80 killed in Tibet, Chinese will be kept in the dark

RedLemon

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yet you seem to have knowledge of the aspirations of average Tibetans, a group that has no voice in the system imposed upon them by China.

At least WE, CHINESE people, can speak Chinese to average Tibetans, or and some of us understand their local language,
How do you know they have no voice in our country ??? How Many people here understand Chinese or Tibetan ???

SkepticOne

RedLemon wrote: »

How do you know they have no voice in our country ???

Are you telling me that a Tibetan could freely organise political opposition to Chinese occupation in Tibet and get away with it? China, a country whose government is so scared of its own people that it routinely blocks independent sources of news for fear the people will get ideas.

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

Are you telling me that a Tibetan could freely organise political opposition to Chinese occupation in Tibet and get away with it? China, a country whose government is so scared of its own people that it routinely blocks independent sources of news for fear the people will get ideas.

I think you're confusing China's overall policies, particularly in governing Han Chinese, with their policies for ethnic minorities, which are surprisingly liberal (for communists).

Political opposition no, but they have a voice in terms of welfare, education, economy and other such issues.

Make no mistake, the Chinese want to preserve these minorities, not eradicate them.

RedLemon wrote:

How Many people here understand Chinese or Tibetan ???

Me for one, I believe there are a few other.

SkepticOne

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Political opposition no, but they have a voice in terms of welfare, education, economy and other such issues.

So on the issue of Tibet's status within China, Tibetans within Tibet must be silent.

This is the point I was making. On what basis can anyone say what the Tibetans want or don't want with regard to China's rule over Tibet? Who is to say that the protesters aren't expressing the views of the average Tibetan, albeit in a violent way.

Yet we are told baldly that the protesters are not representative of Tibetans in their views.

I would be interested in the views of RedLemon in this regard.

Also Leonardo when he said:

If there are still Tibetans who have desire for freedom and national aspirations, they are those whose privilleges had been deprived since communist take-over(mostly monks with Dalai Lama at the top), separatists and exiled tibetans who have no actual knowledge of the real conditions of Tibet.

Again, how do we presume to know what the average Tibetan wants? There seems to be total dismissal of anything other than the standard line.

fly_agaric

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Make no mistake, the Chinese want to preserve these minorities, not eradicate them.

Why do you believe that?
Such a policy would be pretty odd.

Do not ....(edit - "totalitarian" is a bit strong and I'm sure someone will question it...) states like China need some rabid nationalism or religious fervour (or displaced religious fervour for the "party" or the "Leader") to help hold them together and aren't queer minorities with differing ideas a threat to that?

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

Why do you believe that?
Such a policy would be pretty odd.

Because it is an axiom of their current policies towards ethnic minorities.

Do not ....(edit - "totalitarian" is a bit strong and I'm sure someone will question it...) states like China need some rabid nationalism or religious fervour (or displaced religious fervour for the "party" or the "Leader") to help hold them together and aren't queer minorities with differing ideas a threat to that?

Because despite the propaganda that you have swallowed whole from the western media, the Chinese respect, even revere, culture and tradition and there is much culture and tradition linked with China in Tibet.

You have a completely brainwashed view of China as an evil oppressing state because that is what the media here reports, influenced strongly by america and exiled tibetan pressure groups (see how BBC's documentary series was treated by these groups who felt it didn't help their cause). Have you noticed how many Chinese are posting in this forum supporting their government and country? Anecdotally, I can tell you that all of those that I personally know feel the same. Hardly the reaction you'd expect from them if the country was so bad!!!

China isn't the west, it is different, we may not like or agree with their policies, I certainly don't. I do respect that as a sometimes visitor, I'm not in a position to make the call and while the people are happy (remember there are a Billion Chinese, when they revolt, you know all about it) on the whole, who are we to say?

Personally my view of Tibet is simply a political power struggle. The Tibetans are certainly religiously oppressed by the Lama and the Lama are being ruled with an iron fist by the Chinese government. The Lama's influence over Tibet is dwindling, but Tibet is benefiting in other ways. The Dalai Lama is a smart guy, he knows that a Free Tibet is not the way to go, as a separate country in the past, Tibet did poorly. At the moment they are benefiting for Chinese education and Tibetans have, thanks to ethnic-centric schemes, a well educated middle class society. Autonomy is what is being calle dfor by the Lama, this gives them all the perks of China's policies but also gives the Lama's themselves power back over the people.

That is what this is all about.

SkepticOne

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Have you noticed how many Chinese are posting in this forum supporting their government and country?

I'm still trying to find out how they can know what the Tibetan people want.

carsonsunhao

PSI wrote: »

Tibetans are certainly religiously oppressed by the Lama and the Lama are being ruled with an iron fist by the Chinese government.

from My personal point of view, A monk on TV who is claiming the power of accessing tibet is absolutly not the way of the buddisim pratice. i say his is a politician more likely, lama title is a only a protection. therefore, I firmly believe that he is the biggest treat to the peace in tibet!

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm still trying to find out how they can know what the Tibetan people want.

And how can those who have not lived in the country in 50 years, or those from the west know what they want either?

daithicarr

PSI I don’t see how you can say we are the ones who are brain washed, I don’t buy into everything i see on my Tv at night, i look at different sources of information and try and see who the person giving the information is and what that could reflect on there views.

But very simply we have free access to information, in China, many things are heavily censored. some books by Chinese writers don’t get published because they authorities didn’t like them for what ever reasons.

If Chinese people are posting in support of there government, then they like you believe that the entire western media, state and non state has some how managed to conspire across borders and nationality on a unprecedented scale to besmirch the good name of China. and not that the heavily censored government controlled Chinese media is actually putting out propaganda.
the truth of the matter most probably is some where between the Tibetan exile view and the official Chinese view. the simple fact is the Chinese authorities are hell bent on controlling their people. the Chinese people have no real authority, there for the views of the Chinese media is not independent but supports the views of its main sponsor, the Chinese state. equally western media, has different sponsors and controllers, but unlike china there is a much, much wider diversity in opinions and interests, from right to left, from government controlled to independent, nearly all media outlets agree that there is oppression in Tibet and China at large. it would be impossible to get so many different countries and interest groups and society’s to spread anti chinese propoganda.

RedPlanet

daithicarr wrote: »

it would be impossible to get so many different countries and interest groups and society’s to spread anti chinese propoganda.

While i agree with a lot of what you've said, i don't think it's quite so simple as that.
Proganda in the western world is like a self-administered medication.
Just as it was during the "cold war".
There doesn't need to be a Man-Behind-The-Curtain controlling things anymore.
The message has sunk-in to our subconsious minds.
China=Bad and China=Threat

fly_agaric

PSI wrote: »

Because it is an axiom of their current policies towards ethnic minorities.

...you mean the ones who fit in + don't dare question the chinese state?

I do have to admit I had a look at an "Evil Western Propaganda" :pac: tv program on C4 last night it did occur to me that the stuff described in the film seemed no worse that what I would have thought any Chinese will suffer if they criticise and work against their govt on its home turf.

PSI wrote: »

You have a completely brainwashed view of China as an evil oppressing state because that is what the media here reports,

If anything I think China has gotten a very good press overall [from the "media here" and in the UK, if not US media] in the past few years.
An excellent press compared to Bush's America IMO.

PSI wrote: »

Have you noticed how many Chinese are posting in this forum supporting their government and country? Anecdotally, I can tell you that all of those that I personally know feel the same. Hardly the reaction you'd expect from them if the country was so bad!!!

I did notice that. Kinda odd there are hardly any Chinese living in Ireland.
It's exactly the reaction you get from staunch nationalists who see their country being criticised by outsiders - i.e. it tells said outsiders almost nothing since it is a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm sure they may criticise the govt./country themselves for some of its problems but when they see people they regard as know-nothing (you've already basically called me that, several times) outlanders doing it it annoys them and they jump to defense of their country.

PSI wrote: »

China isn't the west, it is different, we may not like or agree with their policies, I certainly don't. I do respect that as a sometimes visitor, I'm not in a position to make the call and while the people are happy (remember there are a Billion Chinese, when they revolt, you know all about it) on the whole, who are we to say?

So what if China isn't the "West"? What has that got to do with it.
People who get imprisoned and tortured because they say stuff the govt doesn't like will not tend to be "happy".

As for revolts, I don't think the people of a country would ever risk life and limb and revolt over their govt. dealing very harshly with "enemies of the state" [so long as it doesn't start to classify too large a fraction of its own people as the "enemy"].

leonardo4358

RedPlanet wrote: »

While i agree with a lot of what you've said, i don't think it's quite so simple as that.
Proganda in the western world is like a self-administered medication.
Just as it was during the "cold war".
There doesn't need to be a Man-Behind-The-Curtain controlling things anymore.
The message has sunk-in to our subconsious minds.
China=Bad and China=Threat

I'm trying to take a neutral stand, because neither sides--Dalai Lama and Chinese government come with clean hands, as it was the case in most political issues.

Most western people believe Dalai Lama is a sacred spiritial leader who represents the voice of oppressed Tibetans, and a freedom fighter aginst communism as well. People bearing the mind of boycotting Beijing Olympics just need one more excuse. That's why when riots and violence happen, they could ignore (deliberately or not) studying the genuine fact of what is happening, while jumping into conclusion (helped by intently biased media) that this totalitarian government is doing oppressing again. Dalai Lama and his exiled government know too well of the tricky situation for China, and chose the 'right timing' for his 'great tibetan uprising' (there is ample evidence suggesting an organised revolt led by Dalai Lama's exiled government), even daring to use violence against civilians. The same terrors were conducted by Chechnyan separatists, Kosovar radicals, daringly, because they know who would back them fighting against 'evil' regimes.

If western people's prejudice against Chinese government influence their judgement without due regard to the solid fact, the Chinese government is to be blamed too. It has cracked down Tiananmen square with force, has censor on publication and Internet access, a lack of voting rights and perhaps human rights violations. That's where the prejudice come from. BBC knows too well of it. That's why its report, following Chinese report of deaths of civilians, says "18 deaths after protests", misled people to think that peaceful protestors were shot. However, I felt comforted when reading a briefing in Economist, which reported the true and logical image of Lhasa riots, through the eyes of its correspondent, who might happend to be the only western journalist to vitness the horrible days there.

So let's look at the incident only. I don't try to persuade people with hatred towards communism (anyway, China isn't pure communist any more). But a simple question--if you and your family, when walking on the grafton street, were stoned and knifed by excubrant mobs, peole were beaten and chasen by IRAs holding clubs and swords, shopping malls were burned down with innocent folks crying for help inside, and Irish consulates around the world were being attacked after overnight, what do you expect your government to do? start negotiating with IRAs, reconsider the policy towards them and apologise for its wrongdoings in the past, or otherwise?

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

...you mean the ones who fit in + don't dare question the chinese state?

Again, I know well China's policy on dissidents, but thats a very different issue to whether the average Tibetan on the street is happy with their lot.
They don't have the same civil liberties, its true, but by and large the Chinese governments oppressive nature isn't going to complicate the life of the average joe, any more than the patriot act does in the US. The tibetans are richer, better educated and living in better conditions than before the Chinese invaded (or re-claimed as some might say).

I do have to admit I had a look at an "Evil Western Propaganda" :pac: tv program on C4 last night it did occur to me that the stuff described in the film seemed no worse that what I would have thought any Chinese will suffer if they criticise and work against their govt on its home turf.

And thats it, you see, you're ignoring the point I'm making and arguing the "Chinese are oppressive etc etc" point. The Tibetans don't get a rougher deal than the rest of China. On the contrary, they get a much better deal. The ones who are getting the raw deal are specifically the Lama's. They have lost their power over the people. The outrage escalated with the Chinese government put the "false Panchen Lama" in place. The tibetan populace still revere the "false" Panchen Lama and that pisses the Lamas off no end. They have lost their stranglehold on the people. Remember that under the Lamas the tibet was a theocacy and other religions were (and still are) oppressed.

My whole point is, Tibetan people, will be no more free under Lama rule. Unless the Lama reform their entire ruling ideaology and there is no evidence at all of this being the case. Indeed they'll lose many of the benefits of Chinese rule.

If anything I think China has gotten a very good press overall [from the "media here" and in the UK, if not US media] in the past few years.
An excellent press compared to Bush's America IMO.

Maybe, but the situation in Tibet has still been shamefully misrepresented.

So what?
It's exactly the reaction you get from staunch nationalists who see their country being criticised by outsiders - i.e. it tells said outsiders almost nothing since it is a knee-jerk reaction.

Ahh so what you're saying is, that we westerners know what is better than the brainwashed simpletons in China? They don't have an rationale educated perspective on this lie we do? Our response is reasoned because we're civilised? Isn't that what the English said about us? Again, and no offence, you've both admitted and shown a terrible lack of knowledge on the issue, the region and the people and this si a complete show of double standards.

I'd argue that the entire western outrage has been a knee jerk response to an issue that they precious little about bar what mainstream western media tell them (admittedly this is the fault of China to a large degree). Free Tibet campaigners are known for distorting the facts as much as the Chinese propaganda machine. They don't even represent the Dalai Lama's views, yet use him as a figurehead to gain western sympathy.

I'm sure they may criticise the govt./country themselves for some of its problems but when they see people they regard as know-nothing (you've already basically called me that, several times) outlanders doing it it annoys them and they jump to defense of their country.

They do, but no more than FF gets criticised here. There is a marked difference between criticical people and dissidents. Again, you paint the Chinese as child-like and irrationale.

So what if China isn't the "West"? What has that got to do with it.
People who get imprisoned and tortured because they say stuff the govt doesn't like will not tend to be "happy".

People get imprisoned and tortured in the west. Ireland is an enabler of US rendition flights. The US refuses to outlaw torture. And who, might I add, is spinning the critique of China? Only the same country who just happens to be in severe debt to China and is internally spinning anti-China fearmongering among it's people (the US).

Lets put things in perspective. Last month a US governer was caught with a prostitute via surveillence set up through the Patriot Act, an act that was passed on the outright lie that it would ONLY EVER be used to combat terrorism. Now we see it isn't. The same country imprisons and tortures innocent people without charge or due proccess.

Yet we have sided with them in condemning China based on the actions of rioters and thugs using violent means, most of whom, aren't even resident in the area they are discussing in the name of someone who has won a Nobel prize for Peace

Yes China is oppressive, yes they've handled this situation terriby and yes they need to do something regarding human rights and civil liberties. However, the situation in Tibet has been spun in a shameful way as part of US anti-China propaganda, and we who live in glasshouses have been side by side, throwing stones.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote: »

While i agree with a lot of what you've said, i don't think it's quite so simple as that.
Proganda in the western world is like a self-administered medication.
Just as it was during the "cold war".
There doesn't need to be a Man-Behind-The-Curtain controlling things anymore.
The message has sunk-in to our subconsious minds.
China=Bad and China=Threat

"Propaganda":) in any free society has to be a "self-administered medication" doesn't it?
More than ever now you have to pick your source(s), decide on the dosage strength and % of lies and or omitted truths, not have the government or its organs do it for you...

fly_agaric

PSI wrote: »

Again, I know well China's policy on dissidents, but thats a very different issue to whether the average Tibetan on the street is happy with their lot.

If many Tibetans become "dissidents" because of what they believe then the problems are connected.

PSI wrote: »

They don't have the same civil liberties, its true, but by and large the Chinese governments oppressive nature isn't going to complicate the life of the average joe, any more than the patriot act does in the US. The tibetans are richer, better educated and living in better conditions than before the Chinese invaded (or re-claimed as some might say).

And thats it, you see, you're ignoring the point I'm making and arguing the "Chinese are oppressive etc etc" point. The Tibetans don't get a rougher deal than the rest of China. On the contrary, they get a much better deal.

Look, my position would be this.

(1) I don't think governments should behave in the way in which China's govt does. I really do feel that with the force of a religious belief.

(2) If the people in Tibet do want independance from China for themselves or even just more autonomy then you have a second wrong. If not - see (1).

PSI wrote: »

The ones who are getting the raw deal are specifically the Lama's. They have lost their power over the people. The outrage escalated with the Chinese government put the "false Panchen Lama" in place. The tibetan populace still revere the "false" Panchen Lama and that pisses the Lamas off no end. They have lost their stranglehold on the people. Remember that under the Lamas the tibet was a theocacy and other religions were (and still are) oppressed.

My whole point is, Tibetan people, will be no more free under Lama rule. Unless the Lama reform their entire ruling ideaology and there is no evidence at all of this being the case. Indeed they'll lose many of the benefits of Chinese rule.

I don't know enough to judge, but that should be up to the Tibetans themselves IMO. I don't think you can predict what would happen in the future either. You accuse me of a sort of cultural imperialism below but yet here you are again basically saying that the Chinese govt. knows what's best for Tibetans, China has + will develop Tibet + frees it from its backward religion and its priest-class etc. I doubt the good outweighs the bad, but is it up to the Chinese anyway?

PSI wrote: »

Ahh so what you're saying is, that we westerners know what is better than the brainwashed simpletons in China?
They don't have an rationale educated perspective on this lie we do? Our response is reasoned because we're civilised? Isn't that what the English said about us?

I don't really see where you get that from?

Getting defensive when total outsiders criticise your country and government is not a sign of stupidity, or backwardness IMO. It's just nationalism.
Many of the posts here (earlier in the thread anyways) were somewhat defensive, weren't they?

As for having a "rational" perspective, how about a more detached perspective? It's not "my" country or my people...

As for knowing what's better, I think I know what is right, that is all. Governments shouldn't oppress their people. Peoples should have self determination.

PSI wrote:

They do, but no more than FF gets criticised here. There is a marked difference between criticical people and dissidents. Again, you paint the Chinese as child-like and irrationale.

That is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? You can say what you like behind closed doors but wouldn't publishing your criticism of the rulers in the media or maybe even daring to post it up on the interweb magically cross you over the line into full-blown "dissident" territory in China?

Again, consider nationalism. Look at the bile that gets directed at the Irish govt on this website.
I doubt this is the first thing people will wax lyrical about when describing Ireland to outsiders. Outsiders deciding to criticise Ireland in the same way (even in jest) had better be wary of the reaction (remember that stuff with the German Ambassador here a while back...).

PSI wrote: »

People get imprisoned and tortured in the west.
Ireland is an enabler of US rendition flights. The US refuses to outlaw torture.

The US is not the West. Ireland is a small, cowardly country. Time and again its been shown we will never say "boo" when money is at stake. It's still a stretch to say we "enable" US rendition and torture of their detainees in other countries. We do nothing, like I'm sure our ministers are all smiles and never push any "hot" topics when the discuss trade deals with the Chinese.

It's difficult not to laugh when the US bangs the drum for freedom and universal human rights now but even so, the scale in China is somewhat greater isn't it?

PSI wrote: »

And who, might I add, is spinning the critique of China? Only the same country who just happens to be in severe debt to China and is internally spinning anti-China fearmongering among it's people (the US).

Lets put things in perspective. Last month a US governer was caught with a prostitute via surveillence set up through the Patriot Act, an act that was passed on the outright lie that it would ONLY EVER be used to combat terrorism. Now we see it isn't. The same country imprisons and tortures innocent people without charge or due proccess.

Ok. I agree.

PSI wrote: »

Yet we have sided with them in condemning China based on the actions of rioters and thugs using violent means, most of whom, aren't even resident in the area they are discussing in the name of someone who has won a Nobel prize for Peace
...However, the situation in Tibet has been spun in a shameful way as part of US anti-China propaganda, and we who live in glasshouses have been side by side, throwing stones.

The argument can't be that that the US (and US media) take on an issue is always wrong because they are spinning for their own purposes/interests.

Propaganda is best based on some truths, isn't it?

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote: »

"Propaganda":) in any free society has to be a "self-administered medication" doesn't it?
More than ever now you have to pick your source(s), decide on the dosage strength and % of lies and or omitted truths, not have the government or its organs do it for you...

No actually.
It can (and i agrue, does) happen in "free societies" via corporate monopolies.
For example Clearwater Radio Broadcasting Companies & Stations running most the radio stations in USA took a particular point of view after 9-11.
Independent Newspapers LTD whom control a monopoly of the printed press in this country.

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote: »

No actually.
It can (and i agrue, does) happen in "free societies" via corporate monopolies.
For example Clearwater Radio Broadcasting Companies & Stations running most the radio stations in USA took a particular point of view after 9-11.
Independent Newspapers LTD whom control a monopoly of the printed press in this country.

Such things are obviously bad but still not on the level as a monopoly of 1 (the state having effective control of the media within the country and its foot on the pipe of information leaking in from outside).

I haven't bought or read the indo or sindo or the Herald for about 6 months and I don't think it has had a limiting effect on my access to information about what is going on in Ireland or the rest of the world.

Thirdfox

Surprisingly Fox News is totally accessible from the Chinese net - I suspect it's just a way of saying "look at how biased their 'reputable' news media is". NYTimes and CNN are viewable too freely. BBC news has been recently unblocked... so I don't buy the notion that the Chinese government is preventing people from looking at the other side of the story.

So how in your view is the Chinese government preventing information "leaking" from outside? I agree that People's Daily is a mouthpiece of the state (I'm sure almost everyone in China recognises that)...but when bias is more subtly wrapped up as truth and facts e.g. Fox/Sky news (and recently I found even in the BBC) on many issues I argue that this is more dangerous and harder to defend against than blatant bias.

This episode has left me really disillusioned with Western media - they purport to uphold journalistic principles but have in many cases told half-truths and un-truths to the people. I can spot these mistakes/bias/agendas since I know something about the issue but beforehand I simply trusted the BBC on what it reported...after this I will have to do a lot more independent research on important news events to make up my own mind on what is happening.

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

If many Tibetans become "dissidents" because of what they believe then the problems are connected.

"If" being the key word. We can dream up a ton of scenarios with the word if.

The important thing for the sake of this discussion is that they haven't and frankly, aren't likely to.

(1) I don't think governments should behave in the way in which China's govt does. I really do feel that with the force of a religious belief.

That is a fair point which I would not dispute.

(2) If the people in Tibet do want independance from China for themselves or even just more autonomy then you have a second wrong. If not - see (1).

Again the word "If". The great cry for a free Tibet is among the exile community and certain underground Lamaists. There has been no widespread demonstration or indication that the majority of people living IN Tibet feel this way.

but yet here you are again basically saying that the Chinese govt. knows what's best for Tibetans, China has + will develop Tibet + frees it from its backward religion and its priest-class etc. I doubt the good outweighs the bad, but is it up to the Chinese anyway?

That isn't what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the Tibetan people are in a better state now, under Chinese rule than they were 50 years ago under Lama rule. For a start, they aren't slaves. Secondly they have a decent economy and good education. The Chinese aren't perfect, but they have given the Tibetans more freedom and prosperity than they have ever had.

Now, a free Tibet will lose alot of that. Thats a fact. China won't give freedom willingly and if they do, you can bet they'll treat Tibet with contempt in terms of economic standing.

Getting defensive when total outsiders criticise your country and government is not a sign of stupidity, or backwardness IMO. It's just nationalism.
Many of the posts here (earlier in the thread anyways) were somewhat defensive, weren't they?

Surely it depends on how knowledgable or valid the outsiders criticism is. If someone comes along and is critical and has a clue about the history and situation, then yes, I'd put it down to nationalism. If someone comes here and quite honestly, hasn't a clue, then I'd say they could rightly and rationally be annoyed.

In this case, I think you don't have much knowledge apart from your distaste for the Chinese Government and that ignorance of the situation you are commenting on is what bothers people. It bothers me and I'm not a Chinese national.

As for having a "rational" perspective, how about a more detached perspective? It's not "my" country or my people...

Perfectly valid if you know what you're talking about.

As for knowing what's better, I think I know what is right, that is all. Governments shouldn't oppress their people. Peoples should have self determination.

Oppression comes in many forms. As I've argued, in many ways, the US, Ireland, England etc have just as little self determination as China.

That is somewhat disingenuous isn't it? You can say what you like behind closed doors but wouldn't publishing your criticism of the rulers in the media or maybe even daring to post it up on the interweb magically cross you over the line into full-blown "dissident" territory in China?

Who said it was behind closed doors?

The US is not the West. Ireland is a small, cowardly country. Time and again its been shown we will never say "boo" when money is at stake. It's still a stretch to say we "enable" US rendition and torture of their detainees in other countries. We do nothing, like I'm sure our ministers are all smiles and never push any "hot" topics when the discuss trade deals with the Chinese.

Or more importantly, the politicians don't do nothing, they do the opposite of what the people want.

It's difficult not to laugh when the US bangs the drum for freedom and universal human rights now but even so, the scale in China is somewhat greater isn't it?

Is it though? We've seen the images of torture and the treatment of dead bodies in US prisons. We've seen images of merriment and glee at the suffering of US prisoners.

The argument can't be that that the US (and US media) take on an issue is always wrong because they are spinning for their own purposes/interests.

Propaganda is best based on some truths, isn't it?

Maybe, but I'd more say that its based on a perception of truth. Many things can be perceived as true from a certain bias, if you are inclined. The concept of right and wrong is a hard one to judge by the standards of one culture. YOUR standards will always come from your culture and you will always believe it right. The same can be said for someone from China. Who is right will depend on on perception. You will make many cases for your morality which could be equally argued elsewhere.

It is like an IQ test. You can't judge the IQ of someone who grew up in Rural tibet by an IQ test designed for someone in New York. Yes sadly, historically, people always do.

daithicarr

The exile community is not just made of people who fled tibet 50 years ago, it is continuously replenished by people fleeing from tibet and contact is maintained by pilgrims seeking to visit the dali lama, again the Nanpa la killings are a testament to this fact and the chinese states attempt to stop it.

and since the chinese states opposition to decent is fairly notorious, the lack of mass protest doesnt really show the people are happy with their lot, it could quite simply be that they are to scared to come out and protest, knowing what could be in store for them if the security forces get their hands on them.

just because the number of people involved in the protests is relatively small compared to the entire population, it doesnt mean they are the only ones who support thier aims. there is usually a much larger passive support base.
When ireland wanted independance, around 70% of the population voted for independence partys, yet only a few thousand took part in direct action against the state.
When the people of ireland protested against the iraq war about 100,000 took part, but a much bigger section of the population supported them.
In Burma, where the junta have learnt a lot of their population control skills from China, the majority voted for democratic candidates, yet only a minority came out to protest.
you can be sure that in Tibet that those protesters are supported by a much larger passive body of the population. if they are the majority or the minority it is impossible for ANY ONE to accurately say, as they have to way to express them selves.

If the PRC is so confident its a minority voice, why dont they allow a vote on the subject ? why close off the area to outside media and observation?
They are scared that the truth will become so obvious they cant hide it from their own people, the Tibetans are not happy with the PRC.

RedPlanet

Why should China allow any such vote?
There exist no member nations of the UN (iirc) that view the Dali Lama group the legitimate government of Tibet.
There is no international dispute over governship of Tibet.
What benefit would it be to China and the chinese people to allow one province a referenda on the matter and not others?
Surely if such a referenda would take place it would at minimum have to encompass all of China.
There is no "democratic litmus test" that China nor anybody else requires.

keiran

was asked by the administrator to post the following links here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo

the second one contains some radical words of which I hope you may ignore.These two represent the opinion of most chinese people.

keiran

I assume that most people discussing here haven't ever been to Tibet or known people from there.But I have.

What I have seen are :

1 Generally speaking,Tibetans and Hans live happily together.
2 Most main leaders of local authorities are from their own group.
3 Chinese government built roads,railways,airports and developped local industries (tourism,etc.)
4 It might be competition regarding local business between Chinese Han businessmen and minority groups.But it has little to do with politics.
5 The ethnic minorities are actually "treated better" as they're exempted from the one-child policy and they have better chance to enter universities,etc.
6 The local religion is not banned by the government at all.On the contrary,it has always been encouraged as a policy to intergrate ethnic groups.

keiran

As for the system,I agree that PRC system is currently the most suitable system for China.

1 The huge population in China requires a powerful and determined government.There're more than 1 billion people in China which is a unique situation comparing to other countries in the world.I don't think that a government with too much "freedom" can effectively and efficiently manage so many people.

2 And those people are exceedingly "diversified" in terms of education.I can tell that most rural residents still have no idea of democracy and self-actualisation,etc.At this stage,giving power to the mass can only cause chaos.

3 Culturally speaking,the chinese people are very peaceful.I know that to be able to act/speak freely is very important.But only if the country can make us richer,why should we reform on it?

4 in the future,maybe 50 years i'd say,China will change and will in the need of change.But not now.

wes

keiran wrote: »

As for the system,I agree that PRC system is currently the most suitable system for China.

1 The huge population in China requires a powerful and determined government.There're more than 1 billion people in China which is a unique situation comparing to other countries in the world.I don't think that a government with too much "freedom" can effectively and efficiently manage so many people.

India does just fine (it has approx 1 billion population as well) and its a democracy. Don't get me wrong India has its problems, but it miles ahead of the PRC.

keiran wrote: »

2 And those people are exceedingly "diversified" in terms of education.I can tell that most rural residents still have no idea of democracy and self-actualisation,etc.At this stage,giving power to the mass can only cause chaos.

So there to stupid for democracy, so that makes it ok. How about educate the people on it and then introduce it.

keiran wrote: »

3 Culturally speaking,the chinese people are very peaceful.I know that to be able to act/speak freely is very important.But only if the country can make us richer,why should we reform on it?

I have no clue what your trying to say here. Can you please clarify?

keiran wrote: »

4 in the future,maybe 50 years i'd say,China will change and will in the need of change.But not now.

Why not now? Why not start change now? It may take a while, but it can be done.

keiran

wes wrote: »

India does just fine (it has approx 1 billion population as well) and its a democracy. Don't get me wrong India has its problems, but it miles ahead of the PRC.



So there to stupid for democracy, so that makes it ok. How about educate the people on it and then introduce it.



I have no clue what your trying to say here. Can you please clarify?



Why not now? Why not start change now? It may take a while, but it can be done.

sorry i was in a hurry when i put the replied above.

1 I know little about India but I assume that it has lots of problems as well.The democracy can be a "title" for any state.The only thing that matters is how the people feel.

2 I mentioned "in around 50 yrs".That is to give time to education.

3 Really sorry about the confusion caused.
what i was trying to say is that chinese people are not "ambitious" about potilics and they put family in the first place.
If the current government can provide properous economic environment in order that kids can enjoy newly-built playgounds ,young people can have jobs to be able to pay the mortgages,families can afford to create a high-standard living condition,etc.,why should we change the government?

4 Because it is the most suitable system now.

wes

keiran wrote: »

1 I know little about India but I assume that it has lots of problems as well.The democracy can be a "title" for any state.The only thing that matters is how the people feel.

India has a similar population size as China and is managing to do just as well as China economically.

keiran wrote: »

2 I mentioned "in around 50 yrs".That is to give time to education.

Fair enough, misread you there, but wouldn't the education in to start now?

keiran wrote: »

3 Really sorry about the confusion caused.
what i was trying to say is that chinese people are not "ambitious" about potilics and they put family in the first place.
If the current government can provide properous economic environment in order that kids can enjoy newly-built playgounds ,young people can have jobs to be able to pay the mortgages,families can afford to create a high-standard living condition,etc.,why should we change the government?

Fair point, if people are doing well, there hardly going to kick up a fuss.

keiran wrote: »

4 Because it is the most suitable system now.

I would disagree, I think China would benefit from a more open society. I am not saying it should be a carbon copy of the West, but more freedoms should be allowed.

wes

I didn't see this posted yet:

From BBC News:

The challenges of reporting in China

Last week thousands of Chinese found they were able to access the BBC News website for the first time, after years of strict censorship. They e-mailed to tell us what they thought, and many were critical of our coverage.

Here the BBC's Asia bureau chief Paul Danahar, who is based in Beijing, responds to this criticism and looks at the challenges of reporting in China.

It is a pleasant surprise to be criticised by your readers when you work as a journalist in China.

Most of you viewing this page are unknowingly taking for granted a luxury that those of us living behind the "Great Firewall" have to do without.

We are in a bit of a vacuum, cut off from normal access to the outside world.

Click here for the rest

Basically BBC responding to criticism leveled at it by Chinese readers. Interesting reading.

Thirdfox

Fair play to the BBC for actually responding - puts them (rightly so) above the crowd at Sky and Fox with their "journalism".

And criticism has been coming from more than just the Chinese people - I remember reading their "we've been unblocked" article's reader's comments page and there were (admittedly only a few) non-Chinese people who were saying that this would be a good opportunity for the BBC to give a more balanced coverage of events.

They didn't actually address the details though - just a broad statement of how encouraged they were that people were angry at them for perceived bias.