[quote=“ABC”]
It looks like it’s you who’s clueless and need to work on your language skills.[/quote]
I’m not ‘American’. You are trying to sell me your deeply unpopular, flawed and silly (to most people like me) viewpoint. Consider your audience.
Why should I do your googling for you? You just need to read more.
Consider your punctuation, while you’re at it.
Secondeds. Don’t give up your day job, Buttercup.
Secondeds. Don’t give up your day job, Buttercup.[/quote]
:roflmao:
Um, my day job is on the OED, amongst other things.
My point is simply that if you wish to communicate persuasively with international English speakers, you have to use their language. It’s how ‘Sales’ work. ‘Caucasian’ is not really an approriate word for many reasons. It’s not about ‘Am I RIGHT, within my own tiny sphere of influence?’, but ‘Am I connecting with this person in a way that they would find engaging and credible?’
Maybe you’re right about Tibet, maybe you’re wrong, but no-one cares and no-one’s going to change their minds as a result of anything you’ve written. All I’m saying is: have the courage of your convictions and make some bloody effort.
I guess HeadhonchoII was not connecting with you properly, you should tell him to change his vocabulary.
[quote=“Buttercup”]
Maybe you’re right about Tibet, maybe you’re wrong, but no-one cares and no-one’s going to change their minds as a result of anything you’ve written. All I’m saying is: have the courage of your convictions and make some bloody effort.[/quote]
Look, I’ve taken you off topic, pissed you off, made you defend your language use, etc, etc.
No-one’s talked about Tibet for the last page of this thread. Yer a bloody amateur. Ever thought of going into politics?
[quote=“Buttercup”][quote=“Buttercup”]
Maybe you’re right about Tibet, maybe you’re wrong, but no-one cares and no-one’s going to change their minds as a result of anything you’ve written. All I’m saying is: have the courage of your convictions and make some bloody effort.[/quote]
Look, I’ve taken you off topic, pissed you off, made you defend your language use, etc, etc.
No-one’s talked about Tibet for the last page of this thread. Yer a bloody amateur. Ever thought of going into politics?[/quote]
Wow, you started it, and you’re responding to yourself now. Alright, I won’t go off topic anymore.
No, I’m not responding to myself, I’m just quoting an earlier post in order to reiterate what I was saying, as you seemed to have missed it.
Oops! There’s no-one round to discuss whether the Tibetans should be oppressed and deprived of their land and culture by a vicious and corrupt regime anymore? 
His superiors would be most displeased. 
Look ABC, there’s legtimacy and there’s effectiveness. In the end, it’s the latter that supports the former.
However legitimate you may feel China’s attitude towards Tibet is, it is not effective. It creates a hostile dynamic that feeds upon itself. This is not efficient, unless one wishes to simply overrun the enemy. But on his own land, this means some kind of ethnic cleaning.
Effective policy in Tibet - the name of the thread is “the best way forward,” NOT “what does the past mean?” - is to find some kind of consensus between Hans and Tibetans in Tibet.
Calling the DL a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, refusing to believe in what he has been consistently saying for 30 years, accusing him of being a reactionary that wants to separate Tibet from China and return to theocracy, and using army and police power to control Tibet, these are all the actions of desperate officials who are unable to rule with legitimacy, at least in Tibet.
, 
It’s no less bizarre than the US claiming North America or annexing Hawaii. But since Tibet is now an integral part of China for a long time and is recognized as such by every other country, maybe the Chinese government should stop defending the claiming of Tibet and stop being so defensive about it. Frankly, China doesn’t need to justify it’s ownership of Tibet anymore than the US needs to justify how it acquired Hawaii or Indian land. For disputed island like Diaoyutai or Spratly, then yes, China should continue to make claims to them because they’re currently not under Chinese jurisdiction. But for Tibet there’s simply no need to claim what’s already yours.
Then I guess the Caucasians will have to go back to England and Europe because Indians have a claim on North America.[/quote]
Hehe I knew you’d come up with that last line, so predictable! It’s like debate my numbers. Perhaps the aboriginals should claim back Taiwan and China from the Han people ya big dope…
I’m not N.American either, I don’t see what that’s got to do with the debate…you have a big chip on your shoulder about something, I guess. Seeing in the world in black and white, because you were ‘bullied’ or treated badly …who knows, your ideology sounds a lot like 1930s Germany, so does your lack of any humour or warmth. Do yourself a favour and talk to people from different countries and cultures. You studied in the US for a few years and now you know how the world works, give me a break.
Then again I strongly suspect you are being paid by the government in China…I heard there are thousands of you working full-time at it posting ‘positive’ comments, or should I say ‘negative to everything truthful, free and open’…tell me something, if China was so great why does it have to employ an army of propaganda merchants to monitor and spy on its own people? Go spread your internet manure somewhere else.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]
Then again I strongly suspect you are being paid by the government in China…I heard there are thousands of you working full-time at it posting ‘positive’ comments, or should I say ‘negative to everything truthful, free and open’…tell me something, if China was so great why does it have to employ an army of propaganda merchants to monitor and spy on its own people? Go spread your internet manure somewhere else.[/quote]
You know? I’m open to changing my allegiance if another country wants to pay me more. The Chinese government pays me like dirt. 50 cents. Damm, you can’t buy a subway ticket in Shanghai for less than 3 dollars. So what do you say? if Uncle Sam is willing pay me, say, a dollar I can write a bunch of nice posts about the US.
Well you should ask them for money if you are not on the payroll yet, you may aswell get paid while you are writing!
[quote=“BigJohn”]Look ABC, there’s legtimacy and there’s effectiveness. In the end, it’s the latter that supports the former.
However legitimate you may feel China’s attitude towards Tibet is, it is not effective. It creates a hostile dynamic that feeds upon itself. This is not efficient, unless one wishes to simply overrun the enemy. But on his own land, this means some kind of ethnic cleaning.
Effective policy in Tibet - the name of the thread is “the best way forward,” NOT “what does the past mean?” - is to find some kind of consensus between Hans and Tibetans in Tibet.
Calling the DL a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, refusing to believe in what he has been consistently saying for 30 years, accusing him of being a reactionary that wants to separate Tibet from China and return to theocracy, and using army and police power to control Tibet, these are all the actions of desperate officials who are unable to rule with legitimacy, at least in Tibet.[/quote]
Of course effective policy in Tibet is going to require balancing the various competing interests between Hans and Tibetans. The Chinese government wants to develope Tibet and make it a modern place, while Tibetans want to be left alone in order to preserve their culture.
These are competing wishes. It would be tough to please both sides, but I think I have just the right solution. Yep, a compromise, an effective policy, a best way forward. And for that I have the US to thank for.
The best policy for Tibetans? Same thing the US did to the Indians, PUT THEM IN RESERVATIONS.
If the Tibetans want to be left alone, then okey, we’ll give them their own place and leave them alone. They can then continue to live in the stone age as they wish and be able to preserve all the culture they want within the confines of their Tibetan reservations. In there I’ll even give the kind of autonomy DL wants so he can come back to Tibet and join his people in one of the caves. All this can happen while the rest of Tibet is developed without disturbing the Tibetan enclaves. Isn’t this a wonderful idea? And of course any moderate and forward-thinking Tibetan that wants to live in the modern world is welcome to join the Hans and everyone else on the outside. As for the Tibetan that thinks the very presence of Han people is dilluting their culture, well we’re only giving them what they want with this solution.
[quote=“ABC”]The best policy for Tibetans? Same thing the US did to the Indians, PUT THEM IN RESERVATIONS.
If the Tibetans want to be left alone, then okey, we’ll give them their own place and leave them alone. They can then continue to live in the stone age as they wish and be able to preserve all the culture they want within the confines of their Tibetan reservations. In there I’ll even give the kind of autonomy DL wants so he can come back to Tibet and join his people in one of the caves. All this can happen while the rest of Tibet is developed without disturbing the Tibetan enclaves. Isn’t this a wonderful idea? And of course any moderate and forward-thinking Tibetan that wants to live in the modern world is welcome to join the Hans and everyone else on the outside. As for the Tibetan that thinks the very presence of Han people is dilluting their culture, well we’re only giving them what they want with this solution.[/quote]
I know the above is an attempt to diminish American criticisms of Chinese policy in Tibet, and not a serious proposal, but I would note that comparisons to other times and places is irrelevant to the question at hand (and not just because many posters here are not American). If China’s policy in Tibet is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether others have committed similar wrongs. Even if China’s policy towards the Tibetans were more humane than America’s towards the Indians, or some other nation’s policies towards some other aboriginal group, that still would not make it the best of all possible choices.
My point is that China’s policy towards Tibet should be judged on its own merits. Making comparisons to other places is simply a distraction. If you’re really interested in an honest discussion, talk about Tibet. If you want to talk about America or Australia or any other place besides Tibet, start a new thread.
Having said all that, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with treating Tibet like a reservation. Not like you described of course, but rather by marking off the entire TAR as a reservation, perhaps similar to the Navajo Nation Reservation that engulfs northeastern Arizona and extends into Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico (the Hopi Indian Reservation is contained within its borders as well). The Navajo Nation Reservation is legally part of the United States, but the land belongs to the tribe. Americans can only emigrate to the reservation with the tribe’s permission. A favorite statement of Chinese apologists is that denying a Chinese citizen the right to move to Lhasa is equivalent of telling someone in Atlanta or Philadelphia that he cannot move to Seattle. A more apt comparison would be to say it’s like telling him he cannot move to Teec Nos Pos in the NNR. And that would be quite true.
So why not give the Tibetan Autonomous Region real autonomy? Why not let the Tibetans to decide for themselves whether they will allow non-Tibetan PRC citizens (Han, Hui, Yao, Uighur, etc.) to emigrate and in what numbers?
Yes, it’s always the same with ABC: He has somewhere between 10-45% of an argument, and spins it out with scorn, distraction, “Are you saying that + ridiculous comparison?” etc. The bottom line is that Tibetans have a natural right to live as they choose without harming others in their own land. Surely this can be balanced with economic growth. This whole mythology that China rescued Tibetans from oppression is a bunch of crap: They replaced an internal repression with an external one. Economic development is great and Tibetans want it too. They don’t want to return to theocracy, any more than Chinese want a return of the Red Guards. Both societies have progressed, and yes China deserves some credit for raising living standards in Tibet and elsewhere. But that doesn’t justify vilification of the DL or cultural oppression.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
I know the above is an attempt to diminish American criticisms of Chinese policy in Tibet, and not a serious proposal, but I would note that comparisons to other times and places is irrelevant to the question at hand (and not just because many posters here are not American)…[/quote]
I actually think my proposal can actually work. I compare it to those of US and other places because that’s what they’re still doing, so my comparisons are highly relevant. And besides, that’s what Tibetans want, right?
Your idea that the whole Tibet be made a reservation is unfeasible because that would involve too large an area of land. That would be like the US declaring the state of Alaska to be off-limit to caucasians and everyone else, and then rationalize it by saying since Alaska is all snow and ice so who would want to live there besides the native inhabitants.
You know what I’m proposing, fuller autonomy in designated places in Tibet, is much more than what the Chinese government is willing to give. That would also probably be incompatible with current Chinese law and policy on minorities which state that all of them must be treated equal. Nonetheless I’m willing to give Tibetan special treatment for their unique place in Chinese history. But don’t push the boundary here. If I want I can make an arguement that no one should receive any special treatment for interest of fairness. And indeed when giving special privilege to a certain group of people, you have to be mindlful that they don’t infringe on the rights of others. This is a simple enough concept to understand. Just declaring a huge swath of area in China as “no-Han zone” would be infringing and not respecting the rights of others.
[quote=“BigJohn”]Yes, it’s always the same with ABC: He has somewhere between 10-45% of an argument, and spins it out with scorn, distraction, “Are you saying that + ridiculous comparison?” etc. The bottom line is that Tibetans have a natural right to live as they choose without harming others in their own land. Surely this can be balanced with economic growth. This whole mythology that China rescued Tibetans from oppression is a bunch of crap: They replaced an internal repression with an external one. Economic development is great and Tibetans want it too. They don’t want to return to theocracy, any more than Chinese want a return of the Red Guards. Both societies have progressed, and yes China deserves some credit for raising living standards in Tibet and elsewhere. But that doesn’t justify vilification of the DL or cultural oppression.
Yes, it’s always the same with ABC: He has somewhere between 10-45% of an argument, and spins it out with scorn, distraction, “Are you saying that + ridiculous comparison?” etc. The bottom line is that Tibetans have a natural right to live as they choose without harming others in their own land. Surely this can be balanced with economic growth. This whole mythology that China rescued Tibetans from oppression is a bunch of crap: They replaced an internal repression with an external one. Economic development is great and Tibetans want it too. They don’t want to return to theocracy, any more than Chinese want a return of the Red Guards. Both societies have progressed, and yes China deserves some credit for raising living standards in Tibet and elsewhere. But that doesn’t justify vilification of the DL or cultural oppression.[/quote]
Just because you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean I’m spinning with scorn or distraction. But I’ve noticed that you hardly make an arguement of your own but is just slamming on mine. Why don’t you put together a coherent arguement yourself and see how bad I can pick it apart.
Well, the constitution seems to be aware that autonomous regions with high concentrations of one minority have a special status:
We can all see that your concern for fairness is a sham so give it up. You need to learn that western people are not fooled when totalitarians try to argue for the purest application of the spirit of equality.
[quote]
You know what I’m proposing, fuller autonomy in designated places in Tibet, is much more than what the Chinese government is willing to give. [/quote]
Regardless, Tibet only agreed to return to the motherland in exchange for special protections to its culture under the 17 Point Agreement. That’s the agreement your government made and that’s the agreement Tibetans agreed to. You are legally and morally bound to its conditions and spirit.
China has a long was to go before it even reaches its own promises to Tibet. No need to push boundaries.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]Well, the constitution seems to be aware that autonomous regions with high concentrations of one minority have a special status:
China has a long was to go before it even reaches its own promises to Tibet. No need to push boundaries.[/quote]
Absolutely. The railway to Tibet was undeniably built for the extension of centralist Han Chinese political power. The philosophy behind the proposed Taiwan line is no different. The PROChinese are simply not confident enough in the strength of their state’s institutions to allow any kind of questioning, let alone autonomy. Millions of unemployed rural Chinese are not going to ease their paranoia.
It is still not unreasonable to ask if China is a stable political entity. The reality of Tibet is that autonomy is a fiction and it will always be a fiction.
But if anyone has a realistic plan for Tibetan autonomy I’d love to hear it.
As long as the Dalai Llama continues to represent any degree of political separation he will serve his people poorly. The effect of his advocacy is false hope for Tibetans and state brutality at the hands of the Chinese. Tibet will become Han, that is its destiny. And the west cannot help - Hillary Clinton, for one, has shown an eager willingness to do nothing.
Nothing can change this.
No, comparisons are simply a red herring to distract from the topic of Tibet. Even if you could make the statement that, for example, the Chinese policy towards Tibet is more humane and just than the Canadian policy towards the First Nations (and I’m not saying this is the case), that would still not mean the Chinese policy is the best possible choice. Please try and stay on topic. I will be glad to join you in a new thread about the American policy towards the Indians, if you wish.
As Mucha Man has already stated, your own constitution and treaty with the Tibetan people grant the Tibetans an autonomous status. How can we take your claims of fairness seriously when you won’t even follow your own laws?
No, it would be like the US declaring a swath of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado that’s bigger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined to be the property of two Indian tribes who have total authority over emigration to its land. And in fact, this is exactly what the US has done. Once again, I have no right to emigrate to the Navajo Nation/Hopi Indian Reservation. Yes, the reservation is part of the United States. No, we will not grant them independence. But it is their land and they get to decide who lives there.
Chinese law does not grant minorities equal rights, it grants them rights and privileges exceeding those of Han citizens. You may prefer that everyone be on an equal footing, but that is not how your government has written its laws or its treaties.
How generous of you to recognize Chinese law and treaties.
You could certainly make that argument, but it contradicts the Chinese constitution and the 17 point agreement, as Mucha Man has already explained. The second point states:
[ul]In accordance with the policy towards nationalities laid down in the Common Programme of the CPPCC, the Tibetan people have the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of the CPG.[/ul]
Can the Tibetans really have the autonomy guaranteed to them by the Chinese constitution and the 17 point agreement if they cannot control the rights to their own land? Perhaps you are right that by honoring Chinese law, the Chinese government is limiting the rights of non-Tibetan PRC citizens who wish to emigrate to Tibet. But their rights must be balanced against those of the Tibetans, who have a very strong historical and legal argument to make in favor of autonomy. I stress that autonomy does not mean independence; the 17 point agreement quite clearly grants the PRC the “handling of all external affairs of the area of Tibet,” and describes in some detail the PLA’s mission and presence in Tibet (which includes abiding by all parts of the agreement). Is it really pushing the line to ask China to abide by its own laws and treaties?