5
   

FREE TIBET!!!!...and then what?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 11:00 pm
@pragmatic,
Quote:
And I have TOLD you that what is going on in Burma as opposed to Tibet are two different things! The only similiarity is they have monks driving protests but behind those protests are two totally different political questions! One wants democracy from a government while the other wants to break up a whole country when their leader has said - No Independence! It surprises me that many who claim to be the Dalai Lama's supporters have no idea what the DL's policies are!

the specifics of the Burma revolt are not relevant re Tibet so far as the Government of China is concerned, the issue is allowing a power center to stand that has the ability to challenge the state.
Quote:
Do not tell me about the protests, and the dying of a culture - I've heard that too many times and I suspect your arguments will only be derived from those whom only repeat what they hear from others and see from western media (who you cannot entirely believe) as opposed to finding out the facts for themselves
The hans are now the majority population in Tibet, Tibetan culture can not survive as a minority group where the majority are hostile to it. I have never heard a Han Praise tibetan culture, have you?
Quote:
As for no need to negotiate - the DL has asked that negotiations occurr on the basis of HIS terms - this so called Middle Way which the Chinese government has refused to accept

let us be precise, the han's have not ejected the DL's position on the issue, or any issue, they have maintained that he has no standing to be heard. The Chinese ignore the DL because they can, they have done it for decades, and they certainly will not be pressed by the rest of the world to change their position now that the global economy has collapsed. The rest of the world has major problems to deal with, almost no one cares what happens to Tibet. The Hans are more than ever free to do what they want, which is rub out Tibet and tibetan culture, so completely that it can never come back.

re middle way dated nov 25
Quote:
Over the weekend, Tibetan exiles decided to stick to the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way" approach to China, abandoning the dream of an independent Tibet in favor of seeking greater autonomy within China through dialogue.


http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AO2F420081125

and then dated nov 26
Quote:
PARIS - China took the extraordinary step Wednesday of indefinitely postponing a summit with the European Union in retaliation for plans by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other European officials to meet with the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese decision, announced by the would-be summit host France, was a dramatic example of the lengths to which Beijing will go to try to internationally isolate the Dalai Lama, a 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner who wants greater autonomy for his Himalayan homeland that China insists is part of its territory.

Pulling out of the summit also suggests that countering criticism on Tibet and boxing in the Dalai Lama are bigger priorities for China's communist leaders than working with the EU and nations like France on solutions to the global financial crisis. The diplomatic snub may also be intended as a warning to the incoming U.S. administration of President-elect Barack Obama to tread carefully on the prickly question of Tibet.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27929916/

The DL and every single Tibetan can sing till the cows come home that they no longer want to be independent and get world leaders to support them, but it will not make any difference in what the Hans do. They already know that Tibet will not be independent, they decided that long ago. The Tibetans realizing that the han's will get what they want, acceptance of the inevitable, is a good sign that we might see peace in Tibet.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 11:36 pm
I would just like to wave a little flag for self determination here. (remember self determination?)

No amount of wiser folk telling people that this is not in their best (generally economic) interests matters in the face of what the people affected actually want, the repression that they are reacting against, the freedom they yearn for. It doesn't matter if it's Tibet, Burma, Zimbabwe or where-ever ...

If they make the "wrong" (generally economic) decision then it is on their heads. Perhaps some things are more important? But they should be allowed to decide their own fate.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 12:51 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the issue is allowing a power center to stand that has the ability to challenge the state.


What exactly is your point? That the monks are revolting therefore China will, like Burma repress them? If so, I must say that the protests in April must have been very secretive or the Chinese officials extremely blind in order for foreign journalists to be able to gain acess into the region to film the riots.

Quote:
The hans are now the majority population in Tibet, Tibetan culture can not survive as a minority group where the majority are hostile to it. I have never heard a Han Praise tibetan culture, have you?


Nope and if I did, I would retch. My point to which you replied was that I want factual evidence - first hand unbiased resources which would say that Tibetan culture is so called dying. By the sounds of it you are telling me - BECAUSE Han is the majority population THEREFORE, Tibet culture must be dying. That's not factual evidence, its just an assumption.

Quote:
let us be precise, the han's have not ejected the DL's position on the issue, or any issue, they have maintained that he has no standing to be heard. The Chinese ignore the DL because they can, they have done it for decades, and they certainly will not be pressed by the rest of the world to change their position now that the global economy has collapsed. The rest of the world has major problems to deal with, almost no one cares what happens to Tibet. The Hans are more than ever free to do what they want, which is rub out Tibet and tibetan culture, so completely that it can never come back.


Let us be precise? No, let you be precise. I never said the Chinese government ejected or rejected the DL's position - it was YOU that kept saying China is ignoring the DL that seemed to imply rejection, leading me to ask you tell me exactly what is being rejected.

As for ignoring the DL because they can - firstly, did you know the position of the Dalai Lama was actually a title given by the Chinese government? Secondly, you keep saying ignore - and I keep asking you WHAT ARE THEY IGNORING? The Middle Way? Well instead of googling up the Middle Way and quoting me Rueters and other sources I have already seen, why don't you give me your own explaination of what is so strong about this Middle Way? Finally as for the rest of the world ignoring Tibet - hardly. Obama has already made indications he supports the DL, Sarkozy is being a two faced leader by meeting with China while sending his wife to greet the DL and anti-China protests show there's heaps of people supporting Tibetan independence, which funnily enough goes against the DL's announcement!

As for Wen jiaboa postponing the meeting with Sarkozy - let me tell you, China has had ENOUGH of being played around by this playboy. As I mentioned before, he meets China but sends his wife to meet the DL. He is willing enough to accept the financial contracts signed by the two countries as it offers France economic benefits and helps him win the next election, but he will not keep out of China's internal affairs. China has already been invaded once by the Group of Eight (and if you think I'm talking about the G8 it shows me how much you know) and its time for China to show the western world - we will not be bullied.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 12:54 am
@msolga,
Msolga - what exactly is your position? Tibetan independence? Or Tibetan autonomy? These two are the only policies which are being argued over - and the DL rejects the former. Autonomy then becomes what kind of autonomy - religious? Political? If the former, to what extent will it become involved in religion and if the latter - no. The 1951 agreement already has stated that China will have decision over international affairs and political issues such as defence and government over Tibet.

Adding a concept called self detemination just confuses the issue further.

I know what you mean about the whole "be it on your head if we dump you and you fall into economic mess" but lets be practical - if Tibet really did gain independence, wouldn't another country just take over it instead of China? The whole fiasco would then ensure again. And what's to prevent feudal rule under the monks from returning again?

Its exactly because these consequential problems may arise that I find the title of this thread extremely meaningful - FREE TIBET - AND THEN WHAT?
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 12:56 am
I know I'm the minority here. I don't mind arguments against my position - I welcome them. What I despise is when people make general arguments they have read from the media, from googling, from wikipedia, or make up some general argument on the spot that hasn't even been discussed in the actual scenario. Instead of listening to third parties who have no clue on the issue, why can't people actually go and educate themselves on the problem by finding out facts? I haven't been to Tibet but I plan to go next year to see exactly what's going on. I know someone who is half Tibetan and as she says - "The Dalai Lama is as clear as mud."
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:05 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Hans are more than ever free to do what they want, which is rub out Tibet and tibetan culture, so completely that it can never come back.


Now this I do like. Let me ask you - what exactly makes you think this of the Chinese government? What benefit do you think they would derive from "rubbing out" these things? China is MADE of various cultures - to "rub out" Tibetan culture is like "rubbing out" Hong Kong culture - there's no point.

Hawkeye, I have to say, I DO enjoy it when you make these kind of generalisations that have NO foundation and NO basis until I ask you for them and then you cite totally irrelevant things to me! And I love how you make Tibet sound like a recipe - "a little bit of Tibetan culture" "a little bit of religion" "rubbing out the fat" "rubbing in the salt." Delicious!

And stop referring to the Chinese as Hans. We're made of more than just HAN people.

BTW - if religion as a power centre is the only similiarity you can see between Burma and China, then I guess China is also like the Vatican?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:06 am
@pragmatic,
My position is that I respect the rights of the population of any nation to seek self determination in the face of oppression. I think it's reasonable for the concerns of such nations to be taken seriously by the UN & the "world powers". What if the 1951 agreement is oppressive to Tibetans? Should they just shut up & wear it?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:08 am
@pragmatic,
Quote:
Instead of listening to third parties who have no clue on the issue, why can't people actually go and educate themselves on the problem by finding out facts?


Why do you assume we haven't done this?
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:09 am
@msolga,
Msolga - firstly - what oppression? I'm sick of hearing sources from Amnesty International and Human rights groups quite frankly - I want to know, if there is such oppression, why are there still monks in Tibet? If China is so afraid of religion, why is Buddhism the leading religion in China? People like to believe things that human rights groups put forward without questioning - "are there any errors?" "Anything wrong with this picture?"

Secondly - respect the rights of the population but it seems that the DL isn't seeking self determination. That's why I was saying don't confuse the issue further - autonomy itself is already causing trouble.

Thirdly - the 1951 agreement was actually made between the Chinese government and the DL and his representatives.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:12 am
@msolga,
Because I have read both sides and the arguments I read from many pro-Tibetan supporters are directly lifted of the arguments of Human rights supporters. Can you read Chinese? If not, I know you haven't considered all the sources out there on this issue. You may immeidately argue - Why should I believe the Chinese government? I will then say to you - information from western media aren't 100 percent accurate - why should you believe them?

On the other hand I do know one person who is a pro-Tibetan supporter and I actually respect his views because our discussions have shown to me that he is in search of the Truth of the position by considering both sides and coming up with a balanced judgment after having done so. In that case, we can only compare our respective positions - so far I haven't beeen able to do that here because there is no balanced judgment to compare to.

Edit - you may also think that I have been brainwashed by the Chinese government, as many people have accused me of being. I remind you - I was raised in Australia when I was 4 and have never ever been back to China. If anything, I have been brainwashed by mortgage rates and petrol prices.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:18 am
@msolga,
I don't mean to be mean here. But you asked me why I assume you haven't gone to find out the truth. I don't assume - I look, read and come to a conclusion. Hawkeye has continually been referring China as "Hans" - a factual inaccuracy. You talk about a policy that was never a matter of the Tibetan problem. Either the sources you read are information that no one else has access to, or I can only think that you haven't read enough about the matter and in Hawkeye's case - about China.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:26 am
@pragmatic,
Quote:
I know you haven't considered all the sources out there on this issue. You may immeidately argue - Why should I believe the Chinese government? I will then say to you - information from western media aren't 100 percent accurate - why should you believe them?


With due respect, pragmatic, you don't have any idea where I get my information & form my opinions from.

As for the Chinese media - I think it's fair to say that the information provided might well be "less than 100% accurate"? Are you saying that the Chinese media is more honest than the western media?

I have no position on whether you are "brainwashed" or not. I don't know you well enough to confidently have an opinion on that. Nor do you know me well enough to know where I'm coming from. I don't quite see what petrol prices & mortgage rates in Australia have to do with the Tibetan desire for indepedence, either.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:35 am
@msolga,
Quote:
With due respect, pragmatic, you don't have any idea where I get my information & form my opinions from
.

Don't use that phrase "with due respect" please - I flinch at that phrase because I usually can guess what is on the mind of the person who says that. As for where you get your info and opinions - do tell.

"As for the Chinese media - I think it's fair to say that the information provided might well be "less than 100% accurate"? Are you saying that the Chinese media is more honest than the western media?"

I have created a thread on this question and knowing how active you are on a2k, chances are you have already seen it. I say yes - the Chinese media are more honest than the western media. The Chinese media believe it or not, actually report what they see both in their country and outside. They do not suffer the kind of repression that is reported by English sources. Many government construction projects have been halted or disturbed at times because of the Chinese media reporting on the disadvantages of such projects - and believe it or not, there are protests by the public which the government also consider.

Compare however to the western media. BBC - a reputable broadcaster correct? Well, they are the ones who showed a newspaper article on Tibetan riots with a photo that had a caption saying the car in the photo was a "police car". If only they had someone who knew Chinese, they would have read the character on the side of the vehicle said, "ambulance."

Quote:
I have no position on whether you are "brainwashed" or not. I don't know you well enough to confidently have an opinion on that. Nor do you know me well enough to know where I'm coming from.


I don't need to know you as a person to know where your coming from - your posts already indicate very clearly your position. As for me being brainwashed - I merely put that to show you I am not a blind follower of the Chinese government.

Quote:
I don't quite see what petrol prices & mortgage rates in Australia have to do with the Tibetan desire for indepedence, either.


Firstly, there is no desire for independence - the DL has said so expressly. Secondly, I see my dream job to be a comedian will remain a dream.

Can I finish with this msolga? Give China a chance. The China today is not the China 20 years ago. It is capitalist to the letter. Freedom from the government is more broad than reported by the western media. Roger makes a good point when he says that some may dislike the idea of a progressive China that they make biased reporting. 86% of people are satisfied with the CCP, says the Pew Research Centre Poll. If there was an election tomorrow, the CCP would win. The irony!
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:43 am
@pragmatic,
Quote:
Don't use that phrase "with due respect" please - I flinch at that phrase because I usually can guess what is on the mind of the person who says that.


Well there's no point in writing any further then, pragmatic.

You know what I really mean, no matter what I say! (Which was purely an statement supporting self determination, btw.)

No point in saying another thing.

pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:45 am
Please - do offer an opinion on http://able2know.org/topic/126009-1



0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:46 am
@msolga,
All I know what you mean is you support self determination and Tibetan independence. Really that's all I know about your position. And I have said in my humble opinion

- Tibetan independence is not what the DL is after
- self determination further confuses an issue which is already confused.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:49 am
@hawkeye10,
BTW - to save space on this thread, can you please please please read my posts to msolga so you know my position. I do not want to repeat everything again to you. Better yet - read up on China. Han indeed - I might as well say that America is made up of Washingtinians only!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 08:53 pm
@pragmatic,
Quote:
Han Chinese constitute about 92 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

Quote:
Han indeed - I might as well say that America is made up of Washingtinians only!

well, then you would be proving to be an idiot.
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 09:15 pm
Love the title of this thread.

Free Tibet!!!... and then what?

An independent teocratic nation focused on tourism?
Yoga, Spa & Meditation in our resort in Lhasa!
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 09:23 pm
@fbaezer,
Sometimes, fbaezer, the gaining of freedom from oppression is the most important thing. (Like for the good folk in East Timor, for example). What follows may be good or bad for them. Life may be extremely hard (as we have seen in East Timor). But I fully respect any peoples' right to strive for autonomy, even if a long-term Plan is not clear at the outset.
 

Related Topics

6.9 Quake near Tibet - Discussion by Butrflynet
This time to China and Tibet for 22-days - Discussion by cicerone imposter
How about take a train to Tibet? - Question by Liffity
Ani Choying - Question by littlek
Protestors in London - You make me SICK. - Discussion by pragmatic
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 03:07:35