a bit noise in some border towns in Tang Taizong’s reign. I don’t want to come across as some sort of Han Chauvinist, but Tibetan written language wasn’t invented much earlier, Tang culture was certainly desirable to Songtsen Gampo. To Tang, sending a princess was a far better choice than making a military adventure, especially considered the logistics involved. If Wencheng was a war booty, then why Songtsen Gampo sent gold, jewelry and gifts to Tang for her? Plus you have to understand Tang was surrounded by many tribes. Among those tribes some were more powerful and potentially more deadly than Tibet, and they were the ones that you needed to keep your soldiers around. It’s a part of the Tang’s strategy: picked and chose your military adventures carefully, and utilized diplomatic means as much as possible. That’s how you built a long-lasting dynasty.
Most of those powerful tribes either morphed into modern day Mongolians, Uighurs, etc. or got absorbed in the all-inclusive Hans. What had kept Tibetan reasonably stable was the defensive nature of the terrain — it’s very hard to mount any military campaign into Tibet.
Only in another century later, Trisong Detsen was able to mount a successful campaign well into Tang and sacked Chang’an for a couple of weeks, when Tang was mired in a civil war and the towns weren’t defended. However, the Tibetan Kingdom though went downhill in another 100 years or so with its own infighting.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
@Otto Kerner #97
Wencheng is a myth in what sense?
May 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Khechog, your question about Hui/Han was answered. To save your time, allow me the paste my response here: Huis ARE NOT Hans with Islamic belief. Most Huis can trace their family trees back to migrants from Persia & Arabia at different times as early as 600s AD. For instance, Most Huis named Ma are descended from Mohammad. A Han taking up Islam, other than in some extreme individual cases, at least in the last several centuries, wouldn’t make him a Hui.
Also there are Mongolian Autonomous Counties at least in Xinjiang and Qinghai.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
JXie,
What I mean is, the idea that Princess Wencheng introduced Buddhism to Tibet is part of a later folk-hero story, not the historical record. For example, see Matthew Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, pg. xvii: “650 … according to later legendary tradition, Buddhism is first introduced by the emperor’s Chinese bride, the princess of Wencheng”.
Shane,
I never said that Amdo is a backwater and nobody influential comes from there. But it’s not where Tibetan culture originates, so, if Amdo Tibetans have a lot of “Qiang” ancestry, it doesn’t mean that Tibetans in general do. Your argument is much like saying that France was an important part of the Roman empire, and the French have a lot of Gaulish ancestry, so, therefore, the Romans are related to the Irish.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@ JXie
Yours comment as “after Songtsen Gampo united Tibet, the military power of Tibet was respectable, but it couldn’t do anything more than making a bit noise in some border towns in Tang Taizong’s reign”, is bit astonished to read. History runs, before Sontsen Gampo ransacked Tang, the Emperor offered Wencheng, so that it can save the Empire as well as develops kinship. That, of course, Songtsen Gampo accepted with sending his best ministries with ornaments, which shows his respect to the custom of marriage. And as you mentioned it was also ‘a part of the Tang’s strategy: picked and chose….’, The domination on the Tang goes on even further when Trisong Deutsen ransacked Tang Empire and installed his puppet emperor. Though, it was not lasted for long, had given an impact that still Han-nationalist could not accet this fact.
Moreover, till 1987, the PRC official version of the History says that, Tibet was their part since, Songtsen Gampo but, when researchs and archives shows that it was not at all. Then from 1990s, PRC changed it official position or version of the History and started to claim Tibet from Yaun Dynasty. So, even, PRC historians (the most abled distorter of histories) accepted the Tibetan Yarlung Empires’ heaviness on China and other neighbors. So, now where is the expression of knocking on border tribes…..On what ground, these border peoples were listing on tribes? Its simply that, the other was Han, which means Han-chauvanism!
May 25th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@tezin
>> “Tibetan language (written) is closer to Indian languages”
The classic written Tibetan language is a form of Indic scripts or Brahmic scripts. It is a well-known fact that it came originally from India along the time when Tibet region adopted Buhddism. Many Chinese buhddists also use Indic script for writting and reading. It is similar that many western written languages shared the same root from ancient Latin language. One can argue that Tibetan did not develop their own written language, unlike various population groups in inland China. Classic written Chinese were standardized in Qin Dynasty.
The spoken Tibetan languages is in fact a totally different matter. In general, spoken languages always appeared and used much and much earlier than a written language during the development of a population. Tibetan people is no exception on this. In fact, there are three major clusters of spoken Tibetans: the central, Amdo and Kham.
>> “No one is arguing here that Amdo and Kham areas are remote places with no influnce in the growth of Tiebtan culture. Some of teh most important scholars and Tibetan personalities, even few Dalai Lamas, Panchen Rinpoches and Karmapas came from these areas.”
That is about the only fair statement from you. But many exile Tibetans even don’t recorginize such simple fact, in their efforts to deny historical linkage between Tibet and China. We see simiar efforts by Taiwain separatists during the time DPP was in power. Their efforts though simply failed. BTW, Amdo and Kham regions also hold a more siginficant body of Tibetan people in number.
>> “So should we gather from this that we Tibetans are Indians?”
That is just laugable, and showed what a awkard position it can become when following your logic.
>> “Linguistic classification of various languages are as arbitrary as different joyrides in disney. Just because they are bunched together doesnt prove anything”
You need get serious to understand those research work by Doushi, and in particular, Ethnologist Prof Wang. They are not solely use linguistic study as the only form to distingush ethnicity. Prof Wang’s work is modern, well-regarded and very robust.
I see the the trick of denial from your argument. That is also a form of ignorance if you said you believe “let truth come from facts”
Lastly, it is a well-known fact that Buhddism as a religion was original developed in India, and spread to many parts of Asia, including inland China. Buhddism, however, has far more significant impact to Tibet region, and the adoption by Tibetan has been in such a profound and deep level that it is embeded in almost every aspect of Tibet population.
Further discussion on Ethnology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Human Genetic Study are out of my domain. I am indeed not an expert in any of these fields, even though I prefer to be a student of them. There are obvious controversy and debate among scholars’ work. However, one needs to have an attitude of being a humble and profound student, when being presented with concrete and substantive evidence, and to examine and understand them objectively.
The research matterials presented in this thread is just a limited effort of mine. It is to open a door to a missing link, and to show a path that can be further explored with wisdom and truth. The later is not my task or even my limited time can afford.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
@tenpa,
First you have to understand the history almost always has multiple versions. I wouldn’t necessarily claim that the Tang history was kept better than the Tibetan one, but you have to understand that either can be faked history and you need to use your best judgment. Hey, think of me as a bystander and convince me that I am wrong.
Songtsen Gampo’s initial victory in Songzhou (a now deserted ancient town that’s roughly to west of Chengdu in Shichuan) was recorded in both’s histories. The subsequent defeat and retreat of Tibetan army wasn’t recorded in the Tibetan history, as far as I know. Let’s say it didn’t exist and Tang made that up, Songtsen Gampo just left Songzhou because he was tired of the scenery. Well wouldn’t Tang wanted to make up the other more “embarrassing” parts of the dealings with Tibet as well? At one point, you have to look at the big picture — what the populations of Tibet and Tang were at that point, and what motivated Tang… Songzhou was very far away from the major population centers in Tang.
The part about Trisong Deutsen (some 1 century later) sacking Chang’an for 15 days and installed a puppet emperor for the duration, was recorded in the Tang history. I am not so sure if the part that the Tang armies mired in the civil war in the other parts of the country went to Chang’an and forced Trisong Deutsen out was recorded in the Tibetan army. Let’s say that’s faked too. Trisong Deutsen just left because he was sick of the scenery, without getting something concrete in return —
In other periods of the Chinese history, for example, Song and Jin, when Jin enjoyed their military superiority, it forced Song to pay annual tributes to them. There was no such arrangement between Tang/Tibet. To me, Tibet was militarily powerful enough, and the natural defense was good enough that Tang couldn’t even consider a military adventure deep into Tibet; but Tibet certainly wasn’t that militarily powerful to threaten Tang’s existence and defeat Tang as a whole.
I kind of understand that period was probably the best time in the Tibetan history, and what it meant to Tibetans. As far as I can tell, ancient Chinese keep pretty good record of their history. Even some very “embarrassing” moments were recorded, such as in Ming, an army led by the emperor was militarily defeated by Mongolians and the emperor was captured; in Song, the capital was sacked by Jin and 2 emperors were captured and enslaved. So if you wouldn’t mind me to put on a thinking cap with common sense on, look at the histories of both sides, and make some judgment calls. Oh BTW, I think the “official” PRC history is full of bullshit, especially the early revisionist slant of looking everything through the Marxism history prism.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@104 tenpa Says:
“Moreover, till 1987, the PRC official version of the History says that, Tibet was their part since, Songtsen Gampo but, when researchs and archives shows that it was not at all. Then from 1990s, PRC changed it official position or version of the History and started to claim Tibet from Yaun Dynasty. So, even, PRC historians (the most abled distorter of histories)”
Tenpa,
I have heard this so-called “Chinese official history” of Tibet many times. Let me refer you to the 1984 book which clearly tells you that Tibet was incorporated into China during the Yuan Dynasty, and during the time of Songtsen Gampo, Tibet merely entered into a marriage alliance with Tang Dynasty China. The Chinese princess was “a pioneer adherent to unity and friendship between Hans and Tibetans and an enthusiastic disseminator of Tang culture”. Another writer calls it the “uncle-and-nephew” relationship between China and Tibet.
Highlights of Tibetan history
by Furen Wang, Wen-chʻing So, Wenqing Suo
(Beijing: New World Press, 1984)
This is also clearly told in:
Tibet: Myth vs. Reality
Yannian Da
Beijing Review Publication (1988):
Read also,
History as propaganda (Page 31-32)
By John Powers
(Available on Google Books)
I hope you can present documentary evidence for your allegation. Otherwise, the forum people here will have to treat it as a lie presented by Dharamsalem, “the most abled distorter of histories”.
And about giving away of princesses in marriage alliances, the Tang Dynasty emperors gave away 22 princesses. No mistake, 22 princesses.
22 princesses given by Tang emperors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heqin (和親)
* Tang Dynasty
640—690: 5 instances, to Tuyuhun, and 1 instance to Tibet.
710—745: 4 instances, to Khitan, 3 instances, to Xi, and 1 instance, to Tibet.
758—821: 7 instances, to Orkhon Uyghur (including two daughters of the Chinese Emeperor, i.e. real princesses, and 3 of Tiele descent).
883: 1 occurrence, to Nanzhao (second daughter of Emperor Yizong of Tang).
References
* Cui Mingde (2005). The History of Chinese Heqin: Brief Charts of Heqin Events. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe. pp. 648–688. ISBN 7-01-004828-2.
The people of Malacca (a city in Malaysia) have a tradition that claims a Ming Dynasty emperor gave away Princess Hang Li Po (汉丽宝) to the Malaccan Sultan (i.e. ruler). Look up the map for Malacca or Malaysia, and tell us whether it was a military threat to China or not.
http://www.malaccaguide.com/a_chinese_princess_and_a_magic_well.html
May 26th, 2009 at 1:09 am
“First you have to understand the history almost always has multiple versions.” – that’s one of the more honest assessments on this thread in a while.
I must say it’s amusing to read the dueling versions of history, which seems to occur every time the topic comes up. It’s almost Pavlovian.
This whole bit about ethnic roots/genealogy is indeed interesting, and certainly seems capable of sustaining the vocation of those who are academically so-inclined. But I’m not clear how it’s supposed to inform the future course for Tibet, or for Tibetans. Although it’s pretty clear where Shane would like to go with it.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:03 am
History is written by humans who are fallible. The standard bearer of Chinese historians is Sima Qian, who after being castrated, lived on only so that he could accomplish his lifetime goal. For that personally treat his work more believable than Titus Livy’s (the most authoritative Roman historian on early Rome), and by extension, the accuracy of Chinese history up to 1500, compared to its Western counterparts.
FWIW, I hold the quality of the History of Tang at a very high regard. First it was done in Late Jin (晋), then it was redone again in Song since the first one was supposed to be of a lower quality due to the war and a lack of resources (9 authors & 4+ years). The Song version took more than a decade.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
@ 107 MatthewTan
Yes, it was 1984, and I am refering to this very book:
Highlights of Tibetan history
by Furen Wang, Wen-chʻing So, Wenqing Suo
(Beijing: New World Press, 1984)
Since then, PRC claims that, Tibet has been their part from Yaun Dynasty. Before that, the official version was from Songtsen Gampo.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am
tenpa Says:
“Yes, it was 1984, and I am refering to this very book”
You have shifted the goal post from 1990s to 1984. I am still not satisfied. You still need to produce documentary proof of “official version of history” before 1984.
Remember you earlier said @104,
“Moreover, till 1987, the PRC official version of the History says that, Tibet was their part since, Songtsen Gampo but, when researchs and archives shows that it was not at all. Then from 1990s, PRC changed it official position or version of the History and started to claim Tibet from Yaun Dynasty.”
May 26th, 2009 at 11:42 am
@ MatthewTan
The officially PRC historian book since, 1984 is the ‘the Historical Status of China´s Tibet´ published in 1997. this is now PRC embassies, were distributing freely all over world. And also, PRC had published amount of white papers, so, you can refer it.
In 1952, the book named ´Tibet and the Tibetans´ was published from US written by Han Chinese….so, you can refer that too.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Adm@
I suggest we should have a separate forum for discussion on the subject ‘historical relation between Tibet and China’, which is very useful. If credible international historians including Chinese and Tibetans come to the conclusion that Tibet is a part of China historically or otherwise, we will happily agree. I think one of the Chinese saying goes ” History is like a maiden, she can be dressed in anyway one likes”.I am looking forward for a day when Tibetan and Chinese historians can jointly write our history without fear and favor and establish the fact. Exile Government is not disputing the fact that today TAR is a part of the PRC and we should move ahead from here.
The present topic “Chinese think tank investigation report of 3.14 incident in Tibet’, needs to be discussed and misunderstanding cleared between the two people which the Government tried to create in the name of nationalism. The Chinese government claims that “there is sufficient evidence to prove this incident was organized, premeditated, and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique.” We hope that the government will now show proof of this and ‘redress the wrongs’
May 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Allen, Admin,
Thanks for your offer to translate this original report in English. I do have a draft copy and would greatly appreciate if you could proof-read.
Please send me an email to: khechogl@gmail.com and I will send you the draft English translation. thanks
May 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Chinese Communist Party on May 23 1957 forced Tibetan Govt to Sign 17 point Treaty which was written entirely by the Chinese Communist,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2001/04/25/83112
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/17-point-agreement.html
https://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=24245&t=1&c=4
May 27th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
It was 1951, but, otherwise, quite so.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
How a nation is born?
For sure, a nation is never established by the continuous complaining and whining of the loser dreamers.
It is understandable the painful feelings of the defeated Tibetan-in-exile interest group. The fact is: Tibet does not exist as a nation. Tibet is legally a territory of PRC. All UN members and Chinese all over the world fully support the current Chinese Government’s positon on Tibet. The rest is BS.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
bhorig Says: [Chinese Communist Party on May 23 1957 forced Tibetan Govt to Sign 17 point Treaty which was written entirely by the Chinese Communist]
Rubbish! When Tibetans in exile says “forced to sign”, they meant personal threat of violence, or “at the gunpoint”. This is the lie spread by Dalai Lama himself. That’s why most Chinese people do not trust him. He is a great liar, the greatest liar on Tibetan matters. He will burn in hell for causing Tibetans to rot in India and everywhere.
China had no choice but to engage in military campaign in 1950:
1. Tibet local government conducted ethnic cleansing in July 1949, when KMT was obviously losing and communists were winning;
2. Tibet local government were not forthcoming with peaceful negotiation
3. Tibetan government killed the peace envoy sent by Beijing – the (Tibetan) Living Buddha Geda Lama
4. Tibetan local government colluding with imperialists, obtaining weapons through India, and engaging their services as technical expert or spy or political adviser
5. Tibetan local government making contacts with American imperialists
6. The Panchen Lama called upon the Communist to liberate Tibet! God praise him! His is patriotic and always advocated China-Tibet unity!
China gave Tibet government two choices, peace or war.
China won the 2-week battle of Chamdo, and liberated the rest of Tibet peacefully.
There were real negotiations going on before the 17th-Point Agreement was signed. But one thing China refused to compromise: Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. When Tibetan local government agreed to this, Ngabo went ahead and agreed with the other points which in his view were of secondary importance once sovereignty was granted to China – and he managed to get many points amended through negotiations.
Ask three Western foremost experts on this: 1. Melyvin Goldstein 2. Tom Grunfeld 3. Tsering Shakya (Tibetan in-exile)
There are TWO LIVING TIBETAN WITNESSES LIVING TODAY IN TIBET (1) Ngabo, former commander of Chamdo army who lost the battle (2) Phuntso Wangye. Another witness in-exile also had testified to it. Read their books.
The History of Tibet
By Alex McKay
Chapter 117, page 589
The genesis of the Sino-Tibetan agreement of 1951 589 TSERING SHAKYA
I don’t even need to produce Chinese historical documents.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
@ Brad
Your question should be, how big nation should bully small one?
It is understandable to Tibetans in exile as well as Tibet were bullied by Han Chinese, specially the PRC’s policies supplied by the CCP’s polit bureaus. It is a true that, presently, no nation has recognised Tibet as a nation, but, history is always written with the time changes……It happens and happened even in the history of China.
Even your thinking on Tibet should not be for a Tibetans, is a BS. So, it is not your business to say BS. It will be decide by the Tibetans and Chinese in Time, but it may take time for century or just a years. One can’t decide.
So, finally, if it were not bullied by Han Chinese on Tibetans, then why, Han Chinese become so nervous and Han- Chauvinist when western and others says something against China. Why a million of Han-Chinese were living in free world (besides Taiwan and Hongkong), especially North America and Europe, if one think that, present CCP policies and Govt. of PRC is good and powerful to live there freely.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
[J. Dorjee Says:
Exile Government is not disputing the fact that today TAR is a part of the PRC and we should move ahead from here]
Come’ on! Put it in writing: TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA.
Why didn’t they write it down in the Memorandum? Not even the phrase “Tibet is part of China” is in the Memorandum. We expect this: TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA.
Don’t play with wordings. Don’t play games with us. What you are saying is: “Give us “real autonomy”, and then Tibet is part of China”. And then you will move on with real independence!
When you say in writing, TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA, there will be real progress.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Dalai Lama said: “People must talk about independence…we need to think of our methods to struggle for
independence.”
The Chinese people will need to be VIGILANT about the Dalai Lama’s evil plot to separate Tibet from China. Not just Tibet. GREATER Tibet.
Steps
1. Lying about the 17-Point Agreement
2. Guerilla warfare – failed
3. “Real autonomy” of Greater Tibet
4. Dalai Lama gains control of monasteries in Tibet, then “colourful” “lama revolution” to force out Han Chinese from Greater Tibet
5. Real independence.
(The following is a pro-Dalai Lama website. Year was 1997, ten years after his “Five-Point Proposal” and “Middle-Way Approach” were solemnly declared in U.S. Congress)
(Background of news: Dalai Lama shows support for Tibetan independence marchers)
http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1997&m=6&p=3-2_2
Marchers’ Private Audience with His Holiness The Dalai
…[The Dalai Lama] added that many people, Tibetans and friends of Tibet, think that the middle path is not
right. Instead, Tibetans need to struggle for independence and talk about
independence. For this reason, His Holiness explained the need for Tibetans
to discuss what they want and to make a decision. “People must talk about
independence,” He said. “That is good. We have the right to ask for
independence, but we need to think of our methods to struggle for
independence. Only prayers will not get independence, and only slogans will
not get independence.” His Holiness stressed that Tibetans must carefully
and systematically construct and implement a method to pursue independence.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
tenpa Says:
“The officially PRC historian book since, 1984 is the ‘the Historical Status of China´s Tibet´ published in 1997. this is now PRC embassies, were distributing freely all over world. And also, PRC had published amount of white papers, so, you can refer it.”
You need to re-write this. I don’t understand you.
“n 1952, the book named ´Tibet and the Tibetans´ was published from US written by Han Chinese….so, you can refer that too.”
Now you are shifting goal post again. Check what you have written above.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
A simple fact:
Dalai Lama and his upper class monks’ ruling in Tibet was a brutal serfdom theocracy hell. It was the PLA, the communist that liberated Tibet and aborted the slavery.
This is a just Chinese civil war, just like the US civil war. I have no sympathy for these Tibetan-in-exile and their supporters. They are the shameless to defend the former Tibetan slave masters.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:30 am
@ MatthewTan #118,
As you have said, the government of China gave Tibet two choices, peaceful unification or war. The Tibetans chose war. Then they lost the war and had to sign the 17-point agreement. Elementary logic will tell you that this means they were forced the sign the agreement by violence and did not voluntarily agree to it. This is what Goldstein and Tsering Shakya’s accounts of the “negotiations” show.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:34 am
@Matthew Tan #120,
No place anywhere in the world is an inalienable part of any nation, so there’s no point in trying to make anyone agree to this idea. There’s no such thing. The next time China becomes weak enough for Tibetans to resist it, Tibet will very likely become an independent country … unless China convinces them to stay by giving them some kind of reason to want to be in China.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:48 am
Otto,
You think CCP forced DL’s representitives signed the following two points in the treaty ? :
4. The Central Authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The Central Authorities also will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks shall hold office as usual.
11. In matters related to various reforms in Tibet, there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central Authorities. The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its own accord, and when the people raise demands for reform, they must be settled through consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:51 am
“The next time China becomes weak enough for Tibetans to resist it, Tibet will very likely become an independent country …”
Otto,
Imagine China and Russia sending money to those native aboriginals in Australia, Canada ….
have fun.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:34 am
“TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA” – again, why would that be?
So here’s one for you. Are Tibetans as a group inseparable from all Chinese peoples?
Do you care only about the real estate? Do you care about the people and their culture etc? Or do you actually care about both?
May 29th, 2009 at 5:44 am
@ MatthewTan
In the above four blogs, yours writing clearly shows that, you are nothing more than a Han- chauvanist and didn’t want to discuss the issue openly and freely without provacative. It is a Tibetans people right to decide what they want.
Regarding Greater Tibet, till 1950, history clearly shows that, the regions has been inhabitated by ethnic Tibetans and only a few Han-Chinese (chavanist) were living and coming there.
Moreover, Tibetans, especially, I will never accept that, which is happening in Tibet by nuclear- Han-Chinese migration in Tibet and marginilising the native people. Where, history shows that, Han- Chinese in the last 100 years has completely marginised the ethnics people of Mongol in Inner Mongolia; Manchuria in Manchuria and Uyghur in Turkistan.
Other thing is, why Han- Chinese become so, aggressive and abusive when othe ethnics asked for their rights! which is constitutionsly written in PRC. If, Han- Chinese are proud about their nationalities, so are other. And, when Han- Chinese didn’t allow other nationalities for their right to live as one like (as Han-Chinese live), it means Han are oppressors and dictators and last Han- chavanist.
If you don’t understand, it is your fault or you may be the one who, distribute PRC’s official propaganda book, such as ‘The historical status of China’s Tibet’. Han- Chinese are desparate to have Tibet that, now this book is now freely distributing in almost whole the PRC’s embassies in local language. If it is a good book, PRC should not have to distribute, reader will order and buy it from bookshop. The poor Desparate Han- Chinese.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am
@MatthewTan SAYS
“This is the lie spread by Dalai Lama himself. That’s why most Chinese people do not trust him. He is a great liar, the greatest liar on Tibetan matters. He will burn in hell for causing Tibetans to rot in India and everywhere”
Before judging any person it is important to understand him, read about him from independent sources (not the only one government tells you to read). I am amused that communists believe in hell and heaven!! But I think it is not surprising because when it suits them they also believe in re-incarnation!! I am a Tibetan who grew up with the Dalai Lama in exile and it is because of Dalai Lama’s teaching that today I am not anti-Chinese in spite of the fact that China forcefully occupied my country in 1949. I only feel pity when people like Matthew, who supposedly claims to understand ‘most of the Chinese’, use harsh words against the Dalai Lama when millions of other Chinese in Asia and rest of the world trust him. But if MatthewTan is doing his duty as a 50 cent party, I can understand, after all one has to earn the bread. Nevertheless, I still respect this forum as a space for healthy discussion and not a platform to vilify or use abusive languages against each other.
I am now curious and asking few questions for my Chinese friends to answer.
1. Why did China sign Sino-Tibetan Agreement of 1951 (17 point) with its ‘inalienable’ part? With how many other inalienable parts have they signed similar agreements?
2. Why should China keep on addressing one of its inalienable parts as ‘China’s Tibet?’ I have not seen China’s Hong Kong or China’s Taiwan.
3. Considering that the 17 point agreement is willingly signed by the Tibetans, how many of the 17 points of agreement implemented by the PRC?
May 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Amazing. This is the same propaganda garbage by the Western media aka preservationists blasted China for ‘cultural genocide’ in the Kashgar area. I am truly amazed that when most people live in a place with running water, sewage, electricity and other things that we take for granted think that these Uyghurs would rather live in an unsafe, dirty, dirt filled homes without these basic necessities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/world/asia/28kashgar.html?_r=1
@SKC
So here’s one for you. Are Tibetans as a group inseparable from all Chinese peoples?
Do you care only about the real estate? Do you care about the people and their culture etc? Or do you actually care about both?
J. Dorjee
I am now curious and asking few questions for my Chinese friends to answer.
1. Why did China sign Sino-Tibetan Agreement of 1951 (17 point) with its ‘inalienable’ part? With how many other inalienable parts have they signed similar agreements?
2. Why should China keep on addressing one of its inalienable parts as ‘China’s Tibet?’ I have not seen China’s Hong Kong or China’s Taiwan.
3. Considering that the 17 point agreement is willingly signed by the Tibetans, how many of the 17 points of agreement implemented by the PRC?
Obviously your self-convicting questions are dumb and a non-debater. I might as well raise another dumb self-convicting question to the Tibetans like ‘Why does the Dalai Lama persecute its own Tibetans who worships the Dorje Shugden?’ If you want an intelligible type of debate, you sure didn’t get it. Instead some of you have to resort to 5 year old name calling like calling anybody who doesn’t agree with you Han Chauvinists, communists who believe in hell and among other things.
And here’s another western propaganda from the Dalai Lama portraying how the Tibetans are ‘persecuted.’
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/05/28/world/1194840559273/an-interview-with-the-dalai-lama.html
May 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
pug_ster Says:@
You tried to divert the subject very cleverly and avoid my questions. Ok I still expect a reply to my dumb question from you guys if you have any. If you don’t have a reply, still it is ok to say, no reply and we can move forward and not loose temper which is precious!!
The subject of Shugden is not another dumb self-convicting question to the Tibetans. I will be happy to discuss the subject in a separate forum with people who are Buddhist and especially with those who understands the intricacy of Vajrayana Buddhism and not with somebody who will take this as a political opportunity to bash the Dalai Lama.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
To all the Mathew Tans, Shanes, Pugsters and the ilk. What i say is when it hurts you, you want the world to cry with you, why should we care for Nanjing and all those horrible things that had happened. How would you feel if these facts of history are denied or worst if some one say it was right, you shout, you burn, you protest when someone goes to an obscure shrine in Japan, but then when Tibetans cry you say they are lying, when uighurs say enough you say they are barbarians. When a monk cries freedom to practice his religion you say he is an agent of Dalai Clique and when Dalai Lama calls for pace, justice and mutual future you say he is the bigest lier. Do you guys know how many of your own compoatriot died in Tianenmen or that too was a lie sprad by western govts and Dalai Clique and how many more are still languishing in jails for as petty reasons as sendinga petition or posting a web blog. Read your govts report on collapse of school building in Sichuan earthquake and you will know who lies.
Tibetan want to live with China in peace and as equal not as subjucated nationality which needs to be monitored, tutored and herded. Tibetans and the rest of the world believes in Dalai Lama and regard him as one of the greatest apostle of peace, it wont matter if you guys and even if millions more do not because the world knows the truth. So keep on living in your fools paradise.
One more peace of advice if you ever wish to know who is telling the truth just try this experiment; post a blog in your People’s Daily criticising Hu Jintao or any of your esteemed and dear leaders you will “experience” the truth. Its so easy to abuse Dalai Lama or Obama or Gordon Brown in the free world isnt it !! coz thats democracy and freedom. Can you breathe the same air in Beijing, i bet and you dare.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I say that it is self-convicting questions because you will probably question whether if ‘inalienable’ part applies to Hong Kong, Macao, or Taiwan. You don’t even think that the 17 point is fair or valid anyways, so what’s the point?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@ashok
I see you and others are yelling here to sell your point of view. It is fully understandable. The facts that you and a few others sounds like you are the representative of Tibetan, the representative of Chinese themselves, just hurts both your credibility and cause.
As a Chinese, I do not feel any respect from you guys. To me, the communist party, Hu Jintao has more credibility than any of the free world leaders. Because, we do not just listen to what they say, we also watch what they do.
The fact is that average Chinese are better off and more satisfied than ever under the current CCP leadership, even in this world wide recession, China is still expecting a growth rate of around 6-8%. From an ordinary Chinese point of view, the CCP really demonstrated that they care about the interest of China and Chinese people.
The Tibetan-in-Exile and other human rights interest groups, on the other hand, have demonstrated how disrespectful to Chinese and China: the media reporting of 3.14 riot, the attacking of Chinese Olympic Torch bearers, the sabotage of Beijing Olympics, the anti-china Tibet Independence activities etc.
The fact speaks lauder than words.
Chinese value stability, security and development over the hollow, corrupt and bankrupt democracy. Sell your “democracy and freedom” to Iraq and Afghanistan.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Why the hell must Tibetans-in-exile think that anyone who takes the side of China is a “communist” or must be from China?
I have stated elsewhere, I am born and bred in Singapore, and so far, all my writings about Tibet is from Western sources.
And I am a Catholic. So, I do believe in heaven and hell (though not necessarily a literal fire-burning hell).
The “Tibetan nation” never existed, as someone else said.
You have a people scattered in SW China region ruled by various warlords and tribal chiefs and lama-chiefs fighting with each other.
The wars of the warlords and various chiefs were not the purely the wars of Tibetans vs. Hans. All of them can be considered warlords – big and small. It was warlords vs warlords.
Some Tibetans sided with the Communists (or Red Army), some sided with KMT, some sided with local warlords Liu Wen-hui and Ma Bufang, some sided with Lhasa government.
When the Lhasa government fought the Red Army, they sided with KMT army. When Lhasa government fought with warlord Liu Wen-hui, they pleaded with KMT government for help (arms, mediation, money). Warlords against warlords, and Lhasa warlord against Liu Wen-hui warlord. Elsewhere, tribal chiefs fought against tribal chiefs, monasteries fought against monasteries. The whole China was in a mess. Until Mao Zedong unified all-China. Whatever his faults – he had done this one great thing: All local fightings had stopped.
The Ninth Panchen Lama was always with the KMT government, serving as the Pacification Minister of the Western Regions under Chiang Kai-shek until his death. I have not heard from any Tibetans calling him a traitor.
The Tenth Panchen Lama was installed by the KMT but switched allegiance to Communists when KMT fled to Taiwan. He later called upon the Communists to liberate Tibet. I have not heard from any Tibetans calling him a traitor. Tibetans later build roads and offered hundreds of thousands of yaks and helped lead the Communists into Tibet.
After the founding of the PRC, fighting continued in various Tibetan-majority places – and Tibetans allied with KMT continued fighting the Communists right up to 1951 or/and 1952.
Tibet “nation” never existed. Tibetan people were embroiled in the civil wars with other peoples of China.
The Lhasa government was deceived into believing that they could form an independent Tibet by British colonial officials. But it was deceived, because the real power in London never would support a real independent Tibet. They wanted an autonomous Tibet in China that was not very obedient to China. Too bad.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
S.K. Cheung Says: “TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA” – again, why would that be?
Because the Dalai Lama said he only wanted to work within the framework of the PRC Constitution. And the Constitution says so. We want to see whether the Dalai Lama is for real or bluffing.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Otto Kerner Says: As you have said, the government of China gave Tibet two choices, peaceful unification or war. The Tibetans chose war. Then they lost the war and had to sign the 17-point agreement. Elementary logic will tell you that this means they were forced the sign the agreement by violence and did not voluntarily agree to it. This is what Goldstein and Tsering Shakya’s accounts of the “negotiations” show.
I have said, there was no threat of PERSONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NEGOTIATORS. The was the lies propagated by the Dalai Lama. That make it a legal agreement between two parties – war or no war.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@125, Otto Kerner Says:
“No place anywhere in the world is an inalienable part of any nation, so there’s no point in trying to make anyone agree to this idea. There’s no such thing.
The point is, when Dalai Lama returns to China-Tibet, will he start organizing an underground “Free Tibet” movement? If he or his followers do so, China will suppress it and the whole Western world will have to shut up without China protesting.
“The next time China becomes weak enough for Tibetans to resist it, Tibet will very likely become an independent country ” ”
Very clever. The Chinese peoples know it. To avoid a future civil war, the Chinese knows what to do.
“… unless China convinces them to stay by giving them some kind of reason to want to be in China.”
Don’t worry.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@ 130 J. Dorjee Says:
1. Why did China sign Sino-Tibetan Agreement of 1951 (17 point) with its ‘inalienable’ part? With how many other inalienable parts have they signed similar agreements?
Answer: China signed it to avoid further bloodshed – and to tell especially the U.S. and British that the Dalai Lama had agreed to it. The U.S. wanted the Dalai Lama to go into exile, but the Dalai Lama chose to return to Lhasa and accept the Agreement.
NOBODY FORCED THE DALAI LAMA TO RETURN TO LHASA AND ACCEPT THE 17-POINT AGREEMENT. The god or gods he consulted gave him the direction.
Other regions in China had no independence movement – including the Tibetans-inhabited regions outside the TAR. Some Tibetan groups in Sichuan and Qinghai were in alliance with the KMT and they continued fighting even though Chiang Kai-shek had fleed to Taiwan in 1949.
2. Why should China keep on addressing one of its inalienable parts as ‘China’s Tibet?’ I have not seen China’s Hong Kong or China’s Taiwan.
Answer: You are wrong. China Hong Kong (中国香港) and Chinese Taipei (中华台北 with Taipei’s consent) are used frequently, even in the Olympics.
A large part of the world did not know where Tibet was, and the Dalai Lama had succeeded in fooling a lot of people in the English-speaking world that Tibet was an independent nation throughout 1959 to 1979 when China had not opened up yet and did not publish English books on Tibet.
3. Considering that the 17 point agreement is willingly signed by the Tibetans, how many of the 17 points of agreement implemented by the PRC?
Answer: The Dalai Lama had torn away the 17-point Agreement in 1959. It could not be carried out anymore even if Beijing wanted to.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:06 am
@Matthew Tan #138,
“I have said, there was no threat of PERSONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NEGOTIATORS. The was the lies propagated by the Dalai Lama. That make it a legal agreement between two parties – war or no war.”
Oh, I didn’t realise that’s what you meant. Probably true, but not very relevant. The 17-point agreement was forced on the Tibetan government because it was “agreed to” only through force and the threat of force against the Tibetan government. This has nothing to do with threats against the negotiators specifically.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
“Other regions in China had no independence movement – including the Tibetans-inhabited regions outside the TAR. Some Tibetan groups in Sichuan and Qinghai were in alliance with the KMT and they continued fighting even though Chiang Kai-shek had fleed to Taiwan in 1949.”
You really think Tibetans in Kham and Amdo fought against the PRC because they were loyal to the KMT? In fact, there was very little resistance (outside of the Lhasa government’s territory) to the communists in 1949-1951, but lots of resistance in the mid 1950s after the people there had experienced a few years of life under the PRC.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“You have a people scattered in SW China region ruled by various warlords and tribal chiefs and lama-chiefs fighting with each other.”
Except that the Tibetan government in Lhasa was not a warlord government. It was, in fact, completely continuous with the regime that had ruled Tibet during the Qing period, i.e. it was an older and more stable government than any of the Chinese governments in Beijing or Nanjing. And “warlord” would mean a military-controlled government, but the Tibetan military was always very weak politically.
“The whole China was in a mess. Until Mao Zedong unified all-China. Whatever his faults – he had done this one great thing: All local fightings had stopped.”
As far as Tibet is concerned, the opposite is true. The Lhasa government’s territory was quite stable and peaceful during the first half of the 20th century, but it was convulsed by violence after the PRC arrived.
“The Lhasa government was deceived into believing that they could form an independent Tibet by British colonial officials. But it was deceived, because the real power in London never would support a real independent Tibet. They wanted an autonomous Tibet in China that was not very obedient to China. Too bad.”
I think that’s an accurate description of what the British wanted. They never supported an independent Tibet. But what makes you think the Tibetans were deceived? The 13th Dalai Lama wasn’t stupid: he wanted an alliance with the Tsar of Russia. Unfortunately for him, the Tsar was in no position for alliances after 1917. Tibet was stuck between the Chinese, the Soviets, and the British, so they went with the British as the least dangerous option.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:30 am
@Brad,
“Chinese value stability, security and development over the hollow, corrupt and bankrupt democracy.” Hong Kong had plenty of stability, security, and development under the British, didn’t it? But that doesn’t seem to have been good enough for a lot of people in China. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps there’s something else they value even more highly than stability, security, and development?
May 30th, 2009 at 1:23 am
@Otto Kerner
Hong Kong under the British was a British colonial dictatorship. The Hong Kong governor was appointed. What is your point, advocating dictatorship?
Sell your “democracy and freedom” to Iraq and Afghanistan, please.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I’m not talking about democracy and freedom. I’m just pointing out that “stability, security and development” isn’t the only thing that Chinese people care about.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:00 am
MatthewTan@ says
“Why the hell must Tibetans-in-exile think that anyone who takes the side of China is a “communist” or must be from China? I have stated elsewhere, I am born and bred in Singapore, and so far, all my writings about Tibet is from Western sources.”
But the posting #120 “Don’t play with wordings. Don’t play games with us
Come’ on! Put it in writing: TIBET IS AN INALIENABLE PART OF CHINA.” suggest that you represent China, uses the same CCP rhetoric statements and also as I could sense the Us-and-Them model by which the Chinese sought to keep the lesser people at bay.
Anyway, you answered the reason for signing the 17 pt agreement as ” To avoid further bloodshed”. In the face of Chinese show of might on October 6, 1950, the primitive defense systems in Chamdo collapsed with little resistance. Soon after, more than 40,000 Chinese troops were stationed in Chamdo, fully poised to march into Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. Under this circumstances the agreement was signed by the Tibetans to avoid further bloodshed. You are right.
“Other regions in China had no independence movement”. Again you are right because they were not independent countries like Tibet.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:57 am
To Pugster:
I have no idea what a “self-convicting question” is, so maybe you can tell me. I’ve heard of self-incrimination as a legal concept, but that’s the closest thing I can fathom to what you’re trying to say.
I thought my #128 was pretty self-explanatory. I didn’t think those questions would be challenging, tricky, or potentially incriminating to those who claim to love CHina and ALL Chinese people. And yet you went on a rant instead of just trying to answer them. That alone, while not incriminating, is certainly illuminating.
“communists who believe in hell” – I’ve never said that, honest. Besides, how can a communist believe in hell if they don’t condone belief in heaven, or god, or official Christianity/Catholicism?
To Matthew:
my mistake. Thought you were just “screaming” that concept; didn’t realize it was in reference to the Dalai Lama respecting the PRC Constitution. I think that’s a reasonable position to take, to expect that the Dalai Lama respect the Constitution while he requests that Tibet be a bonafide autonomous region within China. However, as Raj had pointed out (can’t remember if it was this thread or not), there are lots of things in the Constitution that China isn’t yet respecting, or enacting. So I think if you are to hold the Dalai lama to the PRC Constitution, you should hold the PRC to the same standard.
“We want to see whether the Dalai Lama is for real or bluffing.” – so perhaps if the PRC started respecting her own Constitution, that would be a sign that she too is for real.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:20 am
@SKC 148
Asking a self-convicting question like “Do you care only about the real estate?” is dumb question because maybe he doesn’t only care about real estate. That’s what you don’t understand. Another dumb self convicting question is like “Why does a Chinese person like you are a communist?”
May 30th, 2009 at 7:04 am
To Pugster:
“Asking a self-convicting question…” – still don’t know what that is.
““Do you care only about the real estate?” is dumb question because maybe he doesn’t only care about real estate.” – then it seems the answer you’re looking for is “no”, as opposed to whatever it is you’ve been going on and on about. Now, maybe you can try to tackle the other 2 questions that are in the paragraph from which you’ve quoted. You can opt for brevity, or not…that’s up to you.
“Another dumb self convicting question is like “Why does a Chinese person like you are a communist?” – not sure if your question constitutes a “self-convicting” one, since I don’t know what that is; but I’m pretty sure you’re example does not constitute English. So if that is supposed to be a “self-convicting question”, then I still have no idea of what you speak. Besides, I’m not sure who you are accusing of asking such a question; I don’t think I have.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:44 am
I am disappointed with the quality of debate by contributors in this forum.
Its is a known fact that you may live in a mountain but you will never own the mountain. But we still see argument that certain group should be excluded from moving to certain part of china. They should know the world don’t work that way, just look at more advance society today, which one can survive without interaction with other?
Debate on china should focus on improving the execution of law, general education of the mass, economic development and environment protection, not who own which mountain or rivers.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@148 S.K. Cheung:
I am no expert on PRC Constitution. Neither are you – I guess.
But there is one common strand in the Constitutions of most countries. It states a high general principle – such as freedom of religion, but elsewhere in the Constitution, you will likely see there are qualifications, conditions, and other clauses that will limit the freedom according to other high constitutional principles. (Even the Declaration of Universal Human Rights (1948) is written this way.)
That is to say, “freedom” (or “rights” of whatever thing) is subject to other high principles, and usually subject to and limited by the laws on public order, social peace, national security, territorial integrity, (and “public goods” in Catholic document), etc. for most countries.
Another example: the Dalai Lama (and his Western supporters) claim that the PRC Constitution provides for “regional autonomy” for minorities living in compact communities. And he based his “Greater Tibet” on this clause. But nowhere is it stipulated that all communities of any single minority should or shall form ONE autonomous province. The fact that many autonomous prefects/counties/districts were already formed or in the process of formation at the time this Constitution clause was written would strongly suggest that the Dalai Lama interpretes it wrongly.
Worse still, the Constitution (or/and Regional Autonomy Law) explicitly says that the boundaries of autonomous regions are not to be altered (except under certain conditions). And neither the Dalai Lama nor his exile government has the necessary qualification to request for alteration of boundaries.
Obviously, to change the boundaries will require the consent of the authorities of Tibet, Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, Gansu, and possibly Xinjiang. If any one of these opposes, it cannot be carried out. And of course, they will certainly oppose it because it means loss of territory and its resources and provincial power for these provinces.
Don’t you think the Dalai Lama is crazy? He is expecting Hu Jintao to act like a dictator-emperor and disregard other provincial authorities?
Nope….it is his independence agenda!
You just wait. I believe as he gets older, he will be more realistic and lower his expectations further. Then we can assess him again.
Tibet did not get independence even when China was at its weakest moment. A fragmented China will mostly mean turmoil for all Tibetan regions – just like in the period from 1911 to 1950.
May 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“A fragmented China will mostly mean turmoil for all Tibetan regions – just like in the period from 1911 to 1950.”
This is false. As I said earlier, between 1912 and 1951, there was no turmoil in central Tibet, except for the Reting-Sera conflict in 1947, which saw very limited fighting and only lasted for a few weeks.
May 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@143 Otto Kerner Says:
[ “You have a people scattered in SW China region ruled by various warlords and tribal chiefs and lama-chiefs fighting with each other.”
Except that the Tibetan government in Lhasa was not a warlord government. It was, in fact, completely continuous with the regiod, i.e. it was an older and more stable government than any of the Chinese governments in Beime that had ruled Tibet during the Qing perijing or Nanjing. And “warlord” would mean a military-controlled government, but the Tibetan military was always very weak politically. ]
Before 1912, the Ambans had the same powers as the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama was required to communicate with the Chinese Emperor ONLY through the Chinese Ambans. The Dalai Lama was not the sole ruler.
It was “stable” only from 1912 to 1933, and only on the surface.There were 500 battles at the border with Chinese warlords and with the Khampas. The Tibetan army did not make the Dalai Lama feel secure. The Panchen Lama was serving Chiang Kai-shek’s government, and could move in any time with Chinese troops to claim his territories.
Otto Kerner Says:
[ “The whole China was in a mess. Until Mao Zedong unified all-China. Whatever his faults – he had done this one great thing: All local fightings had stopped.”
As far as Tibet is concerned, the opposite is true. The Lhasa government’s territory was quite stable and peaceful during the first half of the 20th century, but it was convulsed by violence after the PRC arrived. ]
There were 500 border battles in the period 1918-1920 and 1930-33. There were a couple of coups and attempted coups. There was an insurgency from the Khampas in 1933.
The Great Depression hit the Tibetan economy pretty hard because wool was their only significant export and the American market was gone. The Dalai Lama had to appeal to Chiang Kai-shek for financial aid. The Tibetan economy suffered further when the border wars caused the price of Chinese tea to go up more than 10 times. (Tea was a necessity for many Tibetans). The regime could have collapsed any time.
When the Red Army moved to the Kham areas, they converted a lot of Khampas to its cause. The Khampas (allied with Red Army) was a greater threat to Lhasa than warlord Liu Wen-hui. (Phungtso Wangye said that the Khampas hated the Lhasa government more than they hated Liu Wen-hui who ruled over them. That’s why he was willing to lead the PLA into Tibet in 1950. He was the “Red Tibetan who brought the Red Chinese” into Tibet – according to the Dalai Lama).
There was a mini civil war involving pro-British regent Taktra and pro-Chinese ex-regent Reting Rinpoche, leading to the massacre of 2000-3000 monks from Sera monastery in 1947.
The Regent Taktra killed Dalai Lama’s father by poisoning him – the Dalai Lama himself believes this. Chinese sources said Dalai Lama’s father was pro-China.
Were it not because the PLA was coming, the Regent Taktra would continue to rule and most probably kill the Dalai Lama – since he already killed the Dalai Lama’s father and the Dalai Lama would know about it at some later time.
The Lhasa government also was storing up ammunition to prepare itself against another invasion from the Khampas before 1950 – according Tom Grunfeld. And the KMT offered to supply them weapons.
Tsering Shakya also said that if the 1959 uprising did not occur, there would be civil war between Lhasa regime and the Khampas. That shows the hatred the Khampas had for the Lhasa rulers.
[“The Lhasa government was deceived into believing that they could form an independent Tibet by British colonial officials. But it was deceived, because the real power in London never would support a real independent Tibet. They wanted an autonomous Tibet in China that was not very obedient to China. Too bad.”
I think that’s an accurate description of what the British wanted. They never supported an independent Tibet. But what makes you think the Tibetans were deceived? The 13th Dalai Lama wasn’t stupid: he wanted an alliance with the Tsar of Russia. Unfortunately for him, the Tsar was in no position for alliances after 1917. Tibet was stuck between the Chinese, the Soviets, and the British, so they went with the British as the least dangerous option.]
Yes, the Dalai Lama had the intention to achieve independence, INITIALLY. But he was also pragmatic enough. The circumstances during his life time were not favourable for him. (See previous paras). That’s why Tsering Shakya said that the Lhasa regime DID NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL to achieve independence.
It was the British colonial officials who influenced the Tibetans into making attempts to break away from China – training its army and supplying modern weapons. And the Tibetans lived under the false hope that the British would help them. They were deceived in this sense.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
To Matthew:
I agree that there are limits to freedoms, even as prescribed by various constitutions. And it should be no different in China. My reference to China living up to her constitution was simply that she allow these various freedoms to the limits as defined. Currently, I don’t think that’s the case.
So I wouldn’t expect Hu Jintao to run roughshod over the PRC constitution simply to come to an agreement with the Dalai Lama. But it would be nice if the CCP walked the talk of their constitution in all respects, so that it becomes worth more than the paper it is written on.
May 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Otto Kerner Says:
[“A fragmented China will mostly mean turmoil for all Tibetan regions – just like in the period from 1911 to 1950.”
This is false. As I said earlier, between 1912 and 1951, there was no turmoil in central Tibet, except for the Reting-Sera conflict in 1947, which saw very limited fighting and only lasted for a few weeks.]
My posting didn’t appear. I am trying again – this time a short one.
You are wrong. The Khampas wanted to overthrow the Lhasa government. At the Tibetan border region (Xikang or Kham), there were 500 battles for the period 1918-1920 and 1930-1933: Lhasa regime against Chinese warlord, Lhasa against Khampas, Khampas against Khampas.
There was an insurgency by the Khampas immediately after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama.
There were a number of coups and attempted coups.
Phuntso Wangye said the Khampas hated the Lhasa rulers more than they hated Chinese warlord-ruler. He was the “Red Tibetan who led the Red Chinese” into Tibet – in the words of the Dalai Lama. He was so determined to overthrow the Lhasa regime, he sought Soviet help at first but the Soviets were busy fighting Germans. He later joined the CCP when he felt assured that the future was with CPP.
Tom Grunfeld also said that the Lhasa regime was preparing for war against Khampas invasion at the time of Chinese “invasion”.
Tsering Shakya said that if the 1959 Uprising did not happen, civil war would have occurred between the Khampas and Lhasa regime. That was the hatred they had for each other.
The Regent Taktra killed the Dalai Lama’s father by posioning him – according to Dalai Lama himself. He would have killed the Dalai Lama sooner or later, were it not for the fact that he was forced to surrender his throne to the Dalai Lama because the PLA was coming! The PLA saved Dalai Lama’s life!
(Chinese sources said Dalai Lama’s father was pro-China, that’s why he was killed. Otherwise he would have influenced the Dalai Lama to be pro-China.)
May 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Here we go again…history, as defined by what’s convenient for a particular point of view. This is the thing I love about history. Sure, learn from it yada yada. But what impact does, or should, it have on what happens tomorrow?
May 30th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“The Khampas wanted to overthrow the Lhasa government.”
I said that Central Tibet was peaceful and stable. That means the part where Khampas didn’t live. I’m sure the Khampas resented the Lhasa government’s interference to the extent that it interfered with them. I don’t know the extent of the resistance.
“At the Tibetan border region (Xikang or Kham), there were 500 battles for the period 1918-1920 and 1930-1933: Lhasa regime against Chinese warlord, Lhasa against Khampas, Khampas against Khampas.”
Obviously, there was a lot of fighting between the Tibetan government and the Chinese at the boundary of control. I’m saying that inside Lhasa’s territory, away from the frontlines, it was stable.
“There was an insurgency by the Khampas immediately after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama.”
That’s interesting, but it’s the first I’ve heard of it. Can you cite some sources?
“There were a number of coups and attempted coups.”
I was referring to military fighting such as would disrupt the lives of the general public. Coups are something else. That said, there really were not very many coup attempts. There was a political struggle after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama which resulted in Trimön outmanoeuvring Lungshar to take power. That’s one coup attempt. Then there was the Reting incident in 1947. That makes a total of two.
“Phuntso Wangye said the Khampas hated the Lhasa rulers more than they hated Chinese warlord-ruler. ”
Phuntso Wangye is not a neutral source. He was one of the few Tibetan communists. That said, this statement might be true, since the Chinese warlords didn’t interfere with or try to govern the Khampas very much. Lhasa might have been more of a nuisance at the time. Obviously, this changed after 1950.
“He was so determined to overthrow the Lhasa regime, he sought Soviet help at first. But later joined the CCP.”
Phuntso Wangye was determined to overthrow Lhasa, yes. He was an ideological zealot. I doubt that very many people in Kham or Amdo cared whether or not it was overthrown.
“Tom Grunfeld also said that the Lhasa regime was preparing for war against Khampas invasion at the time of Chinese ‘invasion’.”
Tom Grunfeld displays his ignorance again.
“Tsering Shakya said that if the 1959 Uprising did not happen, civil war would occur between Khampas and Lhasa regime. That was the hatred they had for each other.”
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you are getting the sequence of events really confused here. There would have been a civil war between Lhasa and the Khampas in 1959 because Lhasa was supporting the Chinese under the terms of the 17-point agreement, while the Khampas were fighting the Chinese and had been driven into Central Tibet. They had been petitioning the Lhasa government to help them for years.
“The Regent Taktra killed the Dalai Lama’s father by posioning him – according to Dalai Lama himself.”
Where does the Dalai Lama say that Taktra killed his father?
“He would have killed the Dalai Lama sooner or later”
Taktra’s political position was not strong enough for him to survive if people thought he had killed the Dalai Lama.
“Chinese sources said Dalai Lama’s father was pro-China”
Chinese sources tend to say that everyone was pro-China.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
@Matthew Tan #152,
You really think that Hu Jintao could not convince the governors of a few provinces to okay territorial changes? By your logic, Sichuan would never have allowed Chongqing to become a province-level municipality (zhíxiáshì). Also, do you really think that the PRC constitution could not be amended to allow the change, if that’s what the central government wanted?
The idea that “state’s rights” are some kind of serious impediment to resolving the Tibet issue is bemusing.
If the Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties were really autonomous, they wouldn’t need the permission of provincial governments to change their borders.
May 31st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@J. Dorjee #113
Sorry about the late response. Yes, we plan to have a separate Tibetan history thread/forum, but it will take some time to implement it.
And thanks to Khechog and his friend, we will have a complete translation of the report for discussion soon.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Impact of history is obviously, toward the definition of sovereignties.
One cannot prove sovereignty without history.
May 31st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“If the Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties were really autonomous, they wouldn’t need the permission of provincial governments to change their borders.”
“Autonomy” is contextual to the legal framework that grants the power of autonomy, doesn’t mean “you get to do whatever you want”.
It simply means, the “autonomous prefectures” are MORE “autonomous” than other counties in some way. It doesn’t it has to be “autonomous” in almost every way.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:56 am
This is false. As I said earlier, between 1912 and 1951, there was no turmoil in central Tibet, except for the Reting-Sera conflict in 1947, which saw very limited fighting and only lasted for a few weeks.
Otto,
this crap is so f@#4ing cheap !!!
During the period, the power and interests privileged class in Tibet were not challenged by Tibetan Serbs and poor, of course there was no turmoil.
If China had been staying as poor as she was 30 years, @$$holes in West wouldnt have bothered to
‘ care ‘ Tibet and Tibetan people. Why didnt you just say directly that you didnt feel good that China is waking up. Well, let me tell you, China will be keeping getting better for the rest of your life and for the life of your next generation, and next next generation.
June 1st, 2009 at 4:16 am
I hope China’s sovereignty isn’t just based on history, cuz it looks like there’s more than one version of history, and none that people can agree on, so we might need more than one map of China.
But if CHinese sovereignty in the face of other countries is whatever Chinese might want for China today, that MIGHT be a little easier to determine.
Of course, to me, CHinese sovereignty has no relevance to those CHinese who no longer want it, if such specimens in fact exist.
I guess the TAR should really be renamed the TALBOAR (Tibetan A Little Bit Of Autonomy Region). I wonder if a little bit of autonomy is akin to being a little bit pregnant.
Wahaha, did you not take your medication today?
June 1st, 2009 at 5:32 am
Wahaha,
I never said there were no problems during this period, just that there was very little turmoil, which another commenter had claimed there was a lot of.
Raventhorn,
I suppose you’re right. The level of autonomy enjoyed by China’s “autonomous” areas is unimpressive, but even with serious autonomy, they wouldn’t necessarily have the right to change their borders at will. If representatives of the autonomous areas request a change, though, I would think the national and provincial authorities should usually go along with the request unless there’s some serious reason to deny it.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I hope there isn’t more than 1 version of the Truth. Otherwise, we do need to redefine EVERYONE’s borders.
We might tolerate multiple points of view on history, but sovereignty must be based upon only 1 version somehow. It’s NOT an academic exercise with endless debates. It’s a practical question that must have 1 answer at any moment, even if it changes over time.
More than History?
I don’t think one can convincingly move onto anything else concrete, if one has not settle the questions of history.
All conflicts are based somewhat on HISTORY!!
June 1st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Otto,
“If representatives of the autonomous areas request a change, though, I would think the national and provincial authorities should usually go along with the request unless there’s some serious reason to deny it.”
I don’t think that’s a workable scheme. Even in US, Statehoods are granted by Federal government (ie. representatives of OTHER states. And local municipalities and county borders alterations are usually only granted by the State by “general assembly” vote, some states require more than MAJORITY for approval). It’s not a rubber stamp procedure.
In actually, most nations embrace the view that internal territories should NOT be easily altered, UNLESS there is a special reason to do so. Especially in regions where there are great number of ethnic groups, rapid and easy alteration of internal territories can cause ethnic tensions.
In US, changes in municipality and county territories is usually allowed under the conditions of population changes in the area, and the specific conditions must be met before a state general assembly would approve any changes in territories.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Sovereignty in international law is recognized under the basis of “de jure sovereignty” and “de facto sovereignty”.
Typically, full sovereignty requires both “de jure” and “de facto” sovereignty. But “de jure” sovereignty is universally recognized as the key basis. The common rule is “De facto sovereignty without de jure sovereignty is not enough”.
“De jure” sovereignty is based, on laws of treaties and historical claims.
Having conflicting versions of history does not automatically nullify a sovereignty already established by additional international multi-lateral treaties.
In practicality, all national sovereignties today are more or less based upon “treaties”. A country’s border is demarcated not merely by versions of historical claim, but by what is now agreed to by neighbors as “historical borders”.
In practicality, this agreement of HISTORY is essential for the establishment and claims of all national borders and sovereignty.
*HENCE, a claim based upon substantial documented HISTORY is the foundation of all sovereignty. That includes the history of “TREATIES”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 am
To R4000:
“It’s a practical question that must have 1 answer at any moment, even if it changes over time.” – hey, there’s something we can agree upon. But to me, the answer does not lie in history; it lies in the collective will of those peoples who choose to exercise it in unison, to the exclusion of outside forces and peoples. And as you suggest, that collective will can certainly change over time.
I don’t think basing China’s sovereignty on history is going to be a keeper, since, in this instance at least, there will likely never be one version of history. Might I add that even an agreed-upon version of history doesn’t prove it to be the truth…that, I’m afraid, will be even more elusive.
“All conflicts are based somewhat on HISTORY!!” – perhaps. But I think countries duke it out not because they disliked each other a few hundred years ago; I think it’d be because they dislike each other today.
“Even in US, Statehoods are granted by Federal government…etc etc” – but this goes to the heart of what the A in TAR really means, or really doesn’t mean. States in the Union aren’t autonomous bodies; they have some things which are within their jurisdiction, and others which are not. But those things are well-defined. It would seem that neither the Dalai lama nor the CCP have clearly defined, nor agreed upon, what degree of A should be afforded to the TAR.
“A country’s border is demarcated not merely by versions of historical claim, but by what is now agreed to by neighbors as “historical borders”.” – and that is all fine and good when you apply sovereignty in the face of other peoples. But how does sovereignty work if (and recognizing that that is a big “if”)some of those people within the borders no longer want to be a part of it? Sovereignty is something you use to justify keeping people out; it’s not something that can be similarly used to forcibly keep people in.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:56 am
SKC,
International law concept for sovereignty has never accepted the notion of “sovereignty” as based upon a “people’s choice”.
Sorry to have to tell you, “populist sovereignty” is NOT an universally accepted basis for full “sovereignty”, in international law.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 am
SKC,
“I don’t think basing China’s sovereignty on history is going to be a keeper, since, in this instance at least, there will likely never be one version of history. Might I add that even an agreed-upon version of history doesn’t prove it to be the truth…that, I’m afraid, will be even more elusive.”
When is law/justice ever deal with Truth? 12 jurors meet, they come to 1 conclusion. One might infer it is the “reasonable truth”, but certainly there are more versions out there. No legal system would ever let the multiple versions be a roadblock to a conclusion/solution.
I think you take the search for truth a little too literally, and in a biased way. If you are so concerned for “TRUTH”, you might as well argue that there is no possible TRUE basis for any “democratic votes”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 am
““All conflicts are based somewhat on HISTORY!!” – perhaps. But I think countries duke it out not because they disliked each other a few hundred years ago; I think it’d be because they dislike each other today.”
Countries don’t dislike each other over 1 night. There is always a history leading up to “dislike”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 am
““Even in US, Statehoods are granted by Federal government…etc etc” – but this goes to the heart of what the A in TAR really means, or really doesn’t mean. States in the Union aren’t autonomous bodies; they have some things which are within their jurisdiction, and others which are not. But those things are well-defined. It would seem that neither the Dalai lama nor the CCP have clearly defined, nor agreed upon, what degree of A should be afforded to the TAR.”
Semantics. Chinese constitution has clearly spelled out “autonomy” in terms of additional powers for the local government. Even in US state’s situation, no power is absolute. They are always subject to negotiations called “State Federal Compacts”, essentially new agreements on specific things.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 am
““A country’s border is demarcated not merely by versions of historical claim, but by what is now agreed to by neighbors as “historical borders”.” – and that is all fine and good when you apply sovereignty in the face of other peoples. But how does sovereignty work if (and recognizing that that is a big “if”)some of those people within the borders no longer want to be a part of it? Sovereignty is something you use to justify keeping people out; it’s not something that can be similarly used to forcibly keep people in.”
There is no implied/inherent universal right to secession, (at least not peacefully).
All sovereignties have the universally recognized right to maintain own territorial integrity. That includes prevention of secession.
Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people. It represents the will of its people, regardless of how that representative actually reflects through its elective processes. (Hence, we still have hereditary monarchies in the world.)
There is no implied right for any Tom/Dick/Harry to declare themselves a nation by themselves. It simply doesn’t work that way.
International law is quite clear about this point.
(Of course, if one doesn’t want to be a part of his nation, he can always leave, and become a “refugee”/nationless person. (It’s actually allowed by UN treaty). Doesn’t mean that the “sovereign” will hand over a piece of land for him to claim as his own “nation” for him or his fellow secessionists.)
No one can compel you to stay in a nation. You can always move elsewhere and/or become some other nation’s citizen.
Again, it doesn’t mean that you get “sovereignty” on your own.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 am
Raventhorn,
As with many things in life, there’s a difference between the legal minimum requirements which you are required to carry out and general standards for good behaviour. For example, there was no provision under international law which would have required Great Britain to allow independence to India, and yet, if Britain had decided to maintain its empire over that area, this would be widely regarded as bad behaviour.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
To R4000:
“accepted the notion of “sovereignty” as based upon a “people’s choice”.” – c’mon, what good is the “notion” of sovereignty unless people choose to exercise it? What’s the point of any discussion without taking into account the people?
This (“Might I add that even an agreed-upon version of history doesn’t prove it to be the truth…that, I’m afraid, will be even more elusive.”) was in response to this (“I hope there isn’t more than 1 version of the Truth”). Claims of knowing the truth, especially wrt this topic, are fairly hollow ones.
We’re not in a court of law, so I don’t think “reasonable doubt” is a relevant metric.
“you might as well argue that there is no possible TRUE basis for any “democratic votes”” – are you kidding me? That’s a fine example of a physical truth, which is testable, verifiable, reproducible. Take a ballot box, empty it out, count the votes (testable); have a second person confirm the count (verifiable). Then put the ballots back in, then dump it out again, and count them again (reproducible). Doesn’t get any better than that. Stuff about Tibet, unfortunately, hardly if ever reaches that threshold.
“There is always a history leading up to “dislike”.” – fair enough. But this has nothing to do with sovereignty on the basis of history, or worse yet, why Tibet must remain a part of China forever more on the basis of what may or may not have happened historically.
“Chinese constitution has clearly spelled out “autonomy” in terms of additional powers for the local government.” – and clearly, that hasn’t even come close to being good enough, has it? Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So I don’t think leaning on the Chinese constitution is going to provide you with a very steady perch.
“There is no implied/inherent universal right to secession” – well, if you’re going to go that route, there’s no inherent universal right to anything.
“Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people” …who choose to recognize him/her as such. But this is irrelevant; no one is speaking about a kingdom here…well, at least I’m not.
“Doesn’t mean that the “sovereign” will hand over a piece of land for him to claim as his own “nation” for him or his fellow secessionists” – ahh, funny you should bring this up. Here’s a question I put to Pugster, which he never answered except to go off on some silly trip about “self-convicting” questions (still don’t know what those are): “So here’s one for you. Are Tibetans as a group inseparable from all Chinese peoples?
Do you care only about the real estate? Do you care about the people and their culture etc? Or do you actually care about both?”
And here’s the extension to that line of questioning. IF every last Tibetan wanted to leave Tibet (assuming of course that another country is willing to take them in), would that be okay? Now, what if X number of the top (fill in whatever profession you want here) no longer wanted to be a part of China’s sovereignty either? Could they go as they please too?
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
@Otto Kerner #175
It was CERTAINLY not the Great Britain that “allowed” India’s independence, but rather the Indians then made the continued GB governance virtually impossible. Indians had been rebelling against the GB rule for near 100 years. Not until it could no longer hold on to India did the GB “let” India go — the “let go” part isn’t unlike you or I can claim the credit of making the Earth rotate around the Sun.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
“As with many things in life, there’s a difference between the legal minimum requirements which you are required to carry out and general standards for good behaviour. For example, there was no provision under international law which would have required Great Britain to allow independence to India, and yet, if Britain had decided to maintain its empire over that area, this would be widely regarded as bad behaviour.”
I would say that India had substantial historical evidence of its sovereignty, and that diplomatic negotiations resulted in legal recognition, (indeed, I would classify majority of what Gandhi was doing as “diplomacy”). Certainly Indian Sovereignty is FAR more than based upon Great Britain’s own altruism.
I think Gandhi understood that sovereignty is AT LEAST based upon legal recognition.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am
““accepted the notion of “sovereignty” as based upon a “people’s choice”.” – c’mon, what good is the “notion” of sovereignty unless people choose to exercise it? What’s the point of any discussion without taking into account the people?”
What’s “good”? Well, it keeps non-citizens from getting jobs and votes, for 1. The People don’t “exercise” it, the Government enforces it, every day.
The sovereign even has the right to define “citizenship”, and expel/deport unwanted people, for various reasons. (ie. exiled ex-leaders, deported ex-Nazis, etc. etc.)
And NO, people’s “vote” is NOT an exercise of “sovereignty”.
Any club can have a “vote”, doesn’t make them “sovereign”.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
“Claims of knowing the truth, especially wrt this topic, are fairly hollow ones.”
No one claims to KNOW the TRUTH for certain. But sovereignty, like all legal principles, work based upon binding AGREEMENT of TRUTH.
Debate of TRUTH will never end. But nations can’t wait for that debate to end to figure out borders.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
““you might as well argue that there is no possible TRUE basis for any “democratic votes”” – are you kidding me? That’s a fine example of a physical truth, which is testable, verifiable, reproducible. Take a ballot box, empty it out, count the votes (testable); have a second person confirm the count (verifiable). Then put the ballots back in, then dump it out again, and count them again (reproducible). Doesn’t get any better than that. Stuff about Tibet, unfortunately, hardly if ever reaches that threshold.”
Testable to the fact that NOT EVERYONE votes, hence, how can a leader be TRUE representative, when many refused to voice their support??
Is it a TRUE representative, or merely an “AGREEMENT” on the result?
You seem to think that if the majority who voted 1+1 =3, then 1+1=3 is the TRUTH???
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
““There is always a history leading up to “dislike”.” – fair enough. But this has nothing to do with sovereignty on the basis of history, or worse yet, why Tibet must remain a part of China forever more on the basis of what may or may not have happened historically.”
You brought the subject up about “present dislikes” and wars, not me.
As for Tibet, (or any other questions of sovereignty), Whimsical UNLAWFUL redefinition of “sovereignty” will cause WARS, because it ignores history. You can choose not to complain, if your government give up territories for any group that comes along, but you can’t speak for all other nations in the world. If you want to question the REALITY of the world like that, I would say you are ignoring over 8000 years of human history.
““Chinese constitution has clearly spelled out “autonomy” in terms of additional powers for the local government.” – and clearly, that hasn’t even come close to being good enough, has it? Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So I don’t think leaning on the Chinese constitution is going to provide you with a very steady perch.”
“NOT good enough”??? Well, if you want to question it, that’s your business. I can say the same thing about “democracy” too, that alone doesn’t prove anything.
Laws are still Laws, whether you like them or not.
““There is no implied/inherent universal right to secession” – well, if you’re going to go that route, there’s no inherent universal right to anything.”
That’s TRUE. That’s why we have TREATIES and LAWS.
““Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people” …who choose to recognize him/her as such. But this is irrelevant; no one is speaking about a kingdom here…well, at least I’m not.”
You make exceptions for data you don’t like, which proves that you don’t speak for MOST of the world.
““Doesn’t mean that the “sovereign” will hand over a piece of land for him to claim as his own “nation” for him or his fellow secessionists” – ahh, funny you should bring this up. Here’s a question I put to Pugster, which he never answered except to go off on some silly trip about “self-convicting” questions (still don’t know what those are): “So here’s one for you. Are Tibetans as a group inseparable from all Chinese peoples? Do you care only about the real estate? Do you care about the people and their culture etc? Or do you actually care about both?””
Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve. Individual Tibetans can choose to leave China as he/she wishes. Doesn’t alter the fact that Tibetan Culture still exists in China.
But if Tibetans want “real estate” too, then it is THEY who have brought up the issue of “real estate”, not China.
“And here’s the extension to that line of questioning. IF every last Tibetan wanted to leave Tibet (assuming of course that another country is willing to take them in), would that be okay? Now, what if X number of the top (fill in whatever profession you want here) no longer wanted to be a part of China’s sovereignty either? Could they go as they please too?”
If they want to leave, SURE, it’s up to them to get visas, etc. If other countries want to take them in, that’s their choice too.
How many MILLIONS Of Jewish people left US/Europe to go establish the nation of Israel? What does that say about US/Europe?! Is that even relevant?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Now, what if X number of the top (fill in whatever profession you want here) no longer wanted to be a part of China’s sovereignty either? Could they go as they please too?”
That’s their choice too, if other countries want to take them. Some Americans joined the CCP in the 1940’s, so what? It’s up to the nations to attract/keep talents. If they can’t attract/keep talents, it’s their own fault, just as if they can’t attract/keep foreign investments.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
@Jxie #177,
I don’t know a lot about the Indian independence movement, and I’m not sure whether you do, either, so you could be right. That’s not really my point. If the British had been able to hold on to India, it would have been a target for criticism internationally and from anti-imperialists at home, especially depending on what sort of tactics they found it necessary to use in order to keep control. If it makes it easier to imagine, substitute one of the various smaller and weaker countries of the British empire, which would have had a much harder time resisting.
@raventhorn #178,
I never said it was based on altruism. There’s a big difference between saying, “X did something out of the goodness of his heart” and “X did something and thereby avoided public disapprobation.”
I don’t know anything about Gandhi’s theory of sovereignty per se, but I find it very hard to believe that he would have ever let the lack of recognition be an impediment to action. He may have justified it in terms of something other than sovereignty.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 am
To R4000:
“Well, it keeps non-citizens from getting jobs and votes” – pardon?? Votes, maybe. But I don’t think “sovereignty” is for the purposes of restricting movement of labour. Besides, permanent residents can most certainly work, all the while being a “non-citizen”. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
“The People don’t “exercise” it, the Government enforces it, every day.” – and in a democratic country, that would be at the behest of the people. Admittedly not something the CCP concerns herself about.
“And NO, people’s “vote” is NOT an exercise of “sovereignty”. – I have no idea what you’re talking about. Certainly not anything I said. I only referred to “votes” to debunk your point about the “TRUE basis for any “democratic votes””.
“No one claims to KNOW the TRUTH for certain.” – at least we can agree on that. So maybe we can finally get off that “history” kick when it comes to Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. As you’ve probably noticed, even “binding AGREEMENT of TRUTH” is pretty hard to come by, at least on this topic.
“how can a leader be TRUE representative, when many refused to voice their support??” – oh come on! Are you serious? We have the benefit and luxury of the right to vote, and it is a right each of us can CHOOSE to exercise. And the act of NOT voting is a choice in itself. However, if you have a right to vote and choose not to exercise it, then you are in no position to complain about who your representative ends up being. It’s like Miranda – if you have a right to remain silent, but choose not to exercise it, and blabber away, then that is most certainly your problem.
“You seem to think that if the majority who voted 1+1 =3, then 1+1=3 is the TRUTH???” – good grief, I have no idea where you come up with this stuff. Amusing, I must say. If you ask 10 people in a room to vote on whether gravity exists or not, and they all vote ‘no’, that doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist. It means you’ve got 10 people with some serious issues. The “testable” part, however, is that you can open up that ballot box, and count 10 votes. Then you can do it again, and verify that there were 10 votes cast.
I’m not sure why you choose to obfuscate, but the point is that there is a very TRUE basis for the results of a democratic vote, and that physical basis lies in the ballot box. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. But if you choose to continue to be silly, be my guest.
“but you can’t speak for all other nations in the world” – hmm, didn’t realize I was trying to do that. Well, if you say so…
“Well, if you want to question it, that’s your business.” – umm, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m hardly the only one doing the “questioning”. I reckon there are quite a few Tibetans, and perhaps even some Chinese, who have similar questions which have yet to be answered. But if you want to pretend everything is hunky dory, well, as you say, that’s your business.
“You make exceptions for data you don’t like” – umm, nope. I ignore your points that have absolutely no relevance.
“Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve” – ahh, interesting. So China wants the land….but the whole world should help out with the culture bit. The irony, of course, is that folks like you get bent way out of shape when some people from the rest of the world start questioning China’s handling of Tibetan culture. So you want help….but then…you don’t. Maybe you can let us know when you’ve made up your mind. In the mean time, I suspect most of us will carry on. You haven’t answered the question outright, and I don’t want to be accused of putting words into your mouth. So, is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.
“If they want to leave, SURE, it’s up to them to get visas, etc. If other countries want to take them in, that’s their choice too.” – that’s good to see. At least you’re being consistent. The relevance is to see whether it’s the land you value more, or the people. I think you’ve answered that clearly enough now. Heartwarming.
“That’s their choice too, if other countries want to take them.” – I just threw that second part in there for fun. Again, impressed with your consistency. Somehow, on this point in particular, I’m not sure the CCP would be as generous as you.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Otto,
“I never said it was based on altruism. There’s a big difference between saying, “X did something out of the goodness of his heart” and “X did something and thereby avoided public disapprobation.””
In your case, I wouldn’t characterize X as “allowed Indian independence”, if X had little choice but to simply accept reality.
“I don’t know anything about Gandhi’s theory of sovereignty per se, but I find it very hard to believe that he would have ever let the lack of recognition be an impediment to action. He may have justified it in terms of something other than sovereignty.”
HIS action, HIS words, HIS arguments of History, NOT Great Britain’s “allowance”, resulted in the LEGAL solution of sovereignty for India.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
SKC,
“Well, it keeps non-citizens from getting jobs and votes” – pardon?? Votes, maybe. But I don’t think “sovereignty” is for the purposes of restricting movement of labour. Besides, permanent residents can most certainly work, all the while being a “non-citizen”. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.”
I speak of ALL “non-citizen”, you talk about “Permanent residents”. You are mistaken in your assumption about what we are talking about.
““The People don’t “exercise” it, the Government enforces it, every day.” – and in a democratic country, that would be at the behest of the people. Admittedly not something the CCP concerns herself about.”
Your Citizenship definition was defined for you BEFORE your birth, and often based upon your BIRTH. You can hardly say CCP is the ONLY one that does that through law. ALL sovereigns do it.
““And NO, people’s “vote” is NOT an exercise of “sovereignty”. – I have no idea what you’re talking about. Certainly not anything I said. I only referred to “votes” to debunk your point about the “TRUE basis for any “democratic votes””.”
“Behest”, above, from you. I was preemptively knocking out your argument about Sovereign does something at the “behest” of the people, because People votes. That was your point!
““No one claims to KNOW the TRUTH for certain.” – at least we can agree on that. So maybe we can finally get off that “history” kick when it comes to Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. As you’ve probably noticed, even “binding AGREEMENT of TRUTH” is pretty hard to come by, at least on this topic.”
Well, I don’t think the law of the world needs permission or agreement from you or I. You might disagree with a US law or a treaty, doesn’t mean squat in the world.
““how can a leader be TRUE representative, when many refused to voice their support??” – oh come on! Are you serious? We have the benefit and luxury of the right to vote, and it is a right each of us can CHOOSE to exercise. And the act of NOT voting is a choice in itself. However, if you have a right to vote and choose not to exercise it, then you are in no position to complain about who your representative ends up being. It’s like Miranda – if you have a right to remain silent, but choose not to exercise it, and blabber away, then that is most certainly your problem.”
Yes, I’m serious. TRUTH does not depend on whether someone speak it or is silent on it.
““You seem to think that if the majority who voted 1+1 =3, then 1+1=3 is the TRUTH???” – good grief, I have no idea where you come up with this stuff. Amusing, I must say. If you ask 10 people in a room to vote on whether gravity exists or not, and they all vote ‘no’, that doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist. It means you’ve got 10 people with some serious issues. The “testable” part, however, is that you can open up that ballot box, and count 10 votes. Then you can do it again, and verify that there were 10 votes cast.”
I have no idea why you keep interjecting personal amusement into your arguments. Stick to the issue. Obviously, you got my point that GRAVITY exist despite any VOTE to the contrary. TRUE best leadership therefore also exist, despite any vote contrary. Ie. Just because Bush had more votes, doesn’t mean that he was the BEST leader, ONLY that he won the vote. Winning a VOTE is merely that. It is NOT the TRUTH it attempts to demonstrate, ie. best leader.
“I’m not sure why you choose to obfuscate, but the point is that there is a very TRUE basis for the results of a democratic vote, and that physical basis lies in the ballot box. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. But if you choose to continue to be silly, be my guest.”
I’m not sure why you feign confusion at my style, when you don’t want to answer directly. TRUE “basis” doesn’t equal TRUE and ACCURATE and CORRECT results. What’s TRUE about the “basis” is merely that you followed a system that someone set up. It has NOTHING to do with the CORRECTNESS of the resulting decision. “FOLLOWING PROCEDURE” is NOT equal to “GETTING the right ANSWER”!!
““but you can’t speak for all other nations in the world” – hmm, didn’t realize I was trying to do that. Well, if you say so…”
If it’s just your personal preference, then I don’t know why you want to debate about it.
““Well, if you want to question it, that’s your business.” – umm, in case you haven’t noticed, I’m hardly the only one doing the “questioning”. I reckon there are quite a few Tibetans, and perhaps even some Chinese, who have similar questions which have yet to be answered. But if you want to pretend everything is hunky dory, well, as you say, that’s your business.”
If you want to know WHY the world works the way it does, I told you, it’s based upon LAWS and HISTORY. If you want to keep asking WHY, I don’t know what to tell you, other than to say, Revive a bunch of dead guys from the past 8000 years, and ask them. It’s HISTORY.
““You make exceptions for data you don’t like” – umm, nope. I ignore your points that have absolutely no relevance.”
I would call that “selective prosecution of data”. That’s unscientific.
““Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve” – ahh, interesting. So China wants the land….but the whole world should help out with the culture bit. The irony, of course, is that folks like you get bent way out of shape when some people from the rest of the world start questioning China’s handling of Tibetan culture. So you want help….but then…you don’t. Maybe you can let us know when you’ve made up your mind. In the mean time, I suspect most of us will carry on. You haven’t answered the question outright, and I don’t want to be accused of putting words into your mouth. So, is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.”
I said nothing about “world helping out” China with Tibetan culture. China will do its own best for whatever culture needs preserving. It’s not asking for help. If you don’t want to help preserve some culture, that’s your business. Your entire argument on this line is based upon your mistaken assumption about my point.
““If they want to leave, SURE, it’s up to them to get visas, etc. If other countries want to take them in, that’s their choice too.” – that’s good to see. At least you’re being consistent. The relevance is to see whether it’s the land you value more, or the people. I think you’ve answered that clearly enough now. Heartwarming.”
It’s called “freedom of travel”. What’s wrong with letting people leave?? Don’t give me all this emotional crap, when EVERY nation does this!! By your theory, Canada should give a piece of land to every Canadian who wants to renounce their citizenship??!!!
““That’s their choice too, if other countries want to take them.” – I just threw that second part in there for fun. Again, impressed with your consistency. Somehow, on this point in particular, I’m not sure the CCP would be as generous as you.””
Somehow, I think you are wrong again.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:29 am
@raventhorn #186,
“HIS action, HIS words, HIS arguments of History, NOT Great Britain’s ‘allowance’, resulted in the LEGAL solution of sovereignty for India.”
The point that I was making was that there is no provision of so-called international law which required Great Britain to accept Indian independence. According to the theory promoted by many anti-self-determination people in this forum, a sovereign state simply owns the right to control all of its territory and this cannot be alienated except by its own decision to allow secession. Do you disagree? Earlier, you said, “Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people. It represents the will of its people, regardless of how that representative actually reflects through its elective processes,” which would mean that you believe the king and prime minister of the UK were the legitimate representatives of the Indian people, rather than Gandhi or the Indian National Congress.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Gandhi would have been no more a “half-naked fakir”, had there not been some 2+ million Indians serving in the British forces who likely would’ve revolved if the Great Britain had not “let” India go. If you look at what the UK was facing after the WW2, that was a no-brainer calculated move. Equally the UK’s defending its Falklands sovereignty was a calculated move, maybe less no-brainer, but I would have done the same.
To me the saddest things out of the Indian experience after WW2 are,
* Some believing Gandhi and he alone had any meaningful power,
* Some British genuinely (not you Otto) believing that they let India go, out of some sort of morality.
No sovereignty is that sacred, neither is any “right” to self-determination. The mere fact that without Tibet being a part of China, southwestern population centers such as Chengdu would be no more than a couple hundred kilometers away from potentially hostile foreign forces, would take a whole lot more than “widely regarded as bad behavior” for China to contemplate letting it go.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Well, on this point, I agree, JXie. China has strong political-military reasons for wanting to keep firm control over Tibet. As I commented recently on another blog:
“What do the Chinese want from Tibet? Primarily, I suppose, they want not to have the supply of water to their big rivers disrupted, and not to have American or Indian soldiers marching around near Chengdu and Lanzhou. By maintaining complete control over Tibet forever, they think they can keep China safe. If Tibet were independent, they would have no grounds for telling Tibetans which troops can be stationed where on Tibetan soil.”
June 4th, 2009 at 5:03 am
To R4000:
“I speak of ALL “non-citizen”, you talk about “Permanent residents”. You are mistaken in your assumption about what we are talking about.” – if your point is that ALL non-citizens cannot work, that is simply incorrect, because ALL permanent residents (ie Green card holders in the US) are non-citizens, but can surely work. On the voting part, you are correct. Either way, sovereignty isn’t about preventing people from working. I’ll concede that sovereignty does prevent non-citizens from voting, since a vote can influence governance and an expression of that sovereignty, and only citizens have a say in that. Despite all of that, the voting part, sadly, is a non-issue in Tibet and China. Maybe someday…
“Your Citizenship definition was defined for you BEFORE your birth, and often based upon your BIRTH.” – you forget the minor detail of naturalized citizens. The point though, was that democratic governments enforce sovereignty for the people. THe CCP…well, they might do it for the people, or they might just be doing it for themselves. Who knows?
“I was preemptively knocking out your argument about Sovereign does something at the “behest” of the people, because People votes. That was your point!” – sorry to break it to you, but you’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve already addressed this in the paragraph above. The people vote to determine who will be in government. Said government will enforce sovereignty at the behest of the people, much as they will build a bridge at the behest of the people, or will enact legislation at the behest of the people. The people’s representatives serve at the behest of the people, so everything they do in an official capacity is at the behest of the people.
“Yes, I’m serious. TRUTH does not depend on whether someone speak it or is silent on it.” – well then that’s pretty funny. So if voter turnout in the US or Canada is only in the 50-60-% range, then a government is only representative to that degree? If that’s the case, how “true” is the CCP as China’s government?
“TRUE best leadership therefore also exist, despite any vote contrary.” – oh oh, are you going into that meritocracy business again? So, how do you define this “true best leadership”? The point here was whether something is testable, verifiable, reproducible. Your selection of your “true best leader” is none of those things; however, the vote itself is all 3, simultaneously. Not a bad party trick.
“TRUE “basis” doesn’t equal TRUE and ACCURATE and CORRECT results.” – I’m not feigning confusion; I am genuinely amused and bewildered that you can ask a question to which you had already provided the answer in the negative 2 days ago: (R4000 #180, June 2) (“No one claims to KNOW the TRUTH for certain” – you’ve already acknowledged that “the truth” is unknowable. So at that point, you can either throw in the towel, or aim for the next best thing. And to me, a voting result that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible, is not a bad consolation prize. And maybe you can decide what your point actually is, cuz I sure can’t.
““FOLLOWING PROCEDURE” is NOT equal to “GETTING the right ANSWER”!!” – but it certainly beats randomly guessing at a “right answer” that you will never truly know.
“If it’s just your personal preference, then I don’t know why you want to debate about it.” -because i believe my “preference” is the correct one, and that your’s isn’t.
“Revive a bunch of dead guys from the past 8000 years, and ask them. It’s HISTORY.” – history is for dead guys, like you say. I’d rather not be enslaved to it, as I’ve said before.
“I would call that “selective prosecution of data”. That’s unscientific.” – for a guy who doesn’t seem to grasp the concepts of testability, reproducibility, and verifiability, I think speaking of what is and isn’t scientific is a bit rich. Besides, devaluing outliers is very much a scientific approach to the evaluation of a data set, and that is akin to what I find to be irrelevant.
““Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve”; “I said nothing about “world helping out” China with Tibetan culture.”” – gimme yet another break. If you stipulate that “all humanity” includes more than CHina, then the world would have a duty to help in said preservation. “It’s not asking for help” – I never said it was; remember, you said the whole world has a role. Now back to what I wrote before: “The irony, of course, is that folks like you get bent way out of shape when some people from the rest of the world start questioning China’s handling of Tibetan culture. So you want (I’ll rephrase here to “will accept”) help….but then…you don’t… So, (when it comes to your interest in Tibet), is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.” You take your time.
“It’s called “freedom of travel”” – umm, dude, they wouldn’t be going on a vacation. It’d be a one way trip out of Dodge. “What’s wrong with letting people leave?” – nothing, but just goes to show that when push comes to shove, you prefer the real estate to Tibetan people and culture. Just wanted to make sure we’re both clear.
BTW, your reference to Canada would qualify as another of those irrelevant points, since we’re talking about CHina. I believe Admin even refers to this in the Intro section of the expansive Tibetan research thread, where he says that comparing achieves very little (my apologies if I’ve misquoted him).
“Somehow, I think you are wrong again.” – if China is willing to let her best and brightest leave if that was their wish, that would indeed be a bold and courageous gesture. I’d happily be wrong on that one.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
SKC,
“I’ll concede that sovereignty does prevent non-citizens from voting, since a vote can influence governance and an expression of that sovereignty, and only citizens have a say in that. Despite all of that, the voting part, sadly, is a non-issue in Tibet and China. Maybe someday…”
Maybe someday voters will actually change the rules about “sovereignty” in US/Canada. But that’s unrealistic speculation, so I see no reason why “vote” would matter in any case for “sovereignty”.
““Your Citizenship definition was defined for you BEFORE your birth, and often based upon your BIRTH.” – you forget the minor detail of naturalized citizens. The point though, was that democratic governments enforce sovereignty for the people. THe CCP…well, they might do it for the people, or they might just be doing it for themselves. Who knows?”
NOT at all, since you admit “who knows”. WHO KNOWS if “democracy” enforce sovereignty FOR the people?? There is no guarantees, no “money back”, no prison time either for those who violate the trust of the people in US/Canada.
““I was preemptively knocking out your argument about Sovereign does something at the “behest” of the people, because People votes. That was your point!” – sorry to break it to you, but you’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve already addressed this in the paragraph above. The people vote to determine who will be in government. Said government will enforce sovereignty at the behest of the people, much as they will build a bridge at the behest of the people, or will enact legislation at the behest of the people. The people’s representatives serve at the behest of the people, so everything they do in an official capacity is at the behest of the people.”
“Behest” is not the same thing as the People exercising it. In fact, it would rather prove that the PEOPLE are INCAPABLE of exercising sovereignty, if someone else must do so for them. You have addressed it with a circular argument of a “voter – agent” theory. In any “agent” type relationship, it is only TRUE agent/behest, IF the people are CAPABLE of withdrawing consent, and can exercise power for themselves. OBVIOUSLY HERE, the PEOPLE will NEVER have the ability to withdraw consent and exercise SOvereignty for themselves. HENCE, this is NOT a “behest”!! It’s a fake!
““Yes, I’m serious. TRUTH does not depend on whether someone speak it or is silent on it.” – well then that’s pretty funny. So if voter turnout in the US or Canada is only in the 50-60-% range, then a government is only representative to that degree? If that’s the case, how “true” is the CCP as China’s government?”
Well, you then just admitted that there are MORE than 1 version of TRUTH in US/CANADA. It’s pretty funny that you insist a 50% agreement is good enough as TRUTH???!
““TRUE best leadership therefore also exist, despite any vote contrary.” – oh oh, are you going into that meritocracy business again? So, how do you define this “true best leadership”? The point here was whether something is testable, verifiable, reproducible. Your selection of your “true best leader” is none of those things; however, the vote itself is all 3, simultaneously. Not a bad party trick.”
I don’t have to go there. I just have to point out that you don’t have a TRUTH to exercise sovereignty based upon the “people’s vote”.
““TRUE “basis” doesn’t equal TRUE and ACCURATE and CORRECT results.” – I’m not feigning confusion; I am genuinely amused and bewildered that you can ask a question to which you had already provided the answer in the negative 2 days ago: (R4000 #180, June 2) (”No one claims to KNOW the TRUTH for certain” – you’ve already acknowledged that “the truth” is unknowable. So at that point, you can either throw in the towel, or aim for the next best thing. And to me, a voting result that is testable, verifiable, and reproducible, is not a bad consolation prize. And maybe you can decide what your point actually is, cuz I sure can’t.”
I’m not throwing in the towel. I don’t see why you keep arguing over TRUTH, when you don’t have any agreement on TRUTH either. “NOT a bad consolation prize”?? Well, let me know when you get your government to give away some land for that “consolation prize”!!
“““FOLLOWING PROCEDURE” is NOT equal to “GETTING the right ANSWER”!!” – but it certainly beats randomly guessing at a “right answer” that you will never truly know.”
non-participation is NOT random guessing, no more than voters choosing NOT to vote. “BEATS” also doesn’t mean the “basis” of sovereignty on “populism” is a universally accepted concept. You are in the minority. The World doesn’t work the way you want it to be.
““If it’s just your personal preference, then I don’t know why you want to debate about it.” -because i believe my “preference” is the correct one, and that your’s isn’t.”
You are in the minority, US/Canada run sovereignty as according to LAWS of treaties, not based upon mere votes. There are talks of referendums for “independence”. it has never happened. Your “preference” is not reality.
““Revive a bunch of dead guys from the past 8000 years, and ask them. It’s HISTORY.” – history is for dead guys, like you say. I’d rather not be enslaved to it, as I’ve said before.”
Then I find it puzzling that you heed “democracy” so faithfully, considering the system was modeled after ancient Greece, Rome, and established by a bunch of dead guys over 200 years ago, and never really worked that well in the past either.
“I would call that “selective prosecution of data”. That’s unscientific.” – for a guy who doesn’t seem to grasp the concepts of testability, reproducibility, and verifiability, I think speaking of what is and isn’t scientific is a bit rich. Besides, devaluing outliers is very much a scientific approach to the evaluation of a data set, and that is akin to what I find to be irrelevant.
I think you should stick to explaining why they are irrelevant, rather than just saying so. That’s your unscientific-ness. and I don’t care about personal comments of my questions. FACT is, you chose to exclude data as “irrelevant”, without much explanation. I ignore your personal insults to me for questioning that.
“““Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve”; “I said nothing about “world helping out” China with Tibetan culture.”” – gimme yet another break. If you stipulate that “all humanity” includes more than CHina, then the world would have a duty to help in said preservation. “It’s not asking for help” – I never said it was; remember, you said the whole world has a role. Now back to what I wrote before: “The irony, of course, is that folks like you get bent way out of shape when some people from the rest of the world start questioning China’s handling of Tibetan culture. So you want (I’ll rephrase here to “will accept”) help….but then…you don’t… So, (when it comes to your interest in Tibet), is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.” You take your time.”
NOPE, you wrote, “… So China wants the land….but the whole world SHOULD help out with the culture bit.” I don’t know why you are neglecting to quote your own 1st sentence on the subject. You obviously wrote that I was implying that CHINA wanted the world to help. I implied no such obligation on the world.
““It’s called “freedom of travel”” – umm, dude, they wouldn’t be going on a vacation. It’d be a one way trip out of Dodge. “What’s wrong with letting people leave?” – nothing, but just goes to show that when push comes to shove, you prefer the real estate to Tibetan people and culture. Just wanted to make sure we’re both clear.”
It’s NOT my preference. It’s the LAW of SOVEREIGNTY! “Real estate” doesn’t go with individuals who want “1 way trip out of Dodge”. Dodge belongs to those who remain citizens.
“BTW, your reference to Canada would qualify as another of those irrelevant points, since we’re talking about CHina. I believe Admin even refers to this in the Intro section of the expansive Tibetan research thread, where he says that comparing achieves very little (my apologies if I’ve misquoted him).”
It’s Relevant as matter of CURRENT laws of the world, which as I said is the basis of “sovereignty”. You are on the other hand, talking about things that are totally unrealistic, NOT based upon REAL world practice. You have not given a real example of where 1 country would give away land to a group who wants to leave, thus you have not considered any real consequences of such a proposal.
“Somehow, I think you are wrong again.” – if China is willing to let her best and brightest leave if that was their wish, that would indeed be a bold and courageous gesture. I’d happily be wrong on that one.”
It already did. 1 whole generation in 1980’s left China, studied in US/Europe, many had permanent residencies or new citizenships, then went back to China.
China is getting all these talents back.
You are wrong, be happy.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Better”
Just because you get to roll the dice, doesn’t make the resulting numbers any more of a “choice” than the guy who didn’t get to roll the dice.
VOTING is a crap shoot.
You don’t get to decide the candidates, you don’t get to know the candidates in any amount of details. Your odds are that someone handed you a coin, and you get to flip it. You have no idea which side is heads, and which side is tails, or what would happen after.
This is supposed to be a “choice”?
Please spare me.
Ironicly, some US cities have laws about breaking an election Tie by a “coin flip”. It makes about as much sense, with much less expense.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:18 am
To R4000:
“Maybe someday voters will actually change the rules about “sovereignty” in US/Canada. But that’s unrealistic speculation, so I see no reason why “vote” would matter in any case for “sovereignty”. – I’m not sure that we will change the “rules” of sovereignty. But over time, a nation’s people may well change how they choose to express their sovereignty. And fortunately for us, if the people so choose, we will have input into that process. Such a privilege is not nearly as accessible for PRC citizens….well, who are we kidding; it’s not at all accessible. So in the current era, China’s expression of sovereignty is what the CCP see fit.
“WHO KNOWS if “democracy” enforce sovereignty FOR the people??” – now that’s just silly. First of all, the “who knows” was in reference to what motivates the CCP; second, there are no guarantees in life besides death and taxes, so if you’re looking for guarantees, that’s not what democracy will supply. What guarantees are there that the CCP will do a good job? The difference, of course, is that if our politicians do poorly, we have the option of turfing them. If the CCP does poorly, well….”who knows”?
““Behest” is not the same thing as the People exercising it.” – well, of course it isn’t. Behest is an authoritative command or request; so no, the command is not the same as the people issuing it…but what’s your point? Is there one?
“In fact, it would rather prove that the PEOPLE are INCAPABLE of exercising sovereignty, if someone else must do so for them.” – so then the populace would be similarly incapable of expropriating funds to build a bridge, since John Q Public isn’t signing the cheque himself; you cannot be serious!?! That’s why it’s called representative government. We choose representatives to do the work for us? Are you being thick, or just pretending for argument’s sake? I suppose it works for me either way. So what are Chinese citizens capable of, since they’re not doing the work themselves either, and they didn’t even get to choose who does it for them?
“HENCE, this is NOT a “behest”” – I really think it’s time for you to consult a dictionary. And you’re not going to need a Webster’s Unabridged; the closest one you can reach should do the trick just fine.
“Well, you then just admitted that there are MORE than 1 version of TRUTH in US/CANADA.” – umm, not so much. If you paid attention to the punctuation, you’ll have noticed the question mark, shown here (?). That, in case you’re wondering, means i was asking a question of you. Now that we cleared that up, the “truth”, as you are keen to call it, of who wins an election is determined in the ballot box. If you’re going to go with “truth”, then lets go with the testable, verifiable, and reproducible kind, as I had suggested long ago. The truth that matters is the one where people who had the right to vote bothered to exercise said right; the “other truth” (ie who did the people REALLY want to win) is unknowable. If you want to fixate on something unknowable, be my guest. BUt that doesn’t jibe with your desire to be scientific (which, btw, you weren’t being anyway).
“non-participation is NOT random guessing” – I’d have to agree. In China, the people have all the non-participation they could ever want. And it’s definitely not the same as random guessing, since the government will tell them what the decree will be on any issue, which does conveniently take the guesswork out of it. Ahh, the virtues of Big Brother.
“US/Canada run sovereignty as according to LAWS of treaties, not based upon mere votes.” – psst…any guesses on who makes the laws, and who signs the treaties? Oh, that’s right, it’s those darned elected representatives again.
“There are talks of referendums for “independence”. it has never happened.” – I don’t want to sound like Charles Liu, but it’s best to avoid the absolutes. In any event, go check out Quebec’s 1995 referendum.
“considering the system was modeled after ancient Greece, Rome,” – fantastic! But I’m living in the system that’s working today; I’m not worried about what a bunch of dead guys did a few thousand years ago, who pledged allegiance to whom, who’s ethnic ancestors inter-married with whom, this dynasty and that dynasty…I could go on, but I imagine you get the picture.
“FACT is, you chose to exclude data as “irrelevant” – alrighty then. Perhaps you can explain why you feel this (Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people. It represents the will of its people, regardless of how that representative actually reflects through its elective processes. (Hence, we still have hereditary monarchies in the world.)) was relevant. I’m not living in a kingdom; you’re not. China isn’t. So how is that relevant. Some people do live in kingdoms (Monaco, I suppose). Your statement might be true for them. Maybe you can show me why that’s worthy of discussion, since you’re so hot to trot about it.
“NOPE, you wrote, “… So China wants the land….but the whole world SHOULD help out with the culture bit.” – but of course it SHOULD, since Tibetan culture apparently belongs to it as well, according to you. That’s a sentiment that comes from the rest of the world, and has no implication whatsoever on whether China wants the help, or asked for the help. I think I advised you before that, when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. I think you’re finding yourself in a similar predicament once again. And despite all the pixels wasted, you still haven’t come close to answering a simple multiple choice question. What’s with that?
“Dodge belongs to those who remain citizens.” – we agree on this. Which is why I said you cared more about Dodge than Tibetans. Perhaps this is not your POV, but many who share similarities to your point of view seem to suggest that Tibetan is one of 56 ethnicities in China, and it is vital that it remain so. Clearly, this seems not to be your perspective on this point. That’s fine with me.
“You have not given a real example of where 1 country would give away land to a group who wants to leave, thus you have not considered any real consequences of such a proposal.” – again, you’ll have to reference Quebec 1995 referendum.
“It already did. 1 whole generation in 1980’s left China, studied in US/Europe, many had permanent residencies or new citizenships, then went back to China.” – I knew of many Chinese citizens who went away on student visas, but that’s hardly the same thing, since they always HAD to go back to China. My impression is that those constitute the majority, and while they were away for a while, they never were allowed to leave for good. I can buy that some immigrants similar moved away with the potential of staying away, but have chosen to go back. Good for them, but I think they constitute the minority.
““Better”” – you know, when you quote ONE WORD, it’s difficult to know what you’re referencing, and what the context was. Please avoid doing that.
“Just because you get to roll the dice, doesn’t make the resulting numbers any more of a “choice” than the guy who didn’t get to roll the dice.” – that would constitute your “apples and oranges” comparison of the day. How is a dice roll comparable to an election? With a dice roll, obviously you have no control over the result (although some expert craps shooters might beg to differ); when you vote, you are actively trying to influence the result, simply by your act of casting the vote.
“VOTING is a crap shoot.” – well, it’s not; but even if it was, I’d prefer having a seat at the table, unlike the status of PRC citizens, who are nothing more than observers.
“You don’t get to decide the candidates” – that’s actually correct for Canada, where the parties hold nomination meetings for choosing their candidates, but it’s only open to party members. BUt that’s not true of the US, where, in the presidential race at least, you had a huge long drawn out process just to come down to McCain and Obama. And I believe many, though not all, states allowed voting not just by party members.
“you don’t get to know the candidates in any amount of details. ” – come on! Someone else pulled this one as well (can’t recall who). In this day and age, can you really claim ignorance of the candidates and their positions on issues, when such info is a mouse-click away?
“Your odds are that someone handed you a coin, and you get to flip it. You have no idea which side is heads, and which side is tails, or what would happen after.” – this would be yet another example of your irrelevant statements. Considering that tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people voted in the last US election, and millions voted in the Canadian one, that is hardly a coin flip.
As for China, people there don’t get the dice, nor the coin. They get to decide the absolute square root of bupkis. So you will equally need to spare me the irrelevant comparisons.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
SKC,
““Maybe someday voters will actually change the rules about “sovereignty” in US/Canada. But that’s unrealistic speculation, so I see no reason why “vote” would matter in any case for “sovereignty”. – I’m not sure that we will change the “rules” of sovereignty. But over time, a nation’s people may well change how they choose to express their sovereignty. And fortunately for us, if the people so choose, we will have input into that process. Such a privilege is not nearly as accessible for PRC citizens….well, who are we kidding; it’s not at all accessible. So in the current era, China’s expression of sovereignty is what the CCP see fit.”
If you can’t change the “rules”, then what’s the point of your “democracy”?? You are the one kidding yourself.
““WHO KNOWS if “democracy” enforce sovereignty FOR the people??” – now that’s just silly. First of all, the “who knows” was in reference to what motivates the CCP; second, there are no guarantees in life besides death and taxes, so if you’re looking for guarantees, that’s not what democracy will supply. What guarantees are there that the CCP will do a good job? The difference, of course, is that if our politicians do poorly, we have the option of turfing them. If the CCP does poorly, well….”who knows”?”
Turfing them hardly gives you more right. They can take your “sovereignty”, but you can only choose the next one to do the same??
“““Behest” is not the same thing as the People exercising it.” – well, of course it isn’t. Behest is an authoritative command or request; so no, the command is not the same as the people issuing it…but what’s your point? Is there one?
“In fact, it would rather prove that the PEOPLE are INCAPABLE of exercising sovereignty, if someone else must do so for them.” – so then the populace would be similarly incapable of expropriating funds to build a bridge, since John Q Public isn’t signing the cheque himself; you cannot be serious!?! That’s why it’s called representative government. We choose representatives to do the work for us? Are you being thick, or just pretending for argument’s sake? I suppose it works for me either way. So what are Chinese citizens capable of, since they’re not doing the work themselves either, and they didn’t even get to choose who does it for them?”
It’s a simple matter of law. You can’t claim they do X at your “behest”, when you never had the power yourself.
““HENCE, this is NOT a “behest”” – I really think it’s time for you to consult a dictionary. And you’re not going to need a Webster’s Unabridged; the closest one you can reach should do the trick just fine.”
You need to consult a law book on the definitions.
““Well, you then just admitted that there are MORE than 1 version of TRUTH in US/CANADA.” – umm, not so much. If you paid attention to the punctuation, you’ll have noticed the question mark, shown here (?). That, in case you’re wondering, means i was asking a question of you. Now that we cleared that up, the “truth”, as you are keen to call it, of who wins an election is determined in the ballot box. If you’re going to go with “truth”, then lets go with the testable, verifiable, and reproducible kind, as I had suggested long ago. The truth that matters is the one where people who had the right to vote bothered to exercise said right; the “other truth” (ie who did the people REALLY want to win) is unknowable. If you want to fixate on something unknowable, be my guest. BUt that doesn’t jibe with your desire to be scientific (which, btw, you weren’t being anyway).”
Why is not “cleared up”, when you were the one asking the question, and I only gave you what you implied? “Testable, verifiable, and reproducible” KIND of truth? I think you just admitted again to MORE than 1 KIND of TRUTH.
Why is it “unknowable”, when you know that only 50% votes? You are purposefully ignoring them. What do you “care about”? just the System or the People’s actual opinions?? Take your time.
““non-participation is NOT random guessing” – I’d have to agree. In China, the people have all the non-participation they could ever want. And it’s definitely not the same as random guessing, since the government will tell them what the decree will be on any issue, which does conveniently take the guesswork out of it. Ahh, the virtues of Big Brother.”
Then you agree that your prior statement of “random guessing” is bunk.
““US/Canada run sovereignty as according to LAWS of treaties, not based upon mere votes.” – psst…any guesses on who makes the laws, and who signs the treaties? Oh, that’s right, it’s those darned elected representatives again.”
Who also agreed that “sovereignty” is based upon “law”, not “vote”. why don’t you try throw them out and change the “rule”? Shows how much “sovereignty” and “vote” you have, doesn’t it??!!
““There are talks of referendums for “independence”. it has never happened.” – I don’t want to sound like Charles Liu, but it’s best to avoid the absolutes. In any event, go check out Quebec’s 1995 referendum.”
Too bad a “VOTE” suppressed a group of people who wanted to be independent. Obviously, you care more about a “VOTE”, than the People who wanted to leave. Give them land already!!
““considering the system was modeled after ancient Greece, Rome,” – fantastic! But I’m living in the system that’s working today; I’m not worried about what a bunch of dead guys did a few thousand years ago, who pledged allegiance to whom, who’s ethnic ancestors inter-married with whom, this dynasty and that dynasty…I could go on, but I imagine you get the picture.”
Nope, you are slave to the system built by a bunch of dead guys. Chinese don’t have allegiance to any dynasties.
““FACT is, you chose to exclude data as “irrelevant” – alrighty then. Perhaps you can explain why you feel this (Sovereigns are implied representatives of all its people. It represents the will of its people, regardless of how that representative actually reflects through its elective processes. (Hence, we still have hereditary monarchies in the world.)) was relevant. I’m not living in a kingdom; you’re not. China isn’t. So how is that relevant. Some people do live in kingdoms (Monaco, I suppose). Your statement might be true for them. Maybe you can show me why that’s worthy of discussion, since you’re so hot to trot about it.”
It’s a general discussion of “sovereignty based upon LAW and history”. You can’t isolate this discussion to EXAMPLES that only you want to talk about. The entire basis for “sovereignty” is what the WORLD lives by, not YOUR definition/preferences.
““NOPE, you wrote, “… So China wants the land….but the whole world SHOULD help out with the culture bit.” – but of course it SHOULD, since Tibetan culture apparently belongs to it as well, according to you. That’s a sentiment that comes from the rest of the world, and has no implication whatsoever on whether China wants the help, or asked for the help. I think I advised you before that, when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. I think you’re finding yourself in a similar predicament once again. And despite all the pixels wasted, you still haven’t come close to answering a simple multiple choice question. What’s with that?”
LEGAL obligation is NOT mere moral obligation. You are playing semantics. I never said “SHOULD”. You implied it on wrong assumptions.
““Dodge belongs to those who remain citizens.” – we agree on this. Which is why I said you cared more about Dodge than Tibetans. Perhaps this is not your POV, but many who share similarities to your point of view seem to suggest that Tibetan is one of 56 ethnicities in China, and it is vital that it remain so. Clearly, this seems not to be your perspective on this point. That’s fine with me.”
People migrate, ethnicities mix/change. There are Hui’s in Tibet, and several other ethnic groups in Tibet. You seem to care too much just for 1 group of people. It’s fine, it’s your bias. We are clear on that.
““You have not given a real example of where 1 country would give away land to a group who wants to leave, thus you have not considered any real consequences of such a proposal.” – again, you’ll have to reference Quebec 1995 referendum.”
I didn’t any land given away to the people who voted for “independence”. Why do you care more about a “vote” that suppressed their wishes? The Tyranny through a VOTE? Interesting excuse.
““It already did. 1 whole generation in 1980’s left China, studied in US/Europe, many had permanent residencies or new citizenships, then went back to China.” – I knew of many Chinese citizens who went away on student visas, but that’s hardly the same thing, since they always HAD to go back to China. My impression is that those constitute the majority, and while they were away for a while, they never were allowed to leave for good. I can buy that some immigrants similar moved away with the potential of staying away, but have chosen to go back. Good for them, but I think they constitute the minority.”
Uh, China can’t give away US permanent residency to Chinese students. It doesn’t work that way. If they don’t want to return, it’s up to the foreign nations to let them stay.
“““Better”” – you know, when you quote ONE WORD, it’s difficult to know what you’re referencing, and what the context was. Please avoid doing that.”
I would think you know you were referring to your “democracy” system.
““Just because you get to roll the dice, doesn’t make the resulting numbers any more of a “choice” than the guy who didn’t get to roll the dice.” – that would constitute your “apples and oranges” comparison of the day. How is a dice roll comparable to an election? With a dice roll, obviously you have no control over the result (although some expert craps shooters might beg to differ); when you vote, you are actively trying to influence the result, simply by your act of casting the vote.”
You have about the same “control”. you can obviously be able to control your movement physically.
““VOTING is a crap shoot.” – well, it’s not; but even if it was, I’d prefer having a seat at the table, unlike the status of PRC citizens, who are nothing more than observers.”
Yeah, I’m sure you would feel more in control as the dice thrower.
““You don’t get to decide the candidates” – that’s actually correct for Canada, where the parties hold nomination meetings for choosing their candidates, but it’s only open to party members. BUt that’s not true of the US, where, in the presidential race at least, you had a huge long drawn out process just to come down to McCain and Obama. And I believe many, though not all, states allowed voting not just by party members.”
Nope, people don’t control the nomination process.
““you don’t get to know the candidates in any amount of details. ” – come on! Someone else pulled this one as well (can’t recall who). In this day and age, can you really claim ignorance of the candidates and their positions on issues, when such info is a mouse-click away?”
Yeah, I’m sure you can believe everything on the internet.
““Your odds are that someone handed you a coin, and you get to flip it. You have no idea which side is heads, and which side is tails, or what would happen after.” – this would be yet another example of your irrelevant statements. Considering that tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people voted in the last US election, and millions voted in the Canadian one, that is hardly a coin flip.”
Irrelevant only that you want to ignore it. Your chances of having your “choice” as result is about the same.
“As for China, people there don’t get the dice, nor the coin. They get to decide the absolute square root of bupkis. So you will equally need to spare me the irrelevant comparisons.”
Coin tosser has no more control over the result as those who merely watch. Go ahead, “verify” that to your “vote” in 100 million.
Why do you care more about a “vote” and LAND, when it obviously suppress the wishes of many in the minority. Aren’t you ignoring the minorities, and NOT giving them land???
June 6th, 2009 at 7:01 am
To R4000:
“If you can’t change the “rules”, then what’s the point of your “democracy”?? You are the one kidding yourself.” – I don’t usually like to tell people to re-read stuff. But if you’re gonna make a point, at least make it against what I actually said, which was “I’m not sure that we will change the “rules” of sovereignty” – whether we will or not is hardly the same as a presumption that we can’t. And choosing not to is also not the same as “can’t”. So I’m afraid the joke’s on you.
“Turfing them hardly gives you more right.” – huh? No idea what you’re talking about, especially since the context was what motivates the CCP, and “guarantees”.
“You can’t claim they do X at your “behest”, when you never had the power yourself.” – first of all, “behest” is a lay term; it may also be a legal term, but I don’t know that since I’m not a lawyer. And since I’m not a lawyer, I was using the term in the lay context, which I already defined for you. There’s nothing that suggests that one can only “behest” someone else to do something if and only if one is otherwise capable of doing it for oneself. For example, at my behest, my mechanic will fix my car, which is something I definitely can’t do; doesn’t stop me from making that authoritative command or request. Now, it seems you’ve wasted many a pixel over the definition of one word, without even trying to address the underlying point. Again, are you being thick, or just pretending to for argument’s sake? Or have you difficulty seeing the forest for the trees? The point is that we have a representative government, whose members we elect, who in turn do our bidding on a whole host of matters big and small. And in China, the decision-makers are responsible to no one. Maybe you can actually address the point, rather than semantics (where, btw, you’re still making no sense).
“Why is it “unknowable”, when you know that only 50% votes?” – how, might I ask, would you “know” what people want when they don’t so indicate by the process of voting?
“You are purposefully ignoring them.” – ummm, nope again. By not voting, those people are choosing not to be counted. That’s not me ignoring them; that’s them choosing to be ignored. Not the same thing.
“What do you “care about”? just the System or the People’s actual opinions??” – I care about the system that allows people who so choose to render an opinion. If people choose not to express their opinion, then their opinion is unknowable. Now, you seem to prefer a system where people can’t express their opinion. Better you than me.
“Then you agree that your prior statement of “random guessing” is bunk.” – yes, you’re right. I should’ve said the first time that CHinese people don’t even get to “randomly guess”; they’re simply force-fed somebody else’s “right answer”…talk about a useless system.
“why don’t you try throw them out and change the “rule”? Shows how much “sovereignty” and “vote” you have, doesn’t it??!!” – if that’s what we the people wanted, then that’s what we’d do. See, in these parts, we can throw them out. In China, not so much…or at all. Oh, and I have 1 vote, in case you’re wondering as you seem to be.
“Too bad a “VOTE” suppressed a group of people who wanted to be independent. Obviously, you care more about a “VOTE”, than the People who wanted to leave. Give them land already!!” – do you know how votes work? Does 50% plus 1 mean anything to you? The vote failed to secure majority support for the question posed. The recourse might be to redefine the question, but in the years since, such an impetus has not been there among Quebecers. Hey, care to remind me when was the last time Tibetans were given a similar choice? Oh, that’s right, never. Now, how do you explain that?
“Chinese don’t have allegiance to any dynasties.”- yet you tried to justify why Tibet belonged to China because of what happened during those dynasties. Quite the waste of time, I might add.
“you are slave to the system built by a bunch of dead guys.” – ummm, the system was initially conceived by a bunch of dead guys, but now is being enacted by some people who are very much alive, including me. And seems like CHina is still enslaved to a system built by one dead guy (ie Mao). And as you say, that’s a system of non-participation by Chinese people.
“The entire basis for “sovereignty” is what the WORLD lives by” – and the world is not mostly constituted of kingdoms. So do you think speaking of a system that affects a decidedly small portion of the world’s people is relevant, or not so much. Come on, only 2 choices…can you handle it?
“You can’t isolate this discussion to EXAMPLES that only you want to talk about.” – neither would I bother with a discussion of examples that only you find interesting.
“LEGAL obligation is NOT mere moral obligation.” – since when did we agree to that distinction? When you said this (““Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve”), there was no definition of the type of obligation. Seems you’re adding stuff after the fact now that you’re in trouble. And with a statement like that, you tell me, “should” the rest of humanity try to help, or “shouldn’t” they? And if not, why not? Okay, two part question, but the first part is again multiple choice with only 2 choices, so try your best, K? And at the end of all of that, we can talk about whether the rest of humanity should help out of a moral or legal obligation. But you’re nowhere near there yet. And it seems like you’re well on your way to digging a deeper hole for yourself.
“You seem to care too much just for 1 group of people” – actually, I’d have the referendum for people living in Tibet, regardless of ethnicity. So you’ve once again assumed poorly. So what do you say? Quebecers were deserving; are Tibetans not? That’s not even multiple choice…there, kept it simple for you.
“I didn’t any land given away to the people who voted for “independence”.” – unfortunately, the people who sought the vote chose poorly in determining the region in question. They wanted the entirety of Quebec, and in that context, not enough people wanted to separate. Perhaps if they chose a different region, such as a part of Quebec, the result would’ve been different. But they didn’t, and the result was what it was. So yet again, can you remind me when Tibetans were last afforded such a vote?
“The Tyranny through a VOTE? Interesting excuse.” – that’s hardly a case of tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, you would claim that everytime you lost a vote…well, perhaps you would. Boy, am I glad I’m not you.
“If they don’t want to return, it’s up to the foreign nations to let them stay.” – that’s neither here nor there. Your point was that many returned to China when they didn’t have to; my point is that some did, but I hardly think it’s a majority.
“I would think you know you were referring to your “democracy” system.” – yes, but what was the point you were making? If I quoted you when you wrote “China”, would that be terribly helpful? If not, then what’s the point of doing it? You tell me.
“You have about the same “control”” – geez louise, dude. Dice roll is random. It doesn’t reflect a singular will, or a collective will; voting reflects the latter. Again, are you pretending to be thick, or is that the real you?
“Yeah, I’m sure you would feel more in control as the dice thrower.” – see above. Apples…oranges…grapefruit….fruitcake.
“Yeah, I’m sure you can believe everything on the internet.” – yet another ridiculous statement. So you acknowledge that you can get detailed information on candidates, if you looked. Then you can hopefully also acknowledge that you can then take that information, and decide what you choose to believe, or not. What’s your point? Once again, is there one?
“Your chances of having your “choice” as result is about the same.” – holy dense as a rock, batman. Are you referring to the US election as a coin flip because it’s either Democrat or Republican? You have plumbed new depths, I must say. Your “point” is patently ridiculous, but just for kicks, I’d like to see a 3 sided American coin (Nader would be the third side), or a 5 sided Canadian one (that’s how many parties were contesting our last election).
“Coin tosser has no more control over the result as those who merely watch” – true. But we’re not coin-tossers. Chinese, however, “get to decide the absolute square root of bupkis.” Your comparison is no more relevant this time as it was the last, and won’t be the next time either.
“Aren’t you ignoring the minorities, and NOT giving them land???” – as i said, in any vote, there will be winners and losers. The point is that they had a chance. Which is exactly 1 more than what Tibetans have had. So once again, why is that? And why is that okay?
“So, (when it comes to your interest in Tibet), is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.” – that question’s been out there for some time. Why so quiet? Cat got your tongue?
June 7th, 2009 at 3:17 am
SKC,
““If you can’t change the “rules”, then what’s the point of your “democracy”?? You are the one kidding yourself.” – I don’t usually like to tell people to re-read stuff. But if you’re gonna make a point, at least make it against what I actually said, which was “I’m not sure that we will change the “rules” of sovereignty” – whether we will or not is hardly the same as a presumption that we can’t. And choosing not to is also not the same as “can’t”. So I’m afraid the joke’s on you.”
Let’s then rephrase it more precisely to your exact words. If you are “NOT SURE” that you will change it, then what’s the point of your “democracy”?? Obviously, your “democracy” has suddenly become “non-verifiable”, non-predictable, when you really wanted to change the system??? Laughable.
““Turfing them hardly gives you more right.” – huh? No idea what you’re talking about, especially since the context was what motivates the CCP, and “guarantees”.”
“Turfing” them is NOT “sovereignty”. You still don’t have any power of “sovereign”. Why do you feign ignorance when the you can’t support your argument any more?
““You can’t claim they do X at your “behest”, when you never had the power yourself.” – first of all, “behest” is a lay term; it may also be a legal term, but I don’t know that since I’m not a lawyer. And since I’m not a lawyer, I was using the term in the lay context, which I already defined for you. There’s nothing that suggests that one can only “behest” someone else to do something if and only if one is otherwise capable of doing it for oneself. For example, at my behest, my mechanic will fix my car, which is something I definitely can’t do; doesn’t stop me from making that authoritative command or request. Now, it seems you’ve wasted many a pixel over the definition of one word, without even trying to address the underlying point. Again, are you being thick, or just pretending to for argument’s sake? Or have you difficulty seeing the forest for the trees? The point is that we have a representative government, whose members we elect, who in turn do our bidding on a whole host of matters big and small. And in China, the decision-makers are responsible to no one. Maybe you can actually address the point, rather than semantics (where, btw, you’re still making no sense).”
It is a legal term, so is “sovereignty”, and so, I don’t know why you use a term that you have no understanding of.
““Why is it “unknowable”, when you know that only 50% votes?” – how, might I ask, would you “know” what people want when they don’t so indicate by the process of voting?”
Well, obviously, as you said, there are more than 1 version of TRUTH, why do you pretend to know TRUTH when you have already admitted that you can’t? Hence, I don’t base “sovereignty” upon any pretend method of TRUTH through voting by 50%. I base it upon LAW!
““You are purposefully ignoring them.” – ummm, nope again. By not voting, those people are choosing not to be counted. That’s not me ignoring them; that’s them choosing to be ignored. Not the same thing.
“What do you “care about”? just the System or the People’s actual opinions??” – I care about the system that allows people who so choose to render an opinion. If people choose not to express their opinion, then their opinion is unknowable. Now, you seem to prefer a system where people can’t express their opinion. Better you than me.”
I guess then you admit you don’t care about the PEOPLE, ONLY the system. If the People don’t “vote, then they don’t matter?? Interesting human rights.
““Then you agree that your prior statement of “random guessing” is bunk.” – yes, you’re right. I should’ve said the first time that CHinese people don’t even get to “randomly guess”; they’re simply force-fed somebody else’s “right answer”…talk about a useless system.”
Why are you on this “right answer” bit? who said anything about “right answer”? “Sovereignty” is based upon LAW, not any 1 version of TRUTH!! Maybe you should stop obsessing over 1 TRUTH. You already admitted that there isn’t 1.
““why don’t you try throw them out and change the “rule”? Shows how much “sovereignty” and “vote” you have, doesn’t it??!!” – if that’s what we the people wanted, then that’s what we’d do. See, in these parts, we can throw them out. In China, not so much…or at all. Oh, and I have 1 vote, in case you’re wondering as you seem to be.”
I don’t see you do it. It’s Just empty talk then. You “could”, but you never did. Self-delusions.
““Too bad a “VOTE” suppressed a group of people who wanted to be independent. Obviously, you care more about a “VOTE”, than the People who wanted to leave. Give them land already!!” – do you know how votes work? Does 50% plus 1 mean anything to you? The vote failed to secure majority support for the question posed. The recourse might be to redefine the question, but in the years since, such an impetus has not been there among Quebecers. Hey, care to remind me when was the last time Tibetans were given a similar choice? Oh, that’s right, never. Now, how do you explain that?”
So you use a VOTE to suppress the freedom of the MINORITY. OBVIOUSLY, there were plenty who wanted to leave Canada. Why don’t you just simply give those who voted for Independent Quebec their own land? “CHOICE”??!! Laughable. That’s not a choice. It’s a public ENDORSEMENT of your suppression of minorities!!
““Chinese don’t have allegiance to any dynasties.”- yet you tried to justify why Tibet belonged to China because of what happened during those dynasties. Quite the waste of time, I might add.
“you are slave to the system built by a bunch of dead guys.” – ummm, the system was initially conceived by a bunch of dead guys, but now is being enacted by some people who are very much alive, including me. And seems like CHina is still enslaved to a system built by one dead guy (ie Mao). And as you say, that’s a system of non-participation by Chinese people.”
“Allegiance” is a different thing than HISTORY, even multiple versions of it!! I may KNOW about Hitler from HISTORY, it’s hardly the same thing as “ALLEGIANCE” to Hitler.
And NO, you don’t have live guys “enacting”, you have guys who you can’t throw out.
““The entire basis for “sovereignty” is what the WORLD lives by” – and the world is not mostly constituted of kingdoms. So do you think speaking of a system that affects a decidedly small portion of the world’s people is relevant, or not so much. Come on, only 2 choices…can you handle it?”
I think that proves my point about you don’t care about MINORITY rights.
““You can’t isolate this discussion to EXAMPLES that only you want to talk about.” – neither would I bother with a discussion of examples that only you find interesting.”
FINE! Don’t reply back to me about your EXAMPLES, and I won’t reply back to you about yours. I’ll show case any example I want on my own, and you can do the same for your example!
““LEGAL obligation is NOT mere moral obligation.” – since when did we agree to that distinction? When you said this (”“Tibetan Culture belongs to all humanity to preserve”), there was no definition of the type of obligation. Seems you’re adding stuff after the fact now that you’re in trouble. And with a statement like that, you tell me, “should” the rest of humanity try to help, or “shouldn’t” they? And if not, why not? Okay, two part question, but the first part is again multiple choice with only 2 choices, so try your best, K? And at the end of all of that, we can talk about whether the rest of humanity should help out of a moral or legal obligation. But you’re nowhere near there yet. And it seems like you’re well on your way to digging a deeper hole for yourself.”
If you can’t understand the difference between LEGAL and MORAL obligations, there is nothing more to talk about on “sovereignty”. OBVIOUSLY, MORALLY, you should give your property to the Native American Tribes, if you feel MORALLY obligated. FEEL FREE!! Don’t put up that “democracy” excuse any more!
““You seem to care too much just for 1 group of people” – actually, I’d have the referendum for people living in Tibet, regardless of ethnicity. So you’ve once again assumed poorly. So what do you say? Quebecers were deserving; are Tibetans not? That’s not even multiple choice…there, kept it simple for you.”
MORALLY, you are obligated to give Quebecers LAND. So, I don’t want to hear your “VOTE” excuse any more. (Since you see no distinction between LEGAL and MORAL OBLIGATIONS!)
““I didn’t any land given away to the people who voted for “independence”.” – unfortunately, the people who sought the vote chose poorly in determining the region in question. They wanted the entirety of Quebec, and in that context, not enough people wanted to separate. Perhaps if they chose a different region, such as a part of Quebec, the result would’ve been different. But they didn’t, and the result was what it was. So yet again, can you remind me when Tibetans were last afforded such a vote?”
There you go again, When are you so up on “LEGAL vs. MORAL obligations”?? Only when it applies to Quebec?
““The Tyranny through a VOTE? Interesting excuse.” – that’s hardly a case of tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, you would claim that everytime you lost a vote…well, perhaps you would. Boy, am I glad I’m not you.”
I would. WHY NOT?!
““If they don’t want to return, it’s up to the foreign nations to let them stay.” – that’s neither here nor there. Your point was that many returned to China when they didn’t have to; my point is that some did, but I hardly think it’s a majority.”
I obviously didn’t say anything about “majority”. IRRELEVANT!
““I would think you know you were referring to your “democracy” system.” – yes, but what was the point you were making? If I quoted you when you wrote “China”, would that be terribly helpful? If not, then what’s the point of doing it? You tell me.”
I believe you were the ONLY one here who used “BETTER”!
““You have about the same “control”” – geez louise, dude. Dice roll is random. It doesn’t reflect a singular will, or a collective will; voting reflects the latter. Again, are you pretending to be thick, or is that the real you?
Fine, you have MILLIONS of people rolling dice at the same time, Really makes a huge difference as to the result! Do I have to spell out statistics for you? Talk about you pretending!
““Yeah, I’m sure you would feel more in control as the dice thrower.” – see above. Apples…oranges…grapefruit….fruitcake.”
Take a look in the mirror. Now you are just doing nothing but personal attacks.
““Yeah, I’m sure you can believe everything on the internet.” – yet another ridiculous statement. So you acknowledge that you can get detailed information on candidates, if you looked. Then you can hopefully also acknowledge that you can then take that information, and decide what you choose to believe, or not. What’s your point? Once again, is there one?
Detailed RUMORS, you mean. Why are you still pretending that you don’t understand my point. Obviously you know that the NET is full of CRAP information!
““Your chances of having your “choice” as result is about the same.” – holy dense as a rock, batman. Are you referring to the US election as a coin flip because it’s either Democrat or Republican? You have plumbed new depths, I must say. Your “point” is patently ridiculous, but just for kicks, I’d like to see a 3 sided American coin (Nader would be the third side), or a 5 sided Canadian one (that’s how many parties were contesting our last election).”
HOT SILLY COW to you, Buddy! Hey, if you want to admit that it’s a coin flip, I don’t really care if it’s 3 sided or 5 sided.
““Coin tosser has no more control over the result as those who merely watch” – true. But we’re not coin-tossers. Chinese, however, “get to decide the absolute square root of bupkis.” Your comparison is no more relevant this time as it was the last, and won’t be the next time either.”
See above Statistics on dice roll, and you own admission about 5 sided coins.
““Aren’t you ignoring the minorities, and NOT giving them land???” – as i said, in any vote, there will be winners and losers. The point is that they had a chance. Which is exactly 1 more than what Tibetans have had. So once again, why is that? And why is that okay?”
“Chance”?? Why give them “chance”, when it’s LAND that the Quebecers want?? Why do you pretend to give them something that they don’t want?? Why is that OKAY??
““So, (when it comes to your interest in Tibet), is it (a) land, (b) people + culture, or (c) both? I guess I should add (d) neither, which should just about cover all permutations.” – that question’s been out there for some time. Why so quiet? Cat got your tongue?”
Who said I’m “quiet”?? Are you delusional? Haven’t you been responding to my posts??
(C).
But I don’t agree with your “MORAL OBLIGATION”, since you use “vote” to excuse why you don’t exercise your own MORAL obligations on giving Quebecers land. Why make up excuses of “votes”?? It’s just a LEGAL excuse of your “system”.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
To R4000:
“If you are “NOT SURE” that you will change it, then what’s the point of your “democracy”?? Obviously, your “democracy” has suddenly become “non-verifiable”, non-predictable, when you really wanted to change the system???” – what on earth are you talking about? I’m “not sure” that we will change it, which means I might, or I might not. Depends on how I (or we the people) feel. The point about “democracy” is that the decision is ours, and we can exercise it if we so choose. How is that non-verifiable yada yada? If you’ve been to law school, as you’ve suggested in other threads, you sure have a problem with making logical sense.
I’ll accept your point about “allegiance”. But this: “you have guys who you can’t throw out” – you know, ask a question X number of different ways, and the answer is the same. We have guys we can throw out, if we so choose. Now the CCP, there’s a bunch of guys you can’t throw out. That’s the example you are looking for, if relevance mattered to you.
“the world is not mostly constituted of kingdoms…I think that proves my point about you don’t care about MINORITY rights.” – goodness me, I hope your clients are availed to slightly better logic in their defense in the courtroom. Pointing out that the world is not mostly constituted of kingdoms means I don’t care about minority rights?!?…I’m sure there should be an objection in there somewhere…can you object to opposite counsel being patently ridiculous? In fact, my pointing that out doesn’t even support the statement that I don’t care about the rights of people living in said kingdoms; it only speaks to the fact that such is not relevant to Canada, the US, nor CHina. Your logic is….interesting.
“FINE! Don’t reply back to me about your EXAMPLES, and I won’t reply back to you about yours.” – now now. If you want to pout like a 5 year old, well, be my guest, as that is your choice, and your prerogative.
“If you can’t understand the difference between LEGAL and MORAL obligations…” – like I said, if you want to add this corollary on after the fact now that you’re busy digging yourself into an ever-deepening hole, that’s fine by me. But you need to make the stipulation first, as I had already suggested; I’ll rephrase in light of your infatuation with further criteria: “should the rest of humanity try to help out of a legal AND/OR moral obligation?” I’m not sure how much simpler I can make it for you.
“MORALLY, you are obligated to give Quebecers LAND” – how do you figure that? They never voted collectively to want it. Seems your understanding of “morally” is a little shaky. BTW, how are those morals of yours holding up wrt Tibet? Taking an absolute back-alley beating, I suspect.
“Since you see no distinction between LEGAL and MORAL OBLIGATIONS!” – again, you read poorly. See paragraph above. First, you have to answer whether we should or not. Then, we can discuss why we should. Those are not the same questions. There, is this so hard? Shouldn’t be.
“When are you so up on “LEGAL vs. MORAL obligations”?? Only when it applies to Quebec?” – huh? So in one paragraph, you say I don’t understand the difference between legal and moral obligations, and that I see no distinction between them. Then in the very next paragraph, I’m “so up on” it? I guess I must be a fast learner. When the people vote to NOT separate, there is no obligation of either kind. You amaze me, and not necessarily in a good way.
“You “could”, but you never did.” – what kind of ridiculous argument is that? So in order for democracy to justify itself, the people must not only have the right to turf out the incumbent government, but they must also exercise it at every opportunity? And you call yourself a lawyer (or at least someone who’s been to law school)? We have the right to, if we so choose. That we might choose not to on some occasions in no way diminishes that right. In fact, that’s the strength of our democracy, and the inherent weakness of China’s system. If that’s the system you support, good on ya, but better you than me.
“Why don’t you just simply give those who voted for Independent Quebec their own land? “CHOICE”??!! Laughable.” – for an apparent lawyer, you don’t read very well. I had already said this: “The recourse might be to redefine the question, but in the years since, such an impetus has not been there among Quebecers.” So if those who voted for independence wanted another vote, using a different definition of what land area was to become independent, that would be their prerogative. I don’t think it’s for the rest of Canada to force upon them a random piece of land that they may not want, as you seem to suggest. You seem to have real difficulty grasping the concept of giving choice to the people, and allowing people to express their will. Good ol’ CCP indoctrination from years past, I suppose. Furthermore, if Quebecers haven’t sought to re-administer the question, it’s hardly for us to force it upon them. What, NOT force-feeding your wishes on someone? I can see that’s a hard concept for the CCP to grasp. So, speaking of choices, can you once again remind me of when Tibetans were last afforded one? You seem oddly silent on questions of this type.
““Turfing” them is NOT “sovereignty”” – the context of the statements to which this refers was about knowing (or not knowing) what motivates the CCP, and how a system can “guarantee” that it will make the “right” decisions. So it’s an irrelevant comparison (which you once again grasped out of thin air), so for that reason, I’m going to ignore it. Unless, of course, you can give it some context. Good luck with that.
“It is a legal term, so is “sovereignty”, and so, I don’t know why you use a term that you have no understanding of.” – I have a plenty good understanding of it in the lay context, which is something you seem to lack. And I didn’t realize this blog was for lawyers only. But if it isn’t, perhaps we can debate “words” on a lay level. Better yet, rather than just debate “words” and “definitions”, perhaps we can actually debate the concept. That, in case you’ve forgotten, is that our government acts at the behest of the people, while the CCP acts at the behest of no one except themselves. How do you like them apples?
“Hence, I don’t base “sovereignty” upon any pretend method of TRUTH through voting by 50%. I base it upon LAW!” – for a lawyer, you seem particularly thick and obstinate about this point. Who makes the laws? Would you like that question open-ended, or should I provide multiple choices? Get back to me anytime.
“If the People don’t “vote, then they don’t matter?? Interesting human rights.” – If people don’t vote, then their opinion on the subject of the vote will not be taken into consideration. So, in China, people CAN’T vote, or there’s nothing they can vote upon. Now that, I’d say, is really fascinating human rights.
“Why are you on this “right answer” bit?” – China’s “right answer” is whatever the CCP deems it to be, no if’s/and’s/but’s. China’s laws are the laws of the CCP, not of the people. If you want truth, there you have it.
“I would. WHY NOT?!” – so every time you’re on the losing end of a vote, you cry “tyranny of the majority”?!? Well, such is your right, I suppose. I suspect yours would be a very unique position.
“I obviously didn’t say anything about “majority”” – here’s a question for you: when I say this (“I hardly think it’s a majority.”), how have I suggested that it was something you said? Do I have to help you with the definition of “I”?
“I believe you were the ONLY one here who used “BETTER”!” – democracy is better. That much is clear. My question to you was: what’s your point? Jeez louise.
“Fine, you have MILLIONS of people rolling dice at the same time,” – dude, we’re voting. How is that rolling the dice? Now, if voters went into the booth, put the candidates’ names into a random generator, then checked off whichever name was spit out, then you have “rolling the dice”; right now, you have nothing, and quite possibly something less. Remind me yet again, what do CHinese or Tibetans have? No dice, no coin, no roll, no vote…bupkis. Seems they have as much as you.
“Apples…oranges…grapefruit….fruitcake…Now you are just doing nothing but personal attacks.” – what are you talking about; fruits, and derivatives thereof. Quite delicious, actually.
“Obviously you know that the NET is full of CRAP information!” – well that’s ironic then. Because many people with your POV love to link to stuff on the net. Perhaps you should inform them of this enlightening fact.
“Why are you still pretending that you don’t understand my point. ” – who’s pretending? I’m merely disagreeing with your point; there’s a huge difference. Just as you can’t believe everything you hear, or read, same applies to the internet. That hardly justifies you saying that you can’t find any information about candidates if one chooses to inform oneself. Speaking of crap, how much information can one get about stuff in CHina? Say, about 6/4, for instance?
“if you want to admit that it’s a coin flip” – and when did I do that? I said “just for kicks”…see? And I preceded that by saying that you have plumbed new depths. Congratulations! Must be dark down there, if not a little damp, and a tad chilly.
“See above Statistics on dice roll, and you own admission about 5 sided coins.” – see, once again, you have failed to read adequately. That’s ok. I’m all for second chances, so fly at’er. And while you’re at it, perhaps you can also share with me how much “choice” Chinese citizens, or Tibetans, get. Once again, you’ve been rather silent on those questions…only the big guy in the sky knows why.
““Chance”?? Why give them “chance”, when it’s LAND that the Quebecers want?? Why do you pretend to give them something that they don’t want??” – must be embarrassing for you, spending the entire post grasping at straws as you’ve been. Quebecers had a chance at the land. And that’s the chance they wanted. What, in your argument, would they have had the chance at? My grade school kid could tell me that you don’t just get a chance; you get a chance at, or for, something. Somehow, that has eluded you.
“Who said I’m “quiet”?”- dude, I didn’t say you’ve been quiet about everything, so simmer down. Who would make such a silly remark? You, I guess. I said you were previously quiet about the point of that paragraph, to which you had been.
“(C)” – ahhh, finally, he speaks (about the point in question, not in general, so don’t get all bent out of shape, K?). I’m happy you answered in that way. Now, in #187, you said this (“If they want to leave, SURE, it’s up to them to get visas, etc.”) and this (“It’s called “freedom of travel”. What’s wrong with letting people leave?”). So while your interest is in both the land, and the people and culture, if it came down to it, you settle for just keeping the former, and forgoing the latter?
June 7th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
“So while your interest is in both the land, and the people and culture, if it came down to it, you settle for just keeping the former, and forgoing the latter?”
The “People and culture” are not my slaves. I can’t “keep” them. Land, on the other hand, can be kept.
“Why so quiet? Cat got your tongue?”
“dude, I didn’t say you’ve been quiet about everything, so simmer down.”
I had enough of your double talk. Obvious from above. Don’t reply back to me any more.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am
To R4000:
“The “People and culture” are not my slaves. I can’t “keep” them.” – fair enough, but my question was whether you would be willing to forgo them.
““Why so quiet? Cat got your tongue?”
“dude, I didn’t say you’ve been quiet about everything, so simmer down.”; “I had enough of your double talk.” – huh? For someone who’s apparently been to law school, your comprehension is questionable. Any average English speaker would’ve realized that my initial remark was in reference to a question I had posed some time ago, which you were reticent to answer till recently. And I think many average English speakers would find your “logic” amusingly illogical.
“Don’t reply back to me any more.” – see, here’s the thing you need to learn about choices. I decide whether I will reply to you or not. You can choose to reply to me or not, for that is your prerogative. Maybe in China, your request makes sense, in some bizarre way; around here, not so much. But as I said before, maybe before you keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, cutting your losses isn’t such a bad idea.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:01 am
SKC,
your arguments are irrelevant to the topic of sovereignty.
Try again.
Why so quiet?
Cat on your 1 liners?
yeah, maybe your arguments are irrelevant, and you don’t have a choice. Maybe you can “choose”, but you don’t. What’s your point?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:06 am
“Quebecers had a chance at the land. And that’s the chance they wanted.”
I didn’t agree with that distinction. Try again.
Cat got your tongue?
Why so quiet?
Maybe you should cut your losses.
Take your time.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:52 am
@SKC and raventhorn4000: Do you think you could italicize the comments you respond to? It requires less processing to see what comment was written by whom that way…
June 8th, 2009 at 4:46 am
To R4000:
well, imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thanks, I guess. Not that I needed it, least of all from you. Back for more, I see. Good on ya.
“your arguments are irrelevant to the topic of sovereignty.”
—- statements are great. But then I could say “yes they are”, and we would find ourselves back in grade school. So if you wanna move forward from there, you’ll have to tell me why you think them to be so, then I can respond adequately. Goes to relevance, your honour…
“yeah, maybe your arguments are irrelevant”
— – since I’m an adult, you’ll have to justify your over-arching statements and generalizations. Actually try to make an argument, perhaps, and as you’ve seen, I won’t be shy about conducting a point-by-point exfoliation of them. Though perhaps from prior experience, you’ve decided to try a less painful approach. Whatever floats your boat, i always say.
“What’s your point?”
—clearly you haven’t been paying attention. Here’s the Cole’s notes for you: (a) sovereignty is to be applied against those without, and not upon those within; (b) sovereignty reflects what the people of the nation want; such “wants” can change. And it’s certainly not enslaved to what happened centuries or millenia ago; (c) representative government and democracy are good things; (d) lack of representation and a lack of democracy are distinctly bad things; (e) Chinese and Tibetans deserve representation, and hopefully someday, some form of democracy; (f) Tibetan culture is worthy of preservation, and CHina shouldn’t worry excessively about where such efforts originate. And if you actually read our recent exchanges, you’ll find that these points are all there, if you only cared to look.
So, what are yours, might I ask? This is what I’ve gleaned so far: (a) because historically, and officially, Tibet has been and currently is a part of China, forever shall she remain; (b) sovereignty is what a government decides, and it’s no problem that the people have no input into that process; (c) lack of representation is fine and dandy; (d) Tibetan culture is up to all humanity to preserve, but all humanity may or may not mean only Chinese people; (e) the internet is full of crap, and no mortal being could possibly glean any useful and truthful information from it, particularly as it pertains to politicians; (f) people don’t deserve to have choices. So, how am I doing so far? Any moves to strike, or requests to redirect?
““Quebecers had a chance at the land. And that’s the chance they wanted.”…I didn’t agree with that distinction. Try again.”
— you have got to be kidding me. That’s not a “distinction”. As I said before, my grade school kid could tell you that you don’t just “get a chance”; you “get a chance to do/acquire something” or you “get a chance at winning/proving something”, as examples. The referendum was the Quebecers’ chance to win the independence of all of Quebec. Remember that hole I mentioned – you’re starting to hit permafrost.
And seriously, if you’ve asked a question that you want answered, and I haven’t done it (sorta like how you were avoiding my question for several days), then by all means call me on it, like I did to you. But it’s juvenile to accuse me of being non-responsive when it’s only been a few hours, and this is my first post since you asked it. But that’s just me…you do what you gotta do.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
SKC,
Nope, your arguments are still irrelevant.
Try again.
I don’t agree with your distinctions and exceptions.
You don’t have a choice in “democracy”.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
SKC,
Cut your losses.
Don’t like your own 1 liners??
Yes, or NO. Well, enjoy it any ways.
That’s all you are going to get from me, since you started these 1 liners.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
@ raventhorn4000
the way you write against one person view is also democracy n you are fully using ur right of view n writing. if you think that there isn´t any choice in ´democracy´ then, it is the CCP´s China. so, if you have courage n think tht you can write anything, then do write against CCP´s China. you will know what is democracy n dictorship.
I think, whoever discuss with this kind of mindset people is like wastess of time n making of foolish oneselves.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@gyami
Things have changed a lot in China. If you can read Chinese by yourself, there were plenty of stuff on Chinese websites and blogs alike, criticizing Chinese government officials and CCP. There were posts right on CCP’s mouthpiece “people.cn”. Chinese leaders also are keen to read those feedback. Wen and Hu conducted their conferences with Chinese netizens on Internet months earlier then President Obama did this year.
Also, China is not a dictatorship. Check out for yourself. Although the government does play a strong hand on public media, their main purpose is to 1) direct public energy to a positive direction, and 2) prevent large scale social unrest at some critical point of time.
Nothing can be forever blocked on Internet nowadays.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
It is certain true, China government has to play a cat-and-mouse game with western activists & media folks. I think those media folks are still banned from Tibet until they learn how to do balanced reporting.
“Twitter unblocked, for now”
http://www.pekingduck.org/2009/06/twitter-unblocked-for-now/
“Let’s see how long it lasts. I remember all the jubilation over the past five years whenever the government unblocked Blogspot and later youtube, and each time it turned out they were playing cat and mouse. I’m still not sure about Flickr; I can’t get on it right now but some friends say it’s loading, albeit very, very slowly. Blogspot still seems down as well. Just another nuisance designed to wear people down, something the party is good at.
Update: Wow, Bing.com is unblocked again, too. Somebody’s feeling mighty generous today.”
June 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
so, if you have courage n think tht you can write anything, then do write against CCP´s China. you will know what is democracy n dictorship.
gyami,
People in West used the right and privilege to ask the money they dont deserve from government, even the money they ask belongs to their children and grandchildren.
It is also part of democracy. Do you like it ?
June 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
wht do you mean by that, if it belongs to their children, then ok? wht do you think of CCP, it has n been exploiting minorities miniral wealth and being transfered to eastern coast of n to Han-chauvanist.
How do you know n prove that Western has asked for money which doesn´t deserve to them. In democratic societies: whether you are right or wrong, you can raise question n clear it. But, in CCP China, forget of raising wrong question, even, if you raise a right one, you are subjects to be heavily doubt or punish.
So, this is ur country……….the great Han- chauvanist; closed minded and always thinking I am right and others were wrong. Self-centric n always opportunist n suppressing the poors even, it is one own nationality and other ethnic minorities.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
How do you know n prove that Western has asked for money which doesn´t deserve to them. In democratic societies: whether you are right or wrong, you can raise question n clear it. But, in CCP China, forget of raising wrong question, even, if you raise a right one, you are subjects to be heavily doubt or punish.
gyami,
I guess the unborn are not able to raise the question yet, therefore it is OK that people borrow the money they have no intention or plan to pay…..
Wait a moment, who will pay those money ?
June 8th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
@gyami
Instead of sitting in a comfortable environment in western countries, complaining Han Chinese so and so, I would strongly urge you to return to Tibet and extend a helpful hand to your native brother and sister …
the sooner the better, otherwise, Tibet may not need your exiles when the coming generations equipped with better education and knowledge with a much more prosperous China in the background.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:31 am
The report is very well researched, presenting lots of noval and insightful views. CCP’s policy was not successful as it intended to be and some important lessons must be learnt.
But Dalai can’t get his dirty hands white washed. The CCP’s policy is reactive to Dailai in a power struggle against him.
Without Dalai’s stirring up the CCP could have been softer. As long as he lives Tibet will never have peace. Fortunately that day is not far away.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Shane,
Two questions
1) Why does it matter where this fellow is commenting from, or in what kind of surroundings? A forum is for exchange of ideas, and the idea is the same idea regardless of who says it from where.
2) Imagine that a hypothetical commentator who likes to complain publicly about Chinese government policies in Tibet. Do you suppose that such a person could move to Tibet and comfortably continue this commentary without fear of official reprisals? Would it be a benefit or a detriment if that commentator decided that he or she loves Tibet so much that he or she will give up his or her other citizenship in order to become a citizen of the PRC?
June 9th, 2009 at 2:40 am
@Otto Kerner
Thanks for asking these interesting questions. I am afraid I am unable to answer them line by line since they are a little complicated. In general, my earlier recommedation draws from my own experience living both inside and outside China, and my expereince working in urban and country setting, so I regard my view is somewhat balanced.
When I live in an urban setting, I often hear city people laughing at and looking down at people from country-side, they complain about the terrible situation there (you name it) and the incompetency of local officials in the country side. During the 80s’, I spent several summers helping my relatives running a small manufacturing business (so called Town-and-village Enterprises in China), I was the only one there flucent in writing as well as a little bit spoken English. I did what I could to help. At the begining, the local officials (many of them did not even have high school education) were exactly like what citiy people describe, but they were pretty eager to learn, even asked me to give lectures in the evenings. I shared them with what I knew or partially understood on things they were interested in. I was still a college student back then. That experience changed my view towards country-side completely. I saw the greatness in those folks. When people are so motivated to improve their own lives, nothing could really stop them. Sure, some city people still laugh at them, but several years later, city people became jealous: country-side people start to build multi-story houses for their families and some even could afford to travel aboard …
Years later, I got chance to working abroard (mostly in US). I saw the similar kind of attitude from western countries towards China plus ideological dimension … but Chinese continue their modernazation work regardless what they heard .. and you may see what is the situation right now. On the ideology side, China is still wide open (that is from political philosopher Daniel Bell) and actually pretty open-minded to explore new ideas.
Fundamentally, the exile of 14th Dalai Lama in 1959 was a subplot of Cold War geo-politics. It was not the result of an ethnic conflict or prosecution. Han people see Tibetans as brother and sisters and that is truely from our hearts. The best way to start a political reconcilation is to drop politics and ideology difference all together … once you put down those man-made grudge, things will just happen like magic. The relation between Taiwan and mainland China is a good example.
There are already many exile Tibetans living within Tibetan region. As far as I knew, some finally settled down there, enjoying college or English teaching jobs etc, some stayed for a year or two. The rule of thumb is to refrain yourself from participating any activity that is politically sensitive. I do know in one case one exile Tibetan eventually spent some time in jail and later was sent back to US.
My recommendation is to go there, lend a helpful hand and do something productive. And then, maybe your personal view about Tibet and China will eventually adjust once you experience things on the ground.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:45 am
“the way you write against one person view is also democracy n you are fully using ur right of view n writing. if you think that there isn´t any choice in ´democracy´ then, it is the CCP´s China. so, if you have courage n think tht you can write anything, then do write against CCP´s China. you will know what is democracy n dictorship.”
Merely talking about it certainly doesn’t make any country more “democratic”. And since none of the “voters” want to change anything in their “system”, how is that any different??
Get real! The whole point of government is to use “carrot or stick” to make the populous docile.
Democratic people are more docile than most. They whine a lot more perhaps, but that’s about it. Just a lot of HOT AIR!!
June 9th, 2009 at 3:31 am
To R4000:
“Nope, your arguments are still irrelevant.”
— I am truly impressed. You possess the reasoning capacity of a pre-schooler. When you ask a pre-schooler something, the answer can often be “because…” and nothing more. When I ask you to explain why my arguments are supposedly irrelevant, I get a similar response. Most interesting indeed.
“Don’t like your own 1 liners??”
— I love those one liners, which is why I use them. The difference between you and me (well, thankfully one of many) is that I use those one liners to punctuate a point; you use them in isolation, like some guy on a street corner muttering to himself. But hey, here’s another one liner you can try on for size: whatever floats your boat. And here’s another: if the shoe fits…
“That’s all you are going to get from me”
—dude, I wasn’t getting much more from you even when you were trying. So this is par for the course for you.
“And since none of the “voters” want to change anything in their “system”…”
—you seem to have a real problem distinguishing between people who choose not to change their system and people who can’t change their system even if they wanted to.
June 9th, 2009 at 4:00 am
@raventhorn (#217):
“Get real! The whole point of government is to use “carrot or stick” to make the populous docile.
Democratic people are more docile than most. They whine a lot more perhaps, but that’s about it. Just a lot of HOT AIR!!”
I don’t want to fulfill Godwin’s law here by mentioning who said it, but this kind of talk reminds me of the quote “typische demokrat.”
June 9th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Henry Louis Mencken
June 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)
June 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“[D]emocracy gives [the beatification of mediocrity] a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world – that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters – which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy.”
Mencken said:”the common man is a fool”
June 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Ah, Mencken, what a fascinating madman. I knew I had seen him before somewhere. As Zompist writes:
“A genteel subcategory of hierarchs is the antidemocrat– generally a cultivated man of leisure, who does not scruple to disparage the “mass-man” and lament that he can vote. Wills’s book provides a brief tour, highlighting Thoreau, H.L. Mencken, and Albert Jay Nock, an early inspiration for William F. Buckley (and thus an influence on American conservativism).
It’s hard not to smile at the educated misanthrope, so toad-fatuous in his own self-congratulation, so gleefully vicious toward his fellow humans. One smiles less at (say) Nock’s expressions of sympathy for the Final Solution (“Thinking over Hitler’s antisemitism, one is forced to admit… that the Nazis could not have carried their program through… without clearing the Jews out of Germany.”), or at Mencken’s insistance that “the Negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience [to] the stronger and more intelligent white man”. What keeps these people from real evil is not much more than fastidiousness: they don’t like to dirty themselves with mere politics.”
One smiles less… Indeed.
http://www.zompist.com/predic.htm
June 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Or the enlightened US Supreme Court which in 1 generation upheld the 14th amendment for minorities’ rights against discrimination, but then also upheld the race based “Chinese Exclusion Act” until WWII.
There is no rhyme or reason to who the “voters” would choose to hold up or to strike down.
It remains a mystery of Convenient Conscience that they would cry over a deathrow immate, but whip a thief.
Thus, I distrust all such men who insist that they are fighting the cause of the common man. For certain, they only do so in their convenience of money and publicity.
while the Common Man has simple needs and motives, they are at least honest in their ways.
Educated Democrats, on the other hand, Only succeeded in “elections”, because they learned to manipulate the Common Man to obedience.
Such skills require years of scheming and plotting, and complete devoidance of any moral guilt. Afterall, how can any man of ordinary conscience learn to speak with so many double speak and white lies??
June 10th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Shane,
I think you make a good point that time spent on the ground is sure to give us a clearer understanding of nuances and can even result in major changes to our thinking. Speaking for myself, I wish I had had the opportunity to live in Tibet for an extended period … maybe someday I will. However, I would hesitate before urging someone else to move somewhere, not knowing their individual situation and the tradeoffs involved.
“The best way to start a political reconcilation is to drop politics and ideology difference all together … once you put down those man-made grudge, things will just happen like magic.”
Is “dropping political difference” possible without one side conceding to the other, or both sides making concessions? That’s not an easy thing for people to do.
“Han people see Tibetans as brother and sisters and that is truely from our hearts.” Unfortunately, I can’t help but wonder if this is a genuine sentiment for most people or just a politically correct assertion that is assented to. I mean, I certainly believe that you feel that way genuinely from your heart.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:37 am
““Han people see Tibetans as brother and sisters and that is truely from our hearts.” Unfortunately, I can’t help but wonder if this is a genuine sentiment for most people or just a politically correct assertion that is assented to. I mean, I certainly believe that you feel that way genuinely from your heart.”
Unfortunately, I think rest of the world view Han Chinese with much racism than Chinese toward them.
Tibetans, particularly those in exile, are deeply sectarian, and frankly view the whole Tibetan issue as more about “too many Han Chinese” in Tibet. I doubt they would be satisfied with any solution unless all “Han Chinese” are gone from Tibet. There is hardly any talk of “tolerance” or “co-existence”.
Riot in Tibet is demonstrative of that kind of racism. I mean, if it is about “against the CCP”, the Tibetans would have protested like the 6/4 students, or at most went after police officers or government buildings . But NO, they went around targetting “Han Chinese” shops, and any one who “looked like Han Chinese” (including a few Tibetans who dressed a little too much like Han Chinese.)
Some in the West overlook the overt nature of some anti-Chinese racism in the world, and blame it all as “unhappiness with the CCP” if they could.
Give me a break. History of “Yellow Peril” was also justified as a defense on political grounds, or the fear of “take over”. But we all know it now as SIMPLY RACISM against Chinese.
*The West now has given that infectious disease of anti-Chinese racism to some Tibetans, and given them the same fear of “take over”.
Even assigning a newly invented phrase, “Cultural Genocide”.
Yeah, like that doesn’t sound like another version of “yellow peril”, except this time, it’s the “Han Chinese Peril” in Tibet.
Once again, too many Chinese are moving to some place. And there is great much ado to talk about it. Petitions to be made, Mobs of anti-Chinese rioters, much like the Mobs of White miners who killed a bunch of Chinese coolies who supposedly took their jobs.
and GREAT celebrities, much as in the old days, will display themselves to testify to the evils of the “Han Chinese” who are soulless and take away jobs, from the God fearing Buddhists who are too naive to compete with the Devilish Chinese workers.
*I have seen it all before from History.
There is nothing new under the Sun, not even those who clamor to speak as if they have found something new. They have merely forgotten, too much.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:51 am
raventhorn,
The question of whether (some) Tibetans dislike the Hans more than the Hans dislike them (if at all) is a different question than the “brothers and sisters” thing.
Also, your implication that the only reason Tibetans might have negative attitudes toward Han people is because of contact with the West is kind of … well, racist.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:08 am
@Otto Kerner: Before you get into a lengthy debate with a certain somebody, consider the question: Do you NOT comprehend that basic nature of “RACISM”!!! 😉
For more, see this:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/06/04/on-my-way-to-school-i-saw-beautiful-flowers
June 10th, 2009 at 4:15 am
@Otto Kerner
I agree there is a strong sense of “dislikeness” towards ordinary Han people by some Tibetan exiles. One example is Woeser if I have to call name.
Such “dislikeness”, I think, is a psychology condition derived from a deep ideological divide, not much based on their own person-to-person experience.
So we need to trace the source of ‘dislikeness” in order to solve a special kind of prejudice, should such prejudice based on economical reasons, culture, ethnic history or ideology divide
In my previous post, I had an example of “dislikeness” from city people towards rural people, and another example of “dislikeness” from western people towards Chinese (to be frank).
I spent a period of my childhood living in country-side, so there was not much such culture prejudge inside me, still that prejudice was finally removed when years later I went to work with some country folks as an adult. So person-to-person contact is extremely important to establish human connection.
City people dislike rural folks mostly out of economical reasons, so once rural folks improved their living standard and education (mostly former), you can observe a kind of reverse psychology reaction from city people. Now, you can also see a different kid of reverse psychology reaction from many western people.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:51 am
To R4000:
“Riot in Tibet is demonstrative of that kind of racism”
— did you give even a passing glance at the report that Admin provided, courtesy of Khechog?
June 10th, 2009 at 11:28 am
“did you give even a passing glance at the report that Admin provided, courtesy of Khechog?”
I have read similar reports in the past about the “problem of the Chinese Coolies” in US and Canada.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@ shane
Han chinese came to Tibet in 1951, in the name of liberation, where within 2-3 months forty thousand PLA arrived and started ruling. So, it is natural that native people will of course not like outsider. Till 1950, it was very clear that, there were not Han chinese settled and ruling Tibetans except some traders. Besides, that even the Ambans, which was posted in Lhasa during Qing Dynasty were only with minimal securities. So, it is and will natural that, native will not like it.
Here is the question: what you will do, if your Han Chinese brother(s) will come into your house and started ordering that, ‘You are poor, you are not develop, you need money, you need modernisation’ and like this start ruling you and your family.
Last year protests in Tibet shows, it was not only the Exiled Tibetans even the Tibetans in TAR, Amdo n Kham were not happy under Han Chinese. The forum where, we are discussing comes from the ‘3.14 report’ written by Beijing scholars and clearly shows that local Tibetans were not happy under Han Chinese, though how much one area is developed or brought economics. Here, now you can’t blamed it on Exiled or Westerner, the Report is written by Beijing Han Chinese.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Otto,
“Also, your implication that the only reason Tibetans might have negative attitudes toward Han people is because of contact with the West is kind of … well, racist.”
Hardly “racist”. I do not imply that Tibetans by race are gullible or racist. In fact, I have stated that there was simply result of causation.
It is obvious from even the terms like “Cultural Genocide”, and stated goals of the Tibetan Exiles, and the criticism against Chinese in Tibet, that all of these characterization of Chinese in Tibet are very much racist, and similar to the “Yellow Peril” propaganda conducted in US and Canada.
*Your argument on the other hand, is akin to a logic, that anyone who calls a White Supremist “racist” is also racist himself. Frankly, that’s ridiculous.
I accuse these campaigns of propaganda against Chinese as “Racist”, NOT people by their birth.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Unhappiness is all over the world. I can find 20 homeless persons in downtown DC and all of them will gripe about something.
Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.
The fact that such racial targeting happened suggests some other indoctrination of propaganda. (since obviously, Tibetans are not born with racial hatred of Han Chinese).
(or perhaps, hatred of CCP has implied itself into a racial hatred of all Han Chinese?)
*But I would again, point to the indoctrination through the notion of “Cultural Genocide”.
The term is loaded heavily with racial connotations.
You might as well attach “Tibet for Tibetans” slogan.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
It’s deep in the style of propaganda, when an socio-economic report is being used by a separate report to justify race targeting riots.
Oh yes, poor people naturally express their unhappiness by beating up people of other race! right!
June 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@tenpa #232
I understand your argument. The best way going forward is to continue Tibet’s development through the hardwork of Tibetans. That way, Tibetans can feel proud of themselves. It will help make ethnic relation more balanced and healthy. During that process, Tibet definitely needs the full support from a prosperous China as well as oversea Tibetans.
Keep making complaints won’t help anything.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Oh complaints will “help”, DL will get more money, and then, and then, well, CIA trusts him with the welfare of Tibetans to spend that money wisely.
That says everything doesn’t it??
June 11th, 2009 at 12:53 am
raventhorn,
You have misunderstood my argument. When I said, “Also, your implication that the only reason Tibetans might have negative attitudes toward Han people is because of contact with the West is kind of … well, racist” I meant that you are treating racism as something which is created and spread only by white people. Thus, it is a racist anti-white attitude.
“The fact that such racial targeting happened suggests some other indoctrination of propaganda”
I don’t think that’s the case at all. People can leap to such conclusions by themselves and they do all the time when they are upset about something.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Shane,
“Keep making complaints won’t help anything.” This is the false dichotomy that you keep coming back to. Why not improve Tibet by the hard work of Tibetans and complain at the same time, if there’s something to complain about?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:10 am
To R4000 #231:
so did you read Khechog’s translated report, even in passing, or didn’t you?
#234:
“Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”
— and neither did this happen during 3/14. Most Tibetans weren’t rioting.
“since obviously, Tibetans are not born with racial hatred of Han Chinese”
—but as the report suggests, that may have changed based solely on Tibetan experiences and the circumstances of the last 5 decades, without having to invoke propaganda of any form as being contributory.
To Otto #239:
excellent point. How do you improve anything if you don’t make your grievances known? Especially when the things you seek to improve can’t be accomplished merely by self-improvement.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Otto,
Terms like “Cultural Genocide” are obviously loaded with racist innuendos.
Anyone who has studied history of racism would know that this kind of “Creeping invasion by civilians” argument is nothing but pure racist paranoia.
I don’t know who said it first, I don’t care. It’s still racist.
But the fact that the West has spent much resources to propagandize these scenarios and arguments is evidence of Western racism in this argument.
So get it straight: The propaganda is racist on its face. Those in the West who spread these are therefore racist. NOT the other way around.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
SKC,
“so did you read Khechog’s translated report, even in passing, or didn’t you?”
Define “reading”. Did you “read” the Canadian laws, in “passing”? Obviously, you have different notion of “reading” than I do, judging from your “reading” of the laws.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
SKC,
“— and neither did this happen during 3/14. Most Tibetans weren’t rioting.”
That’s a contradiction. You obviously admit that SOME race riot did happen, why is this “NEITHER” now?
“—but as the report suggests, that may have changed based solely on Tibetan experiences and the circumstances of the last 5 decades, without having to invoke propaganda of any form as being contributory.”
I see no such “suggestion”. Unhappiness does not “suggest” race targetting.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Reading for SKC,
“…This report is only the reflection of a merest glimpse, and such perspectives can in no way cover all of the issues facing Tibetan areas.”
June 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Otto,
““The fact that such racial targeting happened suggests some other indoctrination of propaganda”
I don’t think that’s the case at all. People can leap to such conclusions by themselves and they do all the time when they are upset about something.”
Simple Fact: Most Tibetans didn’t riot, those who did riot targetted Han Chinese persons and businesses.
If it is truly random motives (leap to conclusions), one would expect to see RANDOM targetting.
Added, there were evidence of coordination and directions in the targetting.
All of that suggests outside influence to achieve the race based riot.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Otto,
Worse than targetting Han Chinese in Tibet, it is fact that Tibetan youth gangs went around Lhasa targetting Muslim Hui Chinese communities during the riot. (reported by Western reporters)
That simply suggests NO political motives at all, but a purely racist motive, based upon a perceived Hui Chinese cooperation with Han Chinese.
and it’s not like Hui Chinese in Tibet have been beneficiaries of corrupt official policies. There are no evidence that the Hui’s benefited in any way other than their own hard work.
June 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
raventhorn,
I think that the reason Tibetan rioters attacked Hui people is that they were perceived as outsiders who were likely to be loyal to the Chinese state. The category of “enemy civilian” is more or less universal among human groups, even if it’s no longer useful and is basically atavistic at this point. I don’t approve on any attacks on civilians, but it’s not surprising that it does happen from time to time.
Basically, I think that there’s no question of “why rioters attacked not only Hans but also Huis”, because my guess is that Tibetans don’t really see them as being two different groups. In Tibetan, “[Han] Chinese” is “gyanag” and “Hui Chinese” is “Muslim gyanag“.
I would describe the attacks on both groups as both a “racist motive” and also a “political motivation”. However, as a political maneuver, the attacks were extremely counterproductive, in addition to being unconsionable.
June 13th, 2009 at 2:55 am
Otto,
The fact that both Han and Hui are perceived as 1 group is rather racist in itself.
If some Tibetans cannot even appreciate that basic difference, then the problem is far more than the Han Chinese policies in Tibet.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Yes, I think it’s obvious that there are some problems in Tibet other than just the government’s policies. No, I don’t think it’s racist to see the Hui and Han as part of the same group. Some people would say that Northern Han are different from Southern Tang people … is it racist to say that they are all Han people? It’s just a different way of looking at things.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:10 am
To R4000:
“Define “reading”. Did you “read” the Canadian laws, in “passing”?”
— Reading = seeing the words, looking at them, and digesting what you just looked at. I take it you’re stuck after the first step, and on a good day, maybe the second.
I think I’ve read a lot more on Canadian law than you ever will. And I think I’ve read a lot more of this report than you ever will as well…which, granted, isn’t saying much.
“That’s a contradiction. You obviously admit that SOME race riot did happen, why is this “NEITHER” now?”
—listen, I realize English is your second language (as it is mine, incidentally) so you deserve some latitude; but sometimes you ask a lot. You said :”“Most people don’t go around ….” – to which my response was “Most Tibetans weren’t rioting.” We agree that SOME people were rioting; but it’s simply disingenuous to suggest that MOST people were.
“I see no such “suggestion”. Unhappiness does not “suggest” race targetting.”
—I realize that you rarely see much of anything, but somehow we must carry on. The point I was responding to was that Tibetans may have developed a dislike of Han CHinese, rightly so or not, based solely on their own experiences, and without the need for any of the “propaganda” business you like to invoke. So while they are not born to dislike CHinese, they can certainly develop such sentiments without outside help. Why is it that you cannot respond to a point directly, but choose instead to obfuscate by going off on tangents at almost every turn? Is that a method that serves you well in court?
“such perspectives can in no way cover all of the issues facing Tibetan areas.”
—yes indeed. And the infatuation with propaganda theories would be one such issue.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Otto,
If Northern Han and Southern Tang people (I’m not quite sure what “Southern Tang people” you are talking about) call themselves “Han People”, then what’s wrong with other people calling them all “Han”?
If Hui people don’t call themselves “Han”, IT IS racist when someone else choose to classify them as some other ethnic group!
June 13th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
SKC,
Don’t bother projecting your own ignorance onto other people. Your conclusions (and readings) are purely your fantasies as your understanding of the law.
And as for your English, was it so hard for you to make your statement clear in the 1st place? Note to yourself, your own explanation of your sentence didn’t include “Neither did it happen…” Glad you removed the contradiction, as I showed to you.
“—I realize that you rarely see much of anything, but somehow we must carry on. The point I was responding to was that Tibetans may have developed a dislike of Han CHinese, rightly so or not, based solely on their own experiences, and without the need for any of the “propaganda” business you like to invoke. So while they are not born to dislike CHinese, they can certainly develop such sentiments without outside help. Why is it that you cannot respond to a point directly, but choose instead to obfuscate by going off on tangents at almost every turn? Is that a method that serves you well in court?”
Well obviously you refuse to see my response to your “point”. Once again, I see no indication or “suggestion from the report” (which was in your statement), for supporting your “point”. Why bring up the “report”, when you have nothing from the “report” to support your assertion????
What have you been “reading”?? if you can’t even provide any evidence from the “report”??
Why don’t you stop going off “tangent” from your original assertion??
“—yes indeed. And the infatuation with propaganda theories would be one such issue.”
If you have a better explanation for CAUSE of the “racial targeting”, I’m ALL EARS!!
No??
Cat got your tongue??
June 14th, 2009 at 1:50 am
raventhorn,
So, in your opinion, if a Cantonese person says he is not a Han but actually a Tangzu or Guangdongzu person, or if a Hakka person describes herself as Kejiazu rather than Hanzu, it would be racist to describe him or her as a Han?
June 14th, 2009 at 1:53 am
To R4000:
“was it so hard for you to make your statement clear in the 1st place? Note to yourself, your own explanation of your sentence didn’t include “Neither did it happen…””
—dude, believe you me, the statement was perfectly clear the first time. The comprehension of the reader, perhaps not so much.
““Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”
— and neither did this happen during 3/14.”
—which exactly means that most people did not go around during 3/14 beating up people etc etc. And I had already repeated that point the first time around, by following up with saying “most Tibetans weren’t rioting”. Yet here I am, still explaining it to you. Go figure. Like I said, this needn’t be about English. But if you want some of that on the side, I’m game.
“Once again, I see no indication or “suggestion from the report” (which was in your statement), for supporting your “point”
—the report is about the issues that have affected Tibetans, and the genesis of their resultant grievances. It was not about the corrupting of Tibetan minds by outside propaganda, which seems to be your point. Your assertion seems to be that, without “propaganda”, Tibetans would be happy as clams. The report would suggest otherwise. My point was that Tibetans have legitimate grievances without the need to be stoked up by outside influences, as suggested by the report. There is nothing to specifically refute the influence of propaganda because it’s hardly even mentioned in the report. So if you want to talk about the influence of propaganda, it’s certainly not based on your reading of this report. Now, this report is admittedly not exhaustive. If you’re invoking some other report, then say so. But if you want to discuss this report, then “propaganda” has no role (which must disappoint you, since that’s among your favourite subjects.)
“Why bring up the “report”, when you have nothing from the “report” to support your assertion????”
— my assertion is, as I’ve said many times, that Tibetans, through their circumstances of the last 5 decades, have much reason to be dismayed in Chinese society. This simmering anger, rightly so or not, spilled over on 3/14. It’s actually not my assertion; it’s that of the report. So would you like me to cut/paste the entire report for you? Or perhaps just the conclusions and recommendations section?
““…This report is only the reflection of a merest glimpse, and such perspectives can in no way cover all of the issues facing Tibetan areas.” (R4000 #244)
“—yes indeed. And the infatuation with propaganda theories would be one such issue.” (SKC #250)
—just so I can help you catch up, the bottom line is that the report cannot cover propaganda theories, though it does not specifically discount their legitimacy.
“If you have a better explanation for CAUSE of the “racial targeting”, I’m ALL EARS!!”
—I would try reading the report. Or if you want just the quick hits, try the conclusions.
“No?? Cat got your tongue??”
—dude, it seems pretty pathetic to try to accuse me of avoiding your question, when this is my first post on the blog since you posted it. When I accused you of same, it was after 2 days of back and forth whilst you were apparently avoiding a question I asked and repeated several times. Since there’s no IP on these, feel free to use them as you please. But, omg, at least try to use them in a reasonable context, lest you do injustice to what are otherwise perfectly good one-liners.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:06 am
Otto,
“So, in your opinion, if a Cantonese person says he is not a Han but actually a Tangzu or Guangdongzu person, or if a Hakka person describes herself as Kejiazu rather than Hanzu, it would be racist to describe him or her as a Han?”
Yeah, OK, that’s an interesting HYPO, and that’s about it, a HYPO.
Of course, I have never heard of “Tangzu or Guangdongzu”.
I have heard of “Kejia”, but not “Kejiazu”.
I don’t know what reality you are basing these HYPOs on.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:15 am
SKC,
““was it so hard for you to make your statement clear in the 1st place? Note to yourself, your own explanation of your sentence didn’t include “Neither did it happen…””
—dude, believe you me, the statement was perfectly clear the first time. The comprehension of the reader, perhaps not so much.
Dude, good enough that your corrected yourself. Don’t try to cover it up now.
“““Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”
— and neither did this happen during 3/14.”
—which exactly means that most people did not go around during 3/14 beating up people etc etc. And I had already repeated that point the first time around, by following up with saying “most Tibetans weren’t rioting”. Yet here I am, still explaining it to you. Go figure. Like I said, this needn’t be about English. But if you want some of that on the side, I’m game.”
Dude, Yawn….
““Once again, I see no indication or “suggestion from the report” (which was in your statement), for supporting your “point”
—the report is about the issues that have affected Tibetans, and the genesis of their resultant grievances. It was not about the corrupting of Tibetan minds by outside propaganda, which seems to be your point. Your assertion seems to be that, without “propaganda”, Tibetans would be happy as clams. The report would suggest otherwise. My point was that Tibetans have legitimate grievances without the need to be stoked up by outside influences, as suggested by the report. There is nothing to specifically refute the influence of propaganda because it’s hardly even mentioned in the report. So if you want to talk about the influence of propaganda, it’s certainly not based on your reading of this report. Now, this report is admittedly not exhaustive. If you’re invoking some other report, then say so. But if you want to discuss this report, then “propaganda” has no role (which must disappoint you, since that’s among your favourite subjects.)”
NOTHING SUGGEST RACIAL TARGETING in the report. That’s the whole POINT!! Why are you going on and on about the report when you can’t even find anything relevant about the “RACIAL targeting” in the report?
““Why bring up the “report”, when you have nothing from the “report” to support your assertion????”
— my assertion is, as I’ve said many times, that Tibetans, through their circumstances of the last 5 decades, have much reason to be dismayed in Chinese society. This simmering anger, rightly so or not, spilled over on 3/14. It’s actually not my assertion; it’s that of the report. So would you like me to cut/paste the entire report for you? Or perhaps just the conclusions and recommendations section?”
How is this relevant to the “racial targeting” then??
“““…This report is only the reflection of a merest glimpse, and such perspectives can in no way cover all of the issues facing Tibetan areas.” (R4000 #244)
“—yes indeed. And the infatuation with propaganda theories would be one such issue.” (SKC #250)
—just so I can help you catch up, the bottom line is that the report cannot cover propaganda theories, though it does not specifically discount their legitimacy.
“If you have a better explanation for CAUSE of the “racial targeting”, I’m ALL EARS!!”
—I would try reading the report. Or if you want just the quick hits, try the conclusions.”
1st, you tell me that there is NO explanation for the “racial targeting”, now you tell me to go read the “report” for the CAUSE of “racial targeting”???
What drug are you on??
““No?? Cat got your tongue??”
—dude, it seems pretty pathetic to try to accuse me of avoiding your question, when this is my first post on the blog since you posted it. When I accused you of same, it was after 2 days of back and forth whilst you were apparently avoiding a question I asked and repeated several times. Since there’s no IP on these, feel free to use them as you please. But, omg, at least try to use them in a reasonable context, lest you do injustice to what are otherwise perfectly good one-liners.”
See above for your double talk.
WHAT part of the report suggests the CAUSE for the “racial targeting”??? Why are you telling me to go READ it, when you have admitted that there is NOTHING in there that talks about the CAUSE of “racial targeting”???
No, you don’t read.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Otto,
And Frankly, as a Han, I would not presume to call any Chinese person on the street as “Han Chinese”, nor would I even question their ethnicity.
I had friends who were Hui when I was young, I have never even innocently called them “Han Chinese”.
Again, that’s just me, I see persons, I don’t assume they are “Han”, just because they might look like a type.
(How would Han Chinese look anyhow? I have curly hair. Most Han have straight hair.)
Would I be “racist”, if I just walked up to a stranger in the street and called him/her “Han Chinese” or “Hui Chinese”?? Well, sounds like I would be, if I did so.
If I see a Guangdong person (speaking Guangdong dialect), and called him “Han Chinese”? Why would I?! Tons of minority ethnic people in Guangdong province.
*Point is, I see tons of Chinese (and Asians in general) in US, I don’t assume anything about their ethnicity.
I certainly wouldn’t persecute/target against all people who “looked like” “Han Chinese”, “Japanese”, or “Korean”, or “Tibetan”.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:37 am
raventhorn,
Do you imagine that there is no “Han” person anywhere in China who would say, “Oh, I’m not actually a Han, really; I’m an XYZ” or “Oh, I don’t feel like I’m really from the same ethnic group as those people from Hebei/Shaanxi/Guangdong/Meixian/etc”? Do you imagine that there are no people anywhere in the world who could have an honest difference of opinion about how to most saliently describe someone’s ethnic identity? If you agree that such instances exist, then that’s the reality that I’m referring to. I’m asking whether you think it is always racist to have a different opinion about how to describe someone’s ethnicity.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Otto,
I think I just answered your question.
But you are nitpicking on imaginary persons who MIGHT.
I’m talking about REAL people who identified themselves as Hui or Han. (Glaring differences, beyond mere official designations) And they don’t like to be stereotyped into 1 group by others.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:07 am
To R4000:
“Dude, good enough that your corrected yourself. Don’t try to cover it up now.”
—I wasn’t correcting myself; just trying to explain it crystal-clearly for those who needed it. Especially since it’s all there in what I wrote the first time around. Are you starting another hole for yourself? Didn’t we discuss the proper response when one finds oneself in a hole?
“Dude, Yawn….”
—of all people, you should be paying attention. Is this how you spent English class?
“NOTHING SUGGEST RACIAL TARGETING in the report”
— you’re right. My mistake. Don’t know for sure why there was racial targeting. Also can’t implicate “propaganda”. Perhaps the TIbetans who rioted were angry at non-Tibetans.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:24 am
SKC,
““Dude, good enough that your corrected yourself. Don’t try to cover it up now.”
—I wasn’t correcting myself; just trying to explain it crystal-clearly for those who needed it. Especially since it’s all there in what I wrote the first time around. Are you starting another hole for yourself? Didn’t we discuss the proper response when one finds oneself in a hole?”
Oh, you obviously removed the “neither did…” bit in your response. that’s a correction.
““Dude, Yawn….”
—of all people, you should be paying attention. Is this how you spent English class?”
I’m not taking any class from you. I can yawn if I want to.
““NOTHING SUGGEST RACIAL TARGETING in the report”
— you’re right. My mistake. Don’t know for sure why there was racial targeting. Also can’t implicate “propaganda”. Perhaps the TIbetans who rioted were angry at non-Tibetans.”
Speculate on your own time if you can’t evidence any “cause”. I can talk about “propaganda from the West”, and support it with MY evidence of similarities to PAST HISTORICAL RACISM.
All your response was just another waste of my time tangent.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:47 am
raventhorn,
Talk about nitpicking — you think it is racist for Tibetans to have an opinion that Hui are similar to Han. What I have noticed about you and some other contributors is that you have a tendency to interpret things in whatever way will make Tibetans seem bad. Perhaps it turns out that you are racist against Tibetans. I think it might be politically incorrect for me to continue talking to you, sorry.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am
To R4000:
“Oh, you obviously removed the “neither did…” bit in your response. that’s a correction.”
— there he goes, digging down again. Didn’t you find it a damp, cold, and dark place the last time you were down there? I explained it for you chapter and verse in #254. I’m at a loss for the Chinese phrase…what is the next step after “drawing the intestines”? It was clarification; not correction. And somehow, still not clear enough. You are a definite head-scratcher.
“Speculate on your own time”
—psst. I am on my own time. I agree though, that, while I can speculate that Tibetans targeted non-Tibetans perhaps as an outlet for their anger, or perhaps as surrogates for the people who caused their anger in the first place, you can similarly speculate about all the propaganda you can muster.
“All your response was just another waste of my time tangent.”
—likewise. Only I choose not to whine about it, since I realize that it is my choice to continue to respond, and can choose at any time that I so please to no longer bother. So either respond, or not; but don’t respond then whine about it, for if you didn’t respond, it would certainly be no skin off my back.
June 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
SKC,
““Oh, you obviously removed the “neither did…” bit in your response. that’s a correction.”
— there he goes, digging down again. Didn’t you find it a damp, cold, and dark place the last time you were down there? I explained it for you chapter and verse in #254. I’m at a loss for the Chinese phrase…what is the next step after “drawing the intestines”? It was clarification; not correction. And somehow, still not clear enough. You are a definite head-scratcher.”
You amuse me with your continual rounds of retractions and admissions. I mean, come on, it’s not the 1st time you admit that you didn’t read carefully!
““Speculate on your own time”
—psst. I am on my own time. I agree though, that, while I can speculate that Tibetans targeted non-Tibetans perhaps as an outlet for their anger, or perhaps as surrogates for the people who caused their anger in the first place, you can similarly speculate about all the propaganda you can muster.”
Then don’t reply back to my post with “NEITHER did this…”, when you had nothing to offer.
““All your response was just another waste of my time tangent.”
—likewise. Only I choose not to whine about it, since I realize that it is my choice to continue to respond, and can choose at any time that I so please to no longer bother. So either respond, or not; but don’t respond then whine about it, for if you didn’t respond, it would certainly be no skin off my back.”
I think you whine far more about Relevant things, than I do about your IRRELEVANT statements. I mean, how much more IRRELEVANT can you get on this thread??!! (for telling me to read a report, when you admit that the report has NOTHING to do with I was talking about.)
June 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am
To R4000:
“it’s not the 1st time you admit that you didn’t read carefully!”
—I have misread on occasion, and when it is pointed out to me, I have the common decency to acknowledge as much. BTW, that’s not to pat myself on the back. It’s simple courtesy. You, on the other hand, have misread or shown a complete inability to read on numerous occasions, and your only response is to dig holes for yourself. As I’ve said many times…wait for it….here comes the one-liner….whatever floats your boat, buddy.
And once again: not retractions; clarification for those in clear need of it.
“Then don’t reply back to my post with “NEITHER did this…”, when you had nothing to offer.”
—huh? (a) don’t forget that it is you who is whining, and not me; (b) that phrase was just English, as I’ve tried to explain several times already. Let me know when your light bulb finally starts to flicker on. (c) what have you offered, dare I ask? (d) as I’ve also pointed out to you before, I can reply if I want, when I want. Once again, the only control you have is how you respond. Here endeth the lesson.
“(for telling me to read a report, when you admit that the report has NOTHING to do with I was talking about.)”
—like I said, I was wrong on that reference. You, on the other hand…well, who’s counting, right?
June 15th, 2009 at 1:00 am
SKC,
“—I have misread on occasion, and when it is pointed out to me, I have the common decency to acknowledge as much. BTW, that’s not to pat myself on the back. It’s simple courtesy. You, on the other hand, have misread or shown a complete inability to read on numerous occasions, and your only response is to dig holes for yourself. As I’ve said many times…wait for it….here comes the one-liner….whatever floats your boat, buddy.
And once again: not retractions; clarification for those in clear need of it.”
You have the common indecency to take about 3 rounds to get to your admissions. I think I got you enough times to show that to be true. You don’t admit anything until I cornered you.
Well, I guess you need to be cornered.
““Then don’t reply back to my post with “NEITHER did this…”, when you had nothing to offer.”
—huh? (a) don’t forget that it is you who is whining, and not me; (b) that phrase was just English, as I’ve tried to explain several times already. Let me know when your light bulb finally starts to flicker on. (c) what have you offered, dare I ask? (d) as I’ve also pointed out to you before, I can reply if I want, when I want. Once again, the only control you have is how you respond. Here endeth the lesson.”
Uh, you are still whining about it RIGHT NOW!!! LOL!!
““(for telling me to read a report, when you admit that the report has NOTHING to do with I was talking about.)”
—like I said, I was wrong on that reference. You, on the other hand…well, who’s counting, right?”
I count 3 exchanges before you even admitted to going off tangent.
On the other hand, that doesn’t prove that I was wrong. In fact, that proves that you have MORE of the tendency to be wrong!
And you are STILL WHINING about it.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Otto,
“Talk about nitpicking — you think it is racist for Tibetans to have an opinion that Hui are similar to Han. What I have noticed about you and some other contributors is that you have a tendency to interpret things in whatever way will make Tibetans seem bad. Perhaps it turns out that you are racist against Tibetans. I think it might be politically incorrect for me to continue talking to you, sorry.”
“Similar” is one view. Lumping them all in the same group, is just racist stereotyping.
Sorry buddy, I have know Tibetans, and Uighurs, I don’t lump them into any broad categories and treat them stereotypically.
“Differences of Opinion”? I rather thought the “racial targeting” is against “differences of opinion”. But hey, maybe that’s how SOME people express their “differences of opinion”, by beating up other “opinions”.
Or just settle the differences like, Oh “you are just like any other Chinese”, (kinda like you are doing now).
You know, that is rather politically incorrect. I mean, it’s rather silly for you to talk about “differences of opinion”, when in fact, you are proposing that It’s OK for some Tibetans to treat all Hui and Chinese as if they have NO differences at all.
June 15th, 2009 at 3:27 am
中國有56個民族，單在雲南就佔了25個。除了漢族，人口較多的民族有彝族、白族、傣族、回族、苗族、景頗族、僳僳族等，其中傣族人的穿著頗似馬來人服飾。更令人好奇的是，在這樣的西南邊陲還群居蒙古族，甚至滿族這些中國北方遊牧民族。
在雲南省大理白族自治州為世界各地來賓舉行的歡迎晚宴上，我被安排坐在百桌晚宴中唯一的清真席，席上除了來自馬來西亞的客人外，當地主人有大理州僑辦主任納明，一位回教徒；還有中共漾濞彝族自治縣委書記張郭宏，一位彝族兄弟。
席間賓主言談甚歡，我們都對大理的美麗景色及大理人的盛情款待讚歎不已，也對當地民族多姿多彩及和諧共處的情景印象深刻。我藉機問身邊的張書記一個小問題：“你們彝族有自己的語言嗎？”“有。”“有自己的文字嗎？”“也有，不過……”
張書記還沒把話說完，我又接著問：“政府有沒有為你們開一所用彝族母語教學的彝族學校？”這一問把他問得一臉木然，半晌甚麼話也答不上來。不過，我和你一樣，心裡已經有了答案。有些事情發生在某些地方是理所當然，而發生在另一些地方或許就是一個問題。
This is an article published in Malaysia Chinese language newspaper. I don’t know if what the author wrote is fact or hear say.
I translate only the last sentence: Some subject would deem as expected in some country (here refer to China), while the same that take place in some other country would become an issue (Here refer to Malaysia as the Malaysian Chinese insist to have Chinese language school on primary level).
When we claim this is our basic right to have education in our mother tongue, the government tells there is no such rights even if you are in US, UK or Australia. The dispute continue.
What do you people think?
June 15th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Rhan, regarding the claim that “there is no such rights even if you are in US, UK or Australia”, this is incorrect with regard to the UK. The UK government is a signatory to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages which aims to “protect and promote historical regional and minority languages in Europe”. Even before signing this charter the UK made provision for Welsh language teaching in Wales (Welsh formally has equal status with English in Wales – dual language roadsigns, all official documents produced bilingually, etc) and Gaelic language teaching in the relevant parts of Scotland.
June 15th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Raventhorn,
“‘Differences of Opinion’? I rather thought the ‘racial targeting’ is against ‘differences of opinion’. But hey, maybe that’s how SOME people express their ‘differences of opinion’, by beating up other ‘opinions’.”
Whether or not Han and Hui people are both “Gyanag people” is one question and whether you use that opinion to decide who to beat or to decide who to hand out free candy to is another question. It’s real sloppy for you to mix them up like this.
“‘Similar’ is one view. Lumping them all in the same group, is just racist stereotyping.”
Not at all. All people are the same to some extent but not identical to anyone else. Therefore, any ethnic category you come up with is “lumping” people together into the same group. There’s a lot of diversity among so-called “Han” people, but you don’t seem to think that that category is racist. What about categories like “white people” or “American” — are those racist categories?
June 15th, 2009 at 4:50 am
To R4000:
“I think I got you enough times to show that to be true. You don’t admit anything until I cornered you.”
— and even then, you’re still not adult enough to admit it. I mean, just count the number of holes you’ve dug for yourself, as I’ve been pointing out to you in passing.
“you are still whining about it RIGHT NOW”
—as a further example, here’s another exhibit of your response even when you’re knee deep in it.
“On the other hand, that doesn’t prove that I was wrong.”
—dude, have you no capacity to understand the context of a sentence? On the point in question, I said I was wrong, not you. But omg your errors are littered everywhere, in copious amounts. And still not one humble acknowledgment. Oh well, I’ve never expected much out of you, and still don’t.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Careful SKC, you’re in danger of provoking an absolute overload of CAPITALS and !!!s…
June 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Otto,
I repeat again, since you have avoided the issue.
“You know, that is rather politically incorrect. I mean, it’s rather silly for you to talk about “differences of opinion”, when in fact, you are proposing that It’s OK for some Tibetans to treat all Hui and Chinese as if they have NO differences at all.”
June 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
SKC,
“On the point in question, I said I was wrong, not you. But omg your errors are littered everywhere, in copious amounts.”
I’ll take your admissions, but that doesn’t mean I admit your assertion of my “errors”.
But OK, if you want to be stubborn about it, and you need to be cornered again, FINE!!
“““Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”
— and neither did THIS happen during 3/14.””
This is UNCLEAR Pronoun Reference, when you used “this” in your reply.
http://humanities.ucsd.edu/writing/grammar/18pronoun.htm
18 Pronoun reference
Unclear pronoun references often lead to great confusion among readers. Generally, be sure your pronoun references are specific.
Avoid using indefinite pronouns to introduce sentences.
Avoid using pronouns to refer to general arguments.
Avoid using “you” in formal papers.
Unclear pronoun references: It is well-known that The Odyssey teaches you the principles of hospitality and generosity. This is clear in the episode of the Cyclopes.
Revised: The Odyssey teaches the principles of hospitality and generosity. Hospitality is clear in the episode of the Cyclopes.
GOT IT? Need some more grammar lessons?? Do you really want me to explain it to you more clearly about your grammar mistake??? (aka, corner you some more)???
June 15th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Barny Chan,
Good call on the warning. 🙂
June 15th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Raventhorn, I aim to help.
In these enlightened times in which we live I simply feel we should be aware of impending catastrophe. It would be a tragedy if we lurched towards an international drought of CAPITALS and !!!!s. If not for ourselves, think of the children…
June 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Barny,
Well, you make a good town crier.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I’m liking you more already without the excessive CAPITALISATION and !?!?!s.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I’m just trying to keep you in your job of town crier.
June 15th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I’m not sure why the fixation on the CAPS. It’s not like anyone’s capping entire blocks of text. To me it actually made the comments a bit more readable. Given the forum’s absence of a better quoting function, I just wish both R4k and SKC could start italicizing the quotes, as was suggested by someone earlier. Or bolding maybe? (Would that make it look like shouting too?) Well, at least they’ve both been kind enough to quote what they are responding to, most of the time.
Kinda makes you look forward even more to the release of Google Wave. — totally off topic.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I’ll try the Italics or underlines, except I don’t have my wordpress working yet.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Yes, quite a fixation on formatting.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:59 am
To R4000:
“GOT IT? Need some more grammar lessons”
—ummm, nope. And most certainly not from you. Your example consists of two statements. You could argue that “this” in the second sentence may be referring to “well-known”, “the Odyssey”, or “principles etc”; but if you read the context of the second sentence, it’s pretty clear that only one of those 3 makes sense. Granted, the revised sentence structure makes it even more clear, for those who needed it.
But in our example – which you still have trouble grasping despite repeated attempts, the Herculean effort required having exceeded all my expectations, even for someone like you- there is only one possible reference:
“Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”(R4000)
— “and neither did THIS happen during 3/14.” (SKC)
To what, might I ask, did you think “THIS” referred? And if it wasn’t clear enough already, I immediately followed it with “Most Tibetans weren’t rioting” (SKC #240). If you missed the point of the first part, surely you must have clued in with the second. It’s in the same paragraph…it’s part of the same point.
And you know what? Your “English” is amusing. But are you seriously here to argue your inability to understand the language, or are we here to talk about the subject of the thread. After all, we’re on a blog on China; not a blog on the English language. As I always say, though, whatever floats your boat, pal.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:18 am
raventhorn4000 Says: “Yes, quite a fixation on formatting.”
Given a lack of content, style is often the most interesting thing. A hectoring tone reveals a lot about a person.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Barny,
Thanks for your advice on my format.
I guess you had nothing to say about my content. I’ll leave that for others then.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
SKC,
“Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity.”(R4000)
— “and neither did THIS happen during 3/14.” (SKC)
Well, you use of “this” obviously referred to an event, because you used “happen” with it.
So event could be
(a) “go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity”.
(b) “Most people don’t go around and beat up people of some particular race/ethnicity”.
If (a), then “neither did racial beatings happen during 3/14”,
If (b), then “neither did Most people don’t do racial beatings during 3/14”.
(b) is obviously a double negative, therefore, even more confusing.
(a) is obviously a denial of “racial beating on 3/14”.
Perhaps you are thinking of event as (c), “Most people do racial beatings”, which then you say “neither did THIS happen during 3/14”.
But clearly, I did not write (c) as an event. I wrote the opposite.
*Point: I used a negative action, ie. Most people DON’T do X.
Your mistake was simply, using “neither” while referring “THIS” Negative action. (which would have been a double negative.)
What you should have written, “Similarly, Most Tibetans did not do X on 3/14.”
“And if it wasn’t clear enough already, I immediately followed it with “Most Tibetans weren’t rioting” (SKC #240).”
Hence, I was calling only your 1st statement as unclear and contradictory.
I said nothing to contradict your 2nd statement.
*
“Your “English” is amusing.”
Yeah, well, your “English” is grammatically incorrect, as indicated by the grammar manual.
I go by the grammar manual, not by your personal grammar style.
Your admission, “Granted, the revised sentence structure makes it even more clear, for those who needed it.”
Yes, reasonable people “need” clear sentences (Clear, as defined by standard English grammar), not mumblings of “this” or “that” everywhere.
You need to be “more clear” to reach the level of standard correct English grammar.
*
“but if you read the context of the second sentence, it’s pretty clear that only one of those 3 makes sense.”
I not here to play detective work with your English grammar.
You need to make it clear by yourself.
*
It’s not my example, it’s an example from the website I posted.
UNCLEAR Pronoun Reference, when you used “this” in your reply.
http://humanities.ucsd.edu/writing/grammar/18pronoun.htm
If you have problems with standard English grammar, it’s you who needs some English lessons.
See the hole you dug for yourself?
June 17th, 2009 at 6:40 am
To R4000:
sigh.
“Hence, I was calling only your 1st statement as unclear and contradictory. I said nothing to contradict your 2nd statement.”
—-then next time, read the whole point. They’re part of the same paragraph, and speak of the same thing. No one is asking you to be a detective; if you choose to be dim about understanding a basic point, that’s fine by me.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:31 am
SKC,
I read your whole point. Your 2nd statement was fine. Your 1st statement was unclear.
If you don’t want to clarify your statement according to standard English grammar, just say so. We’ll know you want to remain dim about standard English grammar.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
LIke I said, I’ve clarified it more times than is reasonably necessary. If the point still eludes you, I’m way past worrying about it. If it no longer eludes you, the “pat on the back” is in the mail. And I’ll see if I can scare up some “well done” stickers that my kids get from school.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
SKC,
You didn’t clarify sufficiently to standard English Grammar.
The point didn’t elude me on the 2nd sentence. I can’t speculate what you wanted to mean by your 1st statement.
If you want to say that 1st statement was unnecessary, then as I said, by taking it out, you admitted that you didn’t write clearly.
Your “well done” stickers mean nothing to me, because you are trying to spread bad/unclear grammar.
*
Once again, your grammar was insufficient to the Standard English Grammar. Thus, you are the one causing the confusion, not my ability to GUESS through your bad grammar.
Get some English lessons, and stick yourself with “well done”. Right now, you are “half-done”.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:13 am
“The point didn’t elude me on the 2nd sentence.”
—then I’d suggest you go with what you garnered from that. Whether you can or can’t speculate on anything else is really of no concern to me.
“Once again, your grammar was insufficient to the Standard English Grammar. Thus, you are the one causing the confusion, not my ability to GUESS through your bad grammar.”
—seriously, dude. If you can write two sentences like that, then I suggest we’d be better off speaking about anything other than grammar.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:03 am
SKC,
It’s English Grammar.
Get your act together, and stop denying your BAD grammar.
“Seriously Dude”, See your hole? You wanted to talk about English skills. Cornered yourself, again! 🙂
June 20th, 2009 at 4:45 am
““Seriously Dude”, See your hole? You wanted to talk about English skills. Cornered yourself, again!”
—you are one delusional individual. But like I said, sometimes I come here for education, and other times for amusement. You are certainly fulfilling my needs for the latter, and luckily there are others who can supply the former. But hey, you’re serving an important purpose.
June 20th, 2009 at 8:57 am
bravo raventhorn, for turning this meaningful discussion into private attacks taht has nothing to do with the topic. Maybe that is your goal in hanging out here. A job well done and a pat on the back from me.
tenzin
June 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@tenzin #294
I totally agree. This site should be dedicated for meaningful discussion and sharing of insightful thoughts.
SKC and R4K should refrain from endless and bitter bickering and exchanges that benefit no one.
June 21st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Tenzin #294.
I wasn’t the one starting to talk about English skills in this thread.
See SKC’s #250,
““That’s a contradiction. You obviously admit that SOME race riot did happen, why is this “NEITHER” now?”
—listen, I realize English is your second language (as it is mine, incidentally) so you deserve some latitude; but sometimes you ask a lot. You said :”“Most people don’t go around ….” – to which my response was “Most Tibetans weren’t rioting.” We agree that SOME people were rioting; but it’s simply disingenuous to suggest that MOST people were.”
Like I said, I didn’t start this.