Why I support China

[lobster]

I agree with this and the statements made by Luiz.

Please read Uiler's post about "genocide".

 

[luiz]

Do you have another source besides Wikipedia? From my observations and local polls, those numbers seems extremely high. Even in Taipei, where thoughts of independence brew, the number that actually wants independence is less than those who wants the door opened for eventual unification. (Here I’m interpreting “Taiwan only” to mean “wanting independence.” I can't really imagine those who don't see themselves as Chinese and wanting eventual unification. So I'm inclined to think that Wikipedia is just being naughty)

The other link is on the text.

Here's it:
http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/8903/po8903ch.htm

Edit: I don't know chinese, but's the link that the Wiki article claims to provide the data.

 

[silver 2039]

When Tibetans and the Tibetan government in exile refer to Tibet, they mean a large area that formed historic Tibet for many centuries, which consists of the traditional provinces of Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. When the Chinese government and most other governments refer to Tibet, they mean the "Tibet Autonomous Region" or TAR. The TAR covers the former U-Tsang province and western Kham, and other traditionally Tibetan areas have been incorporated into present-day Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan, and Sichuan; the government of the PRC also claims for the TAR most of the territory of Indian-administered Arunachal Pradesh, a claim which is not acknowledged by the Government of Tibet in Exile.

The issue of the proportion of the Han Chinese population in Tibet is a politically sensitive one. Since the 1980s, increasing economic liberalization and internal mobility has resulted in the influx of Han Chinese into Tibet for work or settlement, which is held by the Government of Tibet in Exile to be an active policy of demographically swamping the Tibetan people and further diminishing any chances of Tibetan political independence

Neither the Nationalist government of the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China have ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet against little resistance. In 1951 the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed under military pressure by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority; most of the population of Tibet at the time were peasants working lands owned by the estate holders and any attempt at land reform or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the government. This agreement was successfully put into effect in Tibet proper initially. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province, with land reform implemented in full; as a result, in June 1956 rebellion broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham. An armed Tibetan rebellion supported by the CIA broke out which eventually spread to Lhasa. The rebellion was crushed by 1959, during which campaign tens of thousands of people were killed, and the Dalai Lama fled to India (with isolated resistance continuing in Tibet until 1969). The Panchen Lama was set up as a figurehead in Lhasa. In 1965 the area that had been under the control of the Dalai Lama's government from the 1910s to 1959 (U-Tsang and western Kham) was set up as an Autonomous Region. The monastic estates were broken up and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution there was a campaign of organized vandalism against Tibet's Buddhist heritage in the same fashion as Red Guard destruction of Chinese cultural heritage sites throughout China. Of the many thousands of monasteries in Tibet, less than a handful remained unscathed.

The figure of 1.2 million is often quoted as the number of military and civilian Tibetans that have died as the result famine, mistreatment, and combat situations in the invasion and occupation of Tibet. This number has its origin in the report of a commission established by the exile community in Dharamsala which is based on reports of refugees. According to Patrick French, a supporter of the Tibetan cause, who was able to view the data and calculations, this number is not reliable as, to put it simply, the Tibetans were not able to process the data well enough to produce a credible total. However, there were many casualties, perhaps as many as 500,000. This figure is extrapolated from a calculation Warren W. Smith made from Chinese census reports which show 200,000 "missing" from Tibet proper (it is assumed that there were similar casualties in Amdo and Kham). Even The Black Book of Communism expresses doubt at the 1.2 million figure, but does note that according to Chinese census there was a population of 2.8 million in 1953, but only 2.5 million in 1964 in Tibet proper.

It is reported that when the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Hu Yaobang visited Lhasa in 1980 he cried in shame when he viewed the misery and described the situation as "colonialism pure and simple". Reforms were instituted. Since then Chinese policy in Tibet has veered between moderation and repression. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored, but monks and nuns are still sometimes imprisoned, and thousands of able-bodied Tibetans continue to flee Tibet yearly.

And this. I suppose this is a example of how much Tibetans want to be part of China?

 

[luiz]

Well, there’s talk and there’s reality. We’re all aware of the Mainland’s tough talk, but we all know that nothing will happen as long as Taiwan doesn’t declare independence. And we know that there’ll be plenty of citizens to oppose the declaration. And we’re not opposed to it because we fear the Mainland, we illegitimately want the door open for unification. The only way to understand fully is to live amongst the Taiwanese.

I would take threats of a nuclear power with the largest standing army in the world seriously, but that's just me...

Initially I couldn’t stop laughing to hear a Brazilian guy talk about human rights, but now I really think that we’re just on opposite sides of the same boat.

The human rights abuses here in Brazil are not that big, and are commited by individual police officer rather then the government.

The brazilian government has one of the most progressive stances on human rights in the world.

About a month ago, there were about 50 students going around gathering petitions against China’s support of Brazil for a permanent seat in the UN, because of "Brazil’s human rights record."

Well if it was pre-1985 Brazil I would agree with them, but there are no institutionalised human rights abuses anymore. The dictatorship is over.

They told me about the racism that existed in Brazil, where the whites still exploit the blacks to get rich,

That's ridiculous. Brazil is one of the least racist countries in the world - our president is not white, for the record. In fact racial lines here are incredibly blurry, as most people actually have mixed backgrounds.

and how leaders who actually tried to help the poor were threatened.

Some are, but never by the government.

Then they told me about all the corruption

That's true, but we're not as corrupt as China.

and police brutality in Brazil, and tried to convince me to sign the petition. (I didn’t sign the petition of course , but I remember thinking ‘wow, I’m glad I don’t live in Brazil&#8217

Police brutality is also a real problem, but keep in mind that it's not an official policy, and the policew officers who are caught are harshly punished.


Here’s a link
And here are some quotes:

An April 2001 report by human rights organizations stated that law enforcement authorities summarily executed approximately 2,000 persons each year.

China executes approximately 10,000 each year, so that means taking into account of population you guys still have a 146% kill ratio compared to China (who’s the bad guy now? )

Again, note the difference between official policy and individual actions.

Look, I don’t want to bash Brazil. I think the real situation here is pride in one’s country. You look at your country and see all the wonderful things that you see and wish that everyone else could recognize. I see my country and all the wonderful things that I see and wish that everyone else would recognize it. Taiwan is a great place, China is a great place, and I wish that some people could see it before they judge it.

I have no national pride, and I'm a great critic of my country.

If you check the threads I opened on Brazil, you'll see that most are highly critical. I want to look at my country how it is, not as some idealised version.

But keep in mind that all abuses you mentioned are nothing but criminality. The brazilian government is a representative democracy that respects human rights. Personally I hate the current administration, but note that they are left-wingers who are in fact too soft on criminals. They would NEVER condone police brutality or torture or anything of that sort. The police officers who are caught spend many years in jail.

The problem in mainland China is that the government still practices actions that can easilly be described as criminal.

 

[Theige]

How did I twisted your words? You implied that it was a pity that China's action in Tibet was not viewed as genocide. It wasn't genocide, was it? I would not take Dalai lama's word for it, afterall he is not an impartial observer, and stands to have a great deal of power if he can force China's hand. Problem is, he wants it all, he can't stand losing his secular power. Other sects of Tibetian Buddhism compromised and are still flourishing. Is there any widespread dissent within Tibet? Revolts? Is Dalai Lama their defacto leader? it is a power tussle for him and he lost! Now China won't even negotiate with him because he made such a nuisance of himself BooHoooHO.

Well when 1/6 of the population is killed I consider it genocide. Yes there was open revolt in the 1950's when the Dalai Llama was forced to flee. And yes there is still widespread decent among the Tibetans, you are contiunually jailed for this (and god knows what else).

Power tussle? lol, when a nation with over 100x the population of yours tells you your country doesnt belong to you and your people anymore there is not much you can do.

I also don't think China has ever negotiated with the Dalai Llama since he fled the country, and even if they have it hasnt been for a very long time.

 

[Pikachu]

Genocide is too harsh a word to describe the situation in Tibet, however since 1950, many Tibetans have emigrated in the wake of Chinese repression. Many have moved to India and Nepal, care to explain anyone, why would the "benevolent" Chinese cause so many to flee?

That’s easy to explain. Life on the Tibetan countryside sucks, and it has always sucked! Only a few westerners have tried to live on the Tibetan countryside. Those are missionaries who are willing to sacrifice a lot for their faith. As westerners they have the financial ability to import some goods to make their life a lot better than what the Tibetans have to settle with, but still no westerners has been able to permanently live on the Tibetan countryside. The traditional Tibetan life is simply unbearable.

Anyone in their right mind would get out of there if they had the possibility to do so, but while Dalai Lama ruled Tibet people did not have the possibility to flee. There were hardly any roads in Tibet, there were no bridges and only two cars, both own by Dalai Lama himself and they could only be used inside Lhasa because there were no roads to drive on anywhere else. Consequently getting around in Tibet was very hard, and getting out of there was practically impossible for ordinary citizen. Ordinary Tibetans had no choice but to accept the horrible conditions and try to survive as best they could.

The Chinese have built some infrastructure in Tibet, so now the Tibetans have the possibility to move and get out of the misery. Now they can move and start to work for the Chinese for slave wages or they can emigrate to a life in hopeless poverty in Nepal or India. Anyone in their right mind would prefer that over the horrible traditional Tibetan life.


The Chinese politics in Tibet is not very benevolent anyway though. The Chinese government is doing a lot of questionable things in Tibet, but I don’t think Dalai Lama’s theocracy was much better than the current authorities.

 

[stratego]

About a month ago, there were about 50 students going around gathering petitions against China’s support of Brazil for a permanent seat in the UN, because of "Brazil’s human rights record." They told me about the racism that existed in Brazil, where the whites still exploit the blacks to get rich, and how leaders who actually tried to help the poor were threatened. Then they told me about all the corruption and police brutality in Brazil, and tried to convince me to sign the petition.

The difference is that Brazil votes for it's leader. A democratically elected corrupted racist that beats his people is still better than a dictator that breeds happy and healthy citizens. In Brazil you can vote out the bad leaders.

If I'm being beaten to death by a Brazilian police I can take comfort in the fact that when they're done I can go straight to the poll booth and vote them out. But if a Chinese police is beating me, I'd be sad, and I'd wish that it was a Brazilian police that was beating me because then I can vote him out of office.

 

[Dann]

Genocide is too harsh a word to describe the situation in Tibet, however since 1950, many Tibetans have emigrated in the wake of Chinese repression. Many have moved to India and Nepal, care to explain anyone, why would the "benevolent" Chinese cause so many to flee?.

That’s easy to explain. Life on the Tibetan countryside sucks, and it has always sucked! ...The traditional Tibetan life is simply unbearable.

Anyone in their right mind would get out of there if they had the possibility to do so, but while Dalai Lama ruled Tibet people did not have the possibility to flee....Consequently getting around in Tibet was very hard, and getting out of there was practically impossible for ordinary citizen. Ordinary Tibetans had no choice but to accept the horrible conditions and try to survive as best they could.

The Chinese have built some infrastructure in Tibet, so now the Tibetans have the possibility to move and get out of the misery. Now they can move and start to work for the Chinese for slave wages or they can emigrate to a life in hopeless poverty in Nepal or India. Anyone in their right mind would prefer that over the horrible traditional Tibetan life.

The Chinese politics in Tibet is not very benevolent anyway though. The Chinese government is doing a lot of questionable things in Tibet, but I don’t think Dalai Lama’s theocracy was much better than the current authorities.

To my knowledge current immigration and emigration in and out of Tibet is 2-way. Han Chinese are moving in, but the Tibetans are moving out as well. Perhaps some choose to go to Nepal or India, but there are entire villages of them in Yunnan, mostly working in the tourism industry.

Tibetans are nothing like an especially oppressed people seething with rage. Especially now. You don't see suicide bombings here, right?

 

[silver 2039]

No you just don't hear about it.

 

[Theige]

Dann:

If you don't know why Tibetans don't use suicide bombers, go look up the Tibetans

Then read a little bit about the Dalai Llama, he won the Nobel Piece prize in 1989, and is the former leader of Tibet.

EDIT: Hey Dan when was the last time someone from China won the Nobel peace prize? (And no the Dalai Llama does NOT count)

 

[OneBall]

Good questions
The reasons are
1) Taiwan Independence isn't a decisive factor during the election. Nearly nobody believed that A Bian would be able to achieve independence, so that's not an issue. He just talks really loud, but he won't do anything because of pressure from the Mainland and pressure from Taiwanese citizens.

2) Lien Chen (his opponent) is not a very good public speaker. He is also older and more homely, which shouldn't be a factor but it is

3) Some still resented him because they associated him to the previous President Lee Den Hui, who served "too many terms."

4) Right before the election A Bien planted a fake assassination attempt on himself and point the finger at Lien Chen. Though he never really accuse Lien Chen directly, he made it seem like it was Lien Chen. That turned some voters away from Lien Chen.

To clarify these points:
1) It is widely assumed that the pan-green side are pro-independence with eventual seperation as their ultimate goal; and the pan-blue side support closer links with China. If you argue this, you don't know Taiwanese politics.

2) There were negative things said about both candidates. Lien is older, born with silver spoon in his mouth; while a-bian is cunning, and changes his point of view. Being old isn't a valid excuse for losing an election.

3) Lien blamed his last election defeat on Pres. Lee, and had been trying to distance himself from Lee; he even kicked Lee out of the KMT. Lee was the one who put in place the presidential election system in Taiwan, the 2 president Chiang's before him served 5 and 4 terms respectively until their deaths. And many hardcore KMT supporters reminiscence about the time when the 2 Chiang's ruled. If i remember correctly, Lien even said once that he wanted to eliminate the years that Lee was the leader of the KMT.

4) It was never proven who shot at Pres. Chen and VP Lu. The 2 bullets may or may not have gained more votes for a-bian, but i think they lost a lot of votes for Lien. Why do i say that? Almost immediately after the shooting, the pan-blue tv stations and personalities, instead of caring for the health of the president, started talking about how a-bian staged the shooting and it was his last attempt to win the election because all the polls were not in his favor. I think this turned the middle voters away from Lien. They came up with many made-up stories and evidences that were not proven, and some were even ridiculous IMO. they even asked for the medical records released, and when the hospital refused, they took it as a sign that a-bian and the hospital had something to hide.

just my 2 cents

 

[Dann]

No you just don't hear about it.

Dann:

If you don't know why Tibetans don't use suicide bombers, go look up the Tibetans

Then read a little bit about the Dalai Llama, he won the Nobel Piece prize in 1989, and is the former leader of Tibet.

EDIT: Hey Dan when was the last time someone from China won the Nobel peace prize? (And no the Dalai Llama does NOT count)

I do so know about Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Thank you very much.

There's a reason why I don't bring him up in the discussion. If you've hung around here long enough, you would've seen (from my previous posts) that I have the utmost respect for the man as a religious figure, even if I happen to be on the other side of the fence with regards politics.

And who cares about the Nobel Peace price? It's not gonna miraculously produce more rice, or oil.

 

[punkbass2000]

When you're saying you're on the opposite side of the political fence, what exactly do you mean? That Tibet should be part of the Chinese empire?

BTW, I think someone asked about this, and, as of 2004, Tibet is no longer on official World political maps. I can't remember the name, but it now goes by the official Chinese name as a province. 'What did Tibet do to deserve this?' is my question. For those who support China in Tibet, please explain. I don't want meaningless references to living standards and the like. Freedom is freedom, and I don't see why Tibetans deserve autonomy any less than any other group. IMO, their's is truly a wonderous, vibrant culture that must be preserved. "Humanity needs Tibet. Tibet needs humanity".

 

[lobster]

Well, why did Tibet join the Qing empire in the first place? What was in the then Dala and Panchen's minds back then?

Both the Republic of China and People's Republic of China inherit the borders from Qing. Tibet's in China, not the other way. As a side note we never say "China and Taiwan". We say "Mainland and Taiwan". China means the whole thing.

I really would like to hear opinions from ethnic Tibetians currently living in Tibet. What do they think? Are the Tibetians who left, only some class of people (say priests or the rich), or are they a variety of Tibetians? To me the West's intervention in the Tibet (Taiwan, etc.) issue is like Greece and Ottoman. Did they really want to "liberate" Greece, or to weaken Ottoman?

What about Confederacy? They wanted to go too.

Last time I checked, the Tibetians in China still live in their trditional ways. Maybe the CCP did some temple crashing in the 50's and 60's because of the hardline communists (I hate Mao), but I think after Mao's death, CCP is doing a decent job in preserving the culture of the minorities. And obviously Mao's regime didn't do a decent job in "destroying cultures" neither, if they really did try, otherwise where are those Tibetians, Muslims, and other of the 55 minority groups now?

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, why did Tibet join the Qing empire in the first place? What was in the then Dala and Panchen's minds back then?

I don't know and I'm uncertain of the point you are trying to make.

I really would like to hear opinions from ethnic Tibetians currently living in Tibet. What do they think? Are the Tibetians who left, only some class of people (say priests or the rich), or are they a variety of Tibetians?

Watch the very recent movie What Remains of Us to find out. I would tell you myself, but I wouldn't want to speak for people who are already speaking for themselves (and putting themselves at great risk to do so).

Last time I checked, the Tibetians in China still live in their trditional ways. Maybe the CCP did some temple crashing in the 50's and 60's because of the hardline communists (I hate Mao), but I think after Mao's death, CCP is doing a decent job in preserving the culture of the minorities. And obviously Mao's regime didn't do a decent job in "destroying cultures" neither, if they really did try, otherwise where are those Tibetians, Muslims, and other of the 55 minority groups now?

Again, see What Remains of Us. I get the impression you live in China. Perhaps you receive propaganda? According to the Tibetans, they are not even allowed to worship the Dalai Lama. If that constitutes "living in their traditional ways", I would be rather surprised. I don't know when Mao died, but there was a violent suppression of the 1988 insurrection, including some sterilization of Tibetans. And yes, Mao did a poor job of quelling the people of Tibet. Overt violence and suppression strengthens the resolve of these resilient people, IMO. The current method of importing "mainlanders" and only opening Chinese schools is far more effective. This is what I term as "insidious genocide" in my much lambasted first post, and is far more subversive and less objectionable. BTW, I believe someone claimed that Tibetans are free to leave and take refuge in India. This notion is laughable.

 

[lobster]

FYI, I never lived in mainland (well maybe some 3 day trips).

But it's obvious that I don't know enough about Tibet. And FYI I am a Han Chinese.

The point I wanted to make was Tibetians had no problems under the Qing flag (well, at least at that time they chose to join Qing instead of Russia). I'm not too sure about ROC, but there is at least much less noise than under PRC. The thing is the Qing pretty much left them alone. Some royals even believed in Lamaism. I think ROC did that too because that region was not the political focus. So if the PRC did the same, there wouldn't be such a big noise now. If the PRC could do a better job, Tibetians might just be as OK as they were under the PRC flag. After all it's them who chose to join China (Qing) in the first place.

I don't like the PRC, but I don't want China to lose any more territories. You could say I am biased, but I'm not brainwashed.

In any case, I'll leave this matter now because I don't want my ignorance to amuse any of you any more.

 

[Pikachu]

It is not that obvious that Tibet really was a part of China under the Qing dynasty, but that is in any case completely irrelevant to the current situation.

Tibet was apparently an independent nation before the Chinese ”peaceful liberation” in 1949. That invasion was probably illegal, so Tibet does have the legal right to independence according to international law.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Historical borders don't matter. The fact is that the culture of Tibet wasn't Chinese. If historical borders are all that matters, Italy should be able to take over France, Spain, Tunsia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Cyprus, and Greece (along with other countries). Iran should have the right to Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel.

 

[stratego]

Think of Tibet as China's Hawaii, except instead of island girls they have wrinkly monks. Whatever culture that's is left over is merely there to attract tourism.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

what about the underground church in china?

I think there is an official catholic church recognized by the state but not by the vatican (no valid apostolic succession, sacraments) and there is an underground catholic church recognized by the vatican but persecuted.