Does anybody here care about Tibet?

yawtin · 10-04-2008 02:51AM #1

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.

10-04-2008 08:11AM

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 · 10-04-2008 08:29AM

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 · 10-04-2008 09:12AM

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 · 10-04-2008 10:24AM

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 · 10-04-2008 10:30AM

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 · 10-04-2008 10:45AM

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 · 10-04-2008 11:33AM

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 · 10-04-2008 11:57AM

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 · 10-04-2008 12:10PM

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.

10-04-2008 12:22PM

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 · 10-04-2008 12:28PM

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.

10-04-2008 12:38PM

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 · 10-04-2008 12:52PM

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 · 10-04-2008 12:57PM

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 · 10-04-2008 01:09PM

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 · 10-04-2008 01:13PM

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 · 10-04-2008 02:07PM

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 · 10-04-2008 02:38PM

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 · 10-04-2008 02:44PM

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 · 10-04-2008 02:49PM

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.

10-04-2008 02:55PM

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 · 10-04-2008 03:12PM

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 · 10-04-2008 03:12PM

...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 · 10-04-2008 04:36PM

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 · 10-04-2008 04:45PM

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.

10-04-2008 04:59PM

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 · 10-04-2008 05:13PM

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 · 10-04-2008 05:24PM

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 · 10-04-2008 05:54PM

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 · 10-04-2008 06:58PM

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.

RedPlanet · 10-04-2008 06:58PM

leninbenjamin wrote: »

the Chinese government wont take the necessary steps to resolve this quickly and amicably. you're blaming Western media for this?

The "necessary steps"?
What, you mean that China isn't taking steps to placate the western media?
Isn't placating those nutjob, brainwashed protesters with "Free Tibet" banners?
China isn't bowing to the neocon's agenda?
No self respecting nation would do any of those things.

leninbenjamin · 10-04-2008 11:52PM

RedPlanet wrote: »

The "necessary steps"?
What, you mean that China isn't taking steps to placate the western media?
Isn't placating those nutjob, brainwashed protesters with "Free Tibet" banners?
China isn't bowing to the neocon's agenda?

yeah yeah yeah. i'm just another liberal free tibet nut. good detective work there mate. you clearly haven't been paying much attention to what i've said.

Tomas_V makes the good point there. there are a lot of comparisons to be drawn with the current Tibetan situation and our own History of this wee isle. if China continue to take the hard hat tough man line they risk inflaming the situation, it only takes one over reaction to a few dissenters to turn 2 or 3 million against you. and it only takes a few wealthy western ex-pats/sympathizers to fuel an all out rebellion. it's in everyone's interests that this be resolved amicably.

RedPlanet wrote: »

No self respecting nation would do any of those things.

surely no self respecting nation should risk endangering their citizens for the sake of their 'public image'? why should people's lives be put on the line for these grand ideals? would you like to see more shopkeepers burned alive? more dissenters shot in the street?

marcsignal · 10-04-2008 11:56PM

Can’t say I know anything about Tibet & China. However, Fair Dews to the OP ‘yawtin’ it’s good to see someone from China getting in on this debate.

ateam wrote: »

This issue is getting too much attention.

+1.

RedPlanet wrote: »

For example how is it that the Dalai Lama is associated with non-violence when he was a recipient of CIA money?

+1.

It’s the very time other parts of the world should be watched more closely now, especially when the CIA are anywhere in the equation. You never know what might slip in under the radar;-) IMO.

“Unfortunately, sometimes things have to be changed in a rather ugly way, we’re going to intervene whenever we decide it’s in our National Security Interests to intervene, and if you don’t like it? Lump it!”

“Duane Clarridge” (CIA Chief, Latin America 1961-64) in an interview with John Pilger, for the ‘War on Democracy’ documentary.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=43315

Kev_ps3 · 11-04-2008 09:20AM

ateam wrote: »

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.

Thats because the western media is jumping all over it for their own reasons.

Kev_ps3 · 11-04-2008 09:23AM

yawtin wrote: »

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.

Bet we will never hear any of that in the western media. Sounds more like a trouble maker to me than anything else.

Grudaire · 11-04-2008 11:53AM

Ok basically I want to find out whats a happening over there, I've gone into some of the links, and to be fair Chinas media is ridicules(Yes even more so then the 'western' media that so demonises....etc etc)

Any way the 200 argument is null, 2000people from England cared enough, and could turn up and protest, if a protest has any kind of size it generally indicates a lot more people care about the issue.

I want to hear:
-Oppression yes/no (given the argument that the local language is taught in Tibet)
-Dalai Lama getting CIA money (What did he do with it?)

and btw I don't give a sh*t what problems you have with America- showing me videos on why the CIA are bad, I really don't care, I already have a dislike for America,
America bad not equals China Good.....

yawtin · 11-04-2008 03:56PM

Tomas_V wrote: »

The reason many Irish people are sympathetic to the Tibetans is because their history resembles ours in many ways.

Who build that image for you? your British enemies and other colonizers.

China's history in the last 160 years is purely struggling and fighting against foreign invaders. I think China's history and culture resembles the Irish in many ways, and I say that with confidence because I know both country well.

I admit CCTV is pretty stupid when it comes to save national image. However, Chinese people still know what is going on, from the internet. Your media show you some facts, but only partial facts, it is really better than CCTV?

yawtin · 11-04-2008 04:17PM

leninbenjamin wrote: »

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?

I am not blaming western media for the chinese government's action here, although there is plenty of reason to blame them.

I am talking about western media have betrayed the notion of "fair media". They do not care about finding the truth, they think making China look bad is "politically correct" therefore it is ok to manipulate facts.

Imaging if IRA is considered as a great anti-UK tool, no matter what it does, the media of the rest of the world just say "great", do you think it is right?

GuanYin · 11-04-2008 05:14PM

All China really need to do is say they are now a free democracy and carry on as normal. They wouldn't be very different from the United States.

Seriously though, the US presidential hopefuls could do worse than to have a PR team like the Lama. For a body that has such blatant self-interest motivating this, they're coming off like saints.

The trouble in Tibet, IMHO, is largely instigated by the Lama for the benefit of the Lama. The PRC is oppressive. We know this. That has nothing to do with whats happening in Tibet any more than the PRC's actions in any other region of China.

Tomas_V · 11-04-2008 05:21PM

yawtin wrote: »

Who build that image for you? your British enemies and other colonizers.

Since most of us don't speak Chinese, we're quite likely to find out and be influenced by non-Chinese sources. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that that all Western sources of information are all politically controlled. We have access to a huge variety of independent views. And, we're well used to sifting through fact and propaganda.

yawtin wrote: »

China's history in the last 160 years is purely struggling and fighting against foreign invaders.

Such as pacifist Buddist monks from Tibet? The English, the Japanese, the Russians and maybe other Chinese yes, but Tibetans? They're not the aggressors.

yawtin wrote: »

Your media show you some facts, but only partial facts

The real question is, how is China going to win our trust? With rants about 'enemies and colonizers'? By bad-tempered references to the 'Dalai Clique'? To our ears, that sounds coarse, abusive and lacking in any respect.

China needs to tone it down a bit and become more sophisticated (and open) with its communications. Have a look at 'Al-Jazeera' or 'Russia Today' and learn how other major powers communicate their message. Learn too, from the wise and reasonable statements made by the Dalai Lama. If you don't respect your opponents, you've lost already.

The more China barks at the world, the more we'll cover our ears.

BlitzKrieg · 11-04-2008 05:51PM

Sorry for the random quote and answer but:

Maybe we can get the UN to hold a referenda on the independence of Donegal should we?
Or how about Scotland then?

The UN dont need to, the British already did a referendum on devolution in 1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum%2C_1997

which can if the scottish people want it to lead to independence:

Alex Salmond has announced that his government intends to publish a white paper that will include issuing a bill on holding an independence Referendum to the Scottish Parliament. If this was passed by Parliament and a "yes" outcome was obtained in a subsequent national plebiscite, it would establish a mandate for the Scottish Executive to open talks with the British Government, with a view to repealing the Acts of Union 1707, eventually restoring Scotland's independent sovereignty.[33] However, the Scottish Labour Party, Scottish Conservative Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats, which together form a parliamentary majority, have stated they will collectively oppose any plans to hold such a referendum on independence.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Support_for_independence

yawtin · 11-04-2008 06:14PM

PSI wrote: »

All China really need to do is say they are now a free democracy and carry on as normal. They wouldn't be very different from the United States.

If you insist a country with 3000 years of recorded history is not different from a country with 300 years of history other than democracy, I just wouldn't know what to say.

Democracy will definitely be realised in China, but I is probably going to be very different from your democracy.

BlitzKrieg · 11-04-2008 06:24PM

If you insist a country with 3000 years of recorded history is not different from a country with 300 years of history

a land and a (debatable) nation with 3000 years of recorded history

a state with less then a 100.

GuanYin · 11-04-2008 08:54PM

yawtin wrote: »

If you insist a country with 3000 years of recorded history is not different from a country with 300 years of history other than democracy, I just wouldn't know what to say.

Democracy will definitely be realised in China, but I is probably going to be very different from your democracy.

That, my friend, was sarcasm on my part.

lonesome · 11-04-2008 08:54PM

I have been living in the Ireland for 8 years. Previously I thought the western media is quite objective and professional. Now with those tons of biased, hatred news in newspapers, on internet, and in TV towards China, I finally understand that those media all serve the interests of their own people, and will do anything, no matter how hypocrital and evil, to destroy other countries.

It is naive to think that Chinese can educate and change those biased, and maliciously-intended western media and politicians. It is ingrained in their minds to deface and destroy China. What Chinese can do is to try our best to become stronger.

We are not living in an ideal world. Instead we are living in real world. In this world, only power talks.

Tomas_V · 11-04-2008 09:20PM

lonesome wrote: »

Now with those tons of biased, hatred news in newspapers, on internet, and in TV towards China,

You're exaggerating. Give examples of hatred of China expressed, as editorial policy, for example, in the BBC or RTE.

lonesome wrote: »

In this world, only power talks.

Ah, I think you're actually quoting Chairman Mao? "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." It's time to move on from this philosophy. Otherwise, don't be surprised if people hate you.

lonesome · 11-04-2008 09:54PM

Tomas_V wrote: »

You're exaggerating. Give examples of hatred of China expressed, as editorial policy, for example, in the BBC or RTE.

Jack Cafferty--CNN 9/4/2008
“Well, I don't know if China is any different, but our
relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hawk to the Chinese
up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're
holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are
running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as
we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the
poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay
workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-
Mart. So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think
they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the
last 50 years.”

Ah, I think you're actually quoting Chairman Mao? "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." It's time to move on from this philosophy. Otherwise, don't be surprised if people hate you.

Don't get me wrong, mate. It is economic power, not violent power!
DONT BE CNN, DONT BE MISLEADING

leninbenjamin · 12-04-2008 12:51AM

lonesome wrote: »

I finally understand that those media all serve the interests of their own people, and will do anything, no matter how hypocrital and evil, to destroy other countries.

that's not correct. western media sensationalizes and plays upon people's fears in order to sell a story. there is no hidden agenda other than to make money. If people looked at this more objectively they would realise the Western media are behaving no differently with regards China as they do on domestic issues. the problem is the motivation of Western media in general, not any political bias against China. Seriously, scan an Irish newspaper sometime, it's just negativity after negativity on domestic AND foreign issues.

and if anything it appears to me the Chinese are just as guilty of the above. i've heard nothing but how biased the BBC are recently... twas only the other day when i was reading up on the whole Tibet issue when the only thing in the way of an editorial was an opinion column of various Chinese academics (in favour of China obviously).

irishmilk · 12-04-2008 01:48AM

Tomas_V wrote: »

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.

Many chinese are thinking why should they host the game if it be used to against them by western. If all chinese inside china see the real of here, I think it is game over now. No body can save the game, even the China's government.

Overdraft · 12-04-2008 02:31AM

All very interesting. A few apologists for the murderous Chinese regime pop up on boards.ie and a few of the "God, I'm sooooooooo bored with this Tibet stuff" homegrown morons welcome them heartily, without having as much as an ounce of knowledge about the issue. God, you have to love the internet!

It's hard to figure out who deserves more contempt: the apologists for the murderous Chinese regime; the morons who greet their propaganda with astute questioning such as "gosh, wow"; the fraud that is the Dalai Lama; or the knuckleheads who think he's the second coming. Or should that be the first?

Dalai Lama bad = China good? Gosh, yup!

Let's simplify it:

Dalai Lama = self-serving fraud

China = murderous tyranny

Olympic movement = contemptuous scum

Chinese hosted Olympics = risible

Wish for 2008: that the Chinese hosted Olympics are a catastrophe.

Does anybody here care about Tibet?

Comments