Does anybody here care about Tibet?

yawtin

I would like to give you a few links to learn more about it.

China Bashing: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C136
Tibet the truth: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY
Tibetan in San Francisco, confrontation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJGoE5qaKrE
China from the inside:
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=67816521b821e3d70083091f31124282


I am Chinese. Anytime I try to talk to western people about Tibet, they say I am brain-washed. So I would like to show you what independent western thinkers say.

I hope Irish people can understand us a bit better because it is not hard to understnd that the Tibetan problem was first caused by the British (1913). If Tibet is seperated from China, it would be our HI.

PS: in terms of whether Tibetans in China do really want independency, there is no official figure. However I believe most Tibetans believe they are also chinese. One tibetan man said on a website in China，that in his village, about 1 in 4000 tibetans have political ambition, and villagers consider them as rogues. He also mentioned that 1 of these very rare people were killed by the villagers (who are all Tibetans) in a fight and his mates were rescued by police before they were killed. This man said it was a shame that certain people betray their group just to get a few hundrad yuan （20 to 30 euro )a day from Dalai larma. He estimated that there is maximumly 10000 people out of 6 million that is interested in "free tibet".


The Chinese community is going to hold a demostration on O'Connell streey on saturday 12th of april, 2008, between 2-5.

yawtin

No offence. But I'm not exactly bowled over by your argument. You link a few sites (one can find anything on the internet), you blame the Brits, you throw in comments like...

yawtin wrote: »

I believe most Tibetans believe they are also chinese.

and

yawtin wrote: »

One tibetan man said on a website in China

And I think there was some point about the Dalai Lama bribing them all somewhere too. Oh and some ritual killing of the politically ambitious.

I'm no bleeding heart, but forgive me for remaining sceptical.

RedPlanet

I didn't follow all the links but i did find the guy that made the Mysterious China documentaries and i found his concise history of China and Tibet video to be interesting. Probably something posters should watch (it's 9 mins long)

I also found this opinion piece which i would really like to share as i'm sure most posters here will find something of value.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12585

I wonder why the media is so uncritical of the Dalai Lama group when they are not as benevolent as the squeaky-clean PR image they promote.
For example how is it that the Dalai Lama is associated with non-violence when he was a recipient of CIA money?

gordon_gekko

to answer the lead question

i like most people may care about tibet in so far as if was asked randomly do i care , i would reply , yes
the problem is i like most people to our shame dont care enough to do anything about it

Kev_ps3

I agree with you yawtin, unfortunately not many will. As you can probably see our media here in the west is anti-China. Some sick people in high places see China as a big threat to them and hate the fact they China is not a "democracy". They are using this issue to turn China into a 'bad guy'. I think its sad, and even sadder that people seem to be buying it - just shows you - people are sheep.

bonkey

yawtin wrote: »

PS: in terms of whether Tibetans in China do really want independency, there is no official figure.

I'd be skeptical of any official figures, given that any officials in question would have a vested interest one way or the other, and are not known for transparency and so forth/

However, the lack of any meaningful figures only begs one question....if the Chinese government are so certain of the correctness of their position, why don't they have these figures to back them up?

The Chinese authorities keep insisting that its only a small number of agitators and so forth, but if there are - as you say - no official figures, then they have no real basis on which to make such claims.

Kev_ps3

bonkey wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of any official figures, given that any officials in question would have a vested interest one way or the other, and are not known for transparency and so forth/

Every country has a vested interest, do you know that the west has a vested interest and sometimes makes up figures and facts to support their views. Everyone does it, so dont say it as if it could only happin in China.

Sleepy

IF, and it's a big IF, the Chinese authorities are so confident that the majority of the people of Tibet want to remain part of China, why haven't they put it to the people of Tibet in a U.N. monitored referendum?

RedPlanet

Sleepy wrote: »

IF, and it's a big IF, the Chinese authorities are so confident that the majority of the people of Tibet want to remain part of China, why haven't they put it to the people of Tibet in a U.N. monitored referendum?

Why hold the referendum in Tibet?
Since all of China would be effected surely the referenda should encompass all of China.
Take for example Co. Cork, if it were to desire independence the Dail would ultimately decide.
In USA too, it would not be up to the individual state, rather the US Congress (a body comprising all the states). Cue the US Civil War.

A big problem with your suggestion is that NO countries recognize Tibet. Nobdy recognizes the Dalai Lama group as the legitimate government of Tibet. And in fact it would be quite extrodinary if a western power DID, with all the talk of securlaism and in today's media climate regarding "sharia law".

Kev_ps3

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why hold the referendum in Tibet?
Since all of China would be effected surely the referenda should encompass all of China.
Take for example Co. Cork, if it were to desire independence the Dail would ultimately decide.
In USA too, it would not be up to the individual state, rather the US Congress (a body comprising all the states). Cue the US Civil War.

A big problem with your suggestion is that NO countries recognize Tibet. Nobdy recognizes the Dalai Lama group as the legitimate government of Tibet. And in fact it would be quite extrodinary if a western power DID, with all the talk of securlaism and in today's media climate regarding "sharia law".

Good point RedPlanet. I think the same should be done regarding the north of Ireland. Let the people of the Island vote whether or not they want it Irish - not just the 6 countys.

Kev_ps3

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Some sick people in high places see China as a big threat to them and hate the fact they China is not a "democracy". They are using this issue to turn China into a 'bad guy'. I think its sad, and even sadder that people seem to be buying it - just shows you - people are sheep.

Like Amnesty International?

They just make that stuff up in their reports because they have vested interests? They are just 'sheep'?

I think the phrase 'come off it' springs to mind...

Kev_ps3

Deleted User wrote: »

Like Amnesty International?

They just make that stuff up in their reports because they have vested interests? They are just 'sheep'?

I think the phrase 'come off it' springs to mind...

No, not Amnesty International.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why hold the referendum in Tibet?
Since all of China would be effected surely the referenda should encompass all of China.
Take for example Co. Cork, if it were to desire independence the Dail would ultimately decide.

Is Cork some separate nation, some ethnically different people, brutally occupied by us foreign Irish people? I am ashamed. I didn't know that.

Not sure that analogy bears too much scrutiny tbh.

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

Is Cork some separate nation, some ethnically different people, brutally occupied by us foreign Irish people? I am ashamed. I didn't know that.

Not sure that analogy bears too much scrutiny tbh.

Who is brutally occupied?
Is that a requirement for UN recognition?
How many ethnically different people do you think China contains?
Are those ethnically different in Tibet special in some way that they deserve to be given their own country that can't really sustain itself?
If Tibet should be it's own country, why has it been part of China for so many centuries?

leninbenjamin

what concerns me most is the lack of clear knowledge on the issue. as much as us Westerners don't know the situation on the ground, neither does a citizen of a country of 1.3billion(?). lets have some transparency please, why can't the Chinese government let neutral foreign observers in to evaluate the situation? but most importantly; dialogue, why do they keep shying away from it? it doesn't matter if its 50% of the population, or .005% of the population who support the uprising, it has the potential to disaffect a LOT of people if it continues (look how the small minority who were behind the Easter rising managed to get a whole country to themselves in the end). and frankly the ONLY person who might have any real influence over this group is the Dalai Lama. why don't the Chinese authorities sit down with him and work something out instead of slandering him in the media all the time?

ateam

Has anyone else noticed that there's hardly any protesters. No more than 2,000 in London I'd say which is isn't earth shattering. This issue is getting too much attention.

RedPlanet

leninbenjamin wrote: »

what concerns me most is the lack of clear knowledge on the issue. as much as us Westerners don't know the situation on the ground, neither does a citizen of a country of 1.3billion(?). lets have some transparency please, why can't the Chinese government let neutral foreign observers in to evaluate the situation? but most importantly; dialogue, why do they keep shying away from it? it doesn't matter if its 50% of the population, or .005% of the population who support the uprising, it has the potential to disaffect a LOT of people if it continues (look how the small minority who were behind the Easter rising managed to get a whole country to themselves in the end). and frankly the ONLY person who might have any real influence over this group is the Dalai Lama. why don't the Chinese authorities sit down with him and work something out instead of slandering him in the media all the time?

I certainly can see why they wouldn't speak with mr. Lama.
For one, he's the infalible Buddist Pope that fled his life of luxury when China came in to institute land reforms and eliminate his kingdom of serfs (slaves) and has been upset about loosing this throne ever since.
He received lots of funding from the CIA with a view toward destablising the region and alledgedly his own brothers were gunning running into China.
He has no power other than what the western media and western politicians give him. He's old now and will kick off in the near future.

Here's another article about the history of Tibet, including the Lamas and the current one Tenzin Gyatso.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
References at bottom of page.

OK-Cancel-Apply

The west has been trying to derail the Beijing Olympics since it was first announced. First it was 'Darfur', now it's Tibet.

The United States in particular does not want China to grow economically, or look good in any way in the eyes of the rest of the world.

All this mindless talk of "We should boycott the Olympics!" makes me sick. Politics is a game, but it is not part of the Olympic Games. What about the American-led boycott of the Moscow Olympics? That's right, America led a boycott of the Moscow Olympics, because the Soviets were fighting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan!!!

I don't hear any calls to boycott Britain, for London 2012, and guess what they are doing.

China will host the best Olympics the world has ever seen, and the U.S. of A is just going to have to get over it.

Sleepy

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why hold the referendum in Tibet?
Since all of China would be effected surely the referenda should encompass all of China.
Take for example Co. Cork, if it were to desire independence the Dail would ultimately decide.
In USA too, it would not be up to the individual state, rather the US Congress (a body comprising all the states). Cue the US Civil War.

A big problem with your suggestion is that NO countries recognize Tibet. Nobdy recognizes the Dalai Lama group as the legitimate government of Tibet. And in fact it would be quite extrodinary if a western power DID, with all the talk of securlaism and in today's media climate regarding "sharia law".

I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the history but I do seem to remember that Tibet was an independent country until the Chinese military annexed it in the early fifties. As such it's not like the people of Tibet ever made a decision to join the People's Republic, they were forced to at gunpoint. Kind of like Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and the rest of our Eastern European neighbours were by the USSR. Did you not recognise their right to secede?

Kev_ps3 wrote:

Good point RedPlanet. I think the same should be done regarding the north of Ireland. Let the people of the Island vote whether or not they want it Irish - not just the 6 countys.

A single vote on the North? Don't make me laugh.

There'd have to be two refereda on that mess - one to see if the people of Northern Ireland want to give up their British gravy train and another to see if the people of the Republic of Ireland want to foot the bill for them instead.

SeanW

The Soviet Union was attempting to annex Afghanistan, your appraisal is quite simplistic.

And I checked out the Spiked Online website, and found this:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4853/

:eek: All I can ask is, where can I get some of whatever it is the people at Spiked Online are smoking? Because it's obviously some good, strong sh**.

RedPlanet

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the history but I do seem to remember that Tibet was an independent country until the Chinese military annexed it in the early fifties. As such it's not like the people of Tibet ever made a decision to join the People's Republic, they were forced to at gunpoint. Kind of like Hungary, Poland, Lithuania and the rest of our Eastern European neighbours were by the USSR. Did you not recognise their right to secede?

Well, you obviously haven't bothered with any of those earlier links.
Tibet has never been an independant country, never recognized by any of her neighbours, nor further afield.
There was a time when China was in the throes of a civil war and a Japanese invasion in which the Dalai Lama group ran the administration of, for about 25 years or so, but China never gave up it's claim on that land. Once China put out the major fires it was dealing with, they would always return to administer Tibet. China has been administering Tibet for centuries upon centuries.

In fairness to the Tibetens, if they strike out for independence than fair play, but if the Chinese put down the rebels to keep hold of their turf than that's just what happens. That's how nation-states are formed, how they breakup and new ones born or how they preservere and continue with their current boundaries.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

Who is brutally occupied?
Is that a requirement for UN recognition?
How many ethnically different people do you think China contains?
Are those ethnically different in Tibet special in some way that they deserve to be given their own country that can't really sustain itself?
If Tibet should be it's own country, why has it been part of China for so many centuries?

I see you won't be budged.

Fair enough, Tibet and Cork are the exact same.

The bleatings of groups like Amnesty is a smokescreen.

RedPlanet

Maybe we can get the UN to hold a referenda on the independence of Donegal should we?
Or how about Scotland then?
Or maybe the UN could muscle-in on USA and give Alaska back to the indigenous people. Would that be better?
How about the Basques in Spain? Surely they should have independence?
Or the Kurds, heck they are split amongst several countries boundaries and they get persecuted in each one!

oscarBravo

...or, you could answer the questions.

Y'know, discussion.

[edit: this is in reply to Conor74, not RedPlanet - in case that's unclear.]

OK-Cancel-Apply

SeanW wrote: »

The Soviet Union was attempting to annex Afghanistan, your appraisal is quite simplistic.

And I checked out the Spiked Online website, and found this:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4853/

:eek: All I can ask is, where can I get some of whatever it is the people at Spiked Online are smoking? Because it's obviously some good, strong sh**.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan requested Soviet assistance with fighting the Taliban (praised at that time as Holy Warriors by Reagan).

leninbenjamin

RedPlanet wrote: »

I certainly can see why they wouldn't speak with mr. Lama.
For one, he's the infalible Buddist Pope that fled his life of luxury when China came in to institute land reforms and eliminate his kingdom of serfs (slaves) and has been upset about loosing this throne ever since.
He received lots of funding from the CIA with a view toward destablising the region and alledgedly his own brothers were gunning running into China.
He has no power other than what the western media and western politicians give him. He's old now and will kick off in the near future.

first off, regardless of whether he has any actual "power" (i like how you slightly changed the subject there) he clearly must have some influence if he was given CIA funding, and the continual character assassinations and blaming for the violence by Chinese government seemingly backs this up (why do they go so far out of their way to discredit a nobody?)

Secondly, you could probably have made similar character accusations about Paisley and Adams. but that didn't prevent them participating in the peace process. us Westerners are being accused here of being on a moral hobby-horse with regards to the Tibet issue, well clearly China are doing the same with the Dalai Lama and the entire Tibetan issue in general. if they really want what's best for the stability of the region they will ignore the moral failings of the main characters involved and enter into dialogue and compromise. why aren't they doing this?

**note: i don't give a sh*t who ends up with power in Tibet. i dont care if the Dalai Lama remains in exile, in fact i am severely at odds with organised religion and the concept of "spiritual leaders". i just don't want the whole situation to explode into a proper conflict, because it doesn't take much for that to happen. Read into our own history if you want further examples.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

Or the Kurds, heck they are split amongst several countries boundaries and they get persecuted in each one!

I completely agree.

But don't agree that persecution of the Kurds in one part of the world justifies persecution in Tibetans in another.

yawtin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

lets have some transparency please, why can't the Chinese government let neutral foreign observers in to evaluate the situation? but most importantly; dialogue, why do they keep shying away from it?

It is sad that the Chinese Government still try to control the media. But I can understand them. Internally, they don't want Chinese people to dislike the GAME. Plenty of Chinese people have said things such as " if they don't like us, they don't have to come." For the outside world, western media had shown an very arrogant attitude and misleadingly reported a lot of things before the ban. I have watched a lot of report on China, especially since March 14th. My conlusion is that western media only tell you the part that they want you to know, but they don't tell you anything they don't like you to know.

The following links are photos of Chinese people's experience in London, Paris and


Trafalgar Square: http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=uk&MsgID=440305

Paris: http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=france&MsgID=70644

San Francisco:
http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=na&MsgID=823317

http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=na&MsgID=823514
Note: the girls in the 5th and 6th fotos were attacked by "free Tibet" chilli pepper water


and what do you think of these?
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/635693500.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8-k6nUzX8g&eurl

leninbenjamin

Yawtin, obviously unacceptable crap is happening to Chinese because of this. the Chinese government wont take the necessary steps to resolve this quickly and amicably. you're blaming Western media for this?

yawtin

let us look at his history:

Dalai's army attacked Tibet until 1970th. He failed because the liberalised slaves did not want him back. In the 70th he decided to give up Tibet independence-- China and the US developed their relationship in the 70th through "Ping Pong Diplomacy".


The first prime minister of China went to India twice to invite him back, but he rejected.

"free tibet" campaign was founded in 1987, two years later the first "Tibet Riot" broke out, in the same year there was also the Tiananmen uprise.

there had been 4 rounds of negociations between the Chinese Gov and Dalai's representitive (his brother) since the 90th.

Dalai claimed that he wants tibet to be an autonomy, but Tibet is already an autonomy. One of his conditions is there should be no Chinese army in Tibet if China wants him back. He also claimed that his Tibet autonomy should include all the areas that Tibetan people live, which is effectively a quater of China. He said Han and other ethnic Chinese have to move out of the region.

Budhism is great. Budha has a lot of great teachings. If you are not familiar with Budha's teaching, you would think Dalai is a true holy master. However his teaching is only one clan of the entire budhism religion, he is now a supperstar not for his teaching, but his political importance in the western world's dealing with China.

Tomas_V

yawtin wrote: »

I hope Irish people can understand us a bit better because it is not hard to understnd that the Tibetan problem was first caused by the British (1913). If Tibet is seperated from China,

The reason many Irish people are sympathetic to the Tibetans is because their history resembles ours in many ways. Both are minorities that were/are exploited by powerful neighbour. Both have had their unique culture suppressed. In both cases the powerful neighbour claimed an ancient right to govern the weaker one. Both Ireland and Tibet have experienced famine caused by mis-government by a foreign power. Both nations have had colonisation and plantation imposed on them. So, China has much to do if it is to gain Irish sympathy. Right now, you look more like our former British enemies.

I watched the BBC coverage of the torch run in London. It was quite obvious that the protestors had disrupted the run and the BBC stated this as did the US, Russian, French and Arab news services. I then switched to China TV9 and the headline was: 'Protestors fail to disrupt torch run'.

China's government has a image problem, not the least of which is that its spokespeople lack credibility in the west.