Why I support China

[Dann]

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?

Yes.

...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.

"Xizang". Which is nothing but... Mandarin for "Tibet".

 

[Dann]

'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.

Since you put it that way, here's my brutal explanation. Because they weren't able to defend their own freedom when it mattered.

They had their chance. Tibet and Mongolia both broke away when the Qing collapsed in 1911. Taiwan became de facto independent due to special circumstances in 1949. Why didn't Mongolia get reconquered? Why is Taiwan still a thorn in China's side until today?

Mongolia doesn't have a large or advanced military, but it was able to hitch itself up at once with big brother the Soviet Union. Taiwan also has the US to protect it all this time. Tibet when it was independent? Nothing. Its army when the PLA invaded was something from out of the Middle Ages. What's more, they failed to make "powerful friends" who could have applied pressure on an agressor WHEN IT MATTERED!

50 years after the fact, just when China is beginning to treat Tibet (and Xinjiang, and itself) right, we now have all these bleeding hearts wailing about how every ethnic group in it should be carved out into a separate nation. Where were they when the Chinese were dying in droves during the famines of the 1950s? (Stupidly self inflicted true...) Where were they during the chaos of the Cultural Revolution? (Now THAT should have been enough justification for intervention IMO.)

Most stuff that posters here are quoting date back to at the very latest, the late 1980s. Things have changed since then. Maybe not much by Western democratic standards, but they have.

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.

 

[Dann]

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.

Not sure about this. Indeed I don't see that many churches here. Even Buddhist/Taoist temples are located on mountains on the outskirts of cities, not in the bustling centers. (They put malls there. )

I don't think there's 'persecution' in the literal sense of the word. But it's a known fact that to be able to function here, religions have to register with the government and abide by its guidelines, which includes limits on noise pollution and evangelizing. It's ok to build a church or temple and hold services or preach in it. It's NOT ok to broadcast your beliefs over loudspeakers, or to harass people in the town square. No door-to-door evangelizing here either.

 

[King Alexander]

But it's a known fact that to be able to function here, religions have to register with the government and abide by its guidelines, which includes LIMITS ON NOISE POLLUTION and evangelizing.

*bolding is mine*

It's ok to build a church or temple and hold services or preach in it. It's NOT ok to broadcast your beliefs over loudspeakers, or to harass people in the town square. No door-to-door evangelizing here either.

I agree, but let me add something to your post: "It's NOT ok to broadcast your imaginary/unproved/archaic beliefs over loudspeakers,"

 

[Dann]

I agree, but let me add something to your post: "It's NOT ok to broadcast your imaginary/unproved/archaic beliefs over loudspeakers,"

Edit: I wouldn't go that far in slamming religion.

I believe religion still has its uses. Especially in controlling people.

Original post is below.

 

[King Alexander]

I wouldn't go that far.

I believe religion still has its uses. Especially in controlling people.

I know EXACTLY what you mean, and many more that 'follow behind' the need for CONTROL/JUSTIFICATION.

 

[Reno]

One thing with Tibet not being able to find a big enough power like Mongolia and Taiwan did in 1949, is that Tibet had only two "real" choises at that point, either go under the British like Nepal and Bhutan did or remain neutral and wait for China to come after you.

 

[Uiler]

I have to admit - I wonder why China even wants Tibet anyway. No offence to any Tibetans but it's not exactly the greatest prize in the world. It's mountainous, not very fertile and up until the Chinese took it over, was hardly even connected to the outside world. Nor is it rich in minerals or other resources that can be mined. As far as I know, Tibet is actually losing China money as government there has to be subsidised from richer regions. So, why?

 

[Reno]

I have to admit - I wonder why China even wants Tibet anyway. No offence to any Tibetans but it's not exactly the greatest prize in the world. It's mountainous, not very fertile and up until the Chinese took it over, was hardly even connected to the outside world. Nor is it rich in minerals or other resources that can be mined. As far as I know, Tibet is actually losing China money as government there has to be subsidised from richer regions. So, why?

Uhhhh... Tibet has the richest Uranium deposits in the world, that and China harvested some about 50 BILLION $ worth of wood from Tibet's forests over the past 50 years.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Since you put it that way, here's my brutal explanation. Because they weren't able to defend their own freedom when it mattered.

That could be used to justify practically any invasion. It would be like saying that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was justified because those living there lost. Manchuria was returned to China because of the US and Soviet intervention.

50 years after the fact, just when China is beginning to treat Tibet (and Xinjiang, and itself) right, we now have all these bleeding hearts wailing about how every ethnic group in it should be carved out into a separate nation. Where were they when the Chinese were dying in droves during the famines of the 1950s? (Stupidly self inflicted true...) Where were they during the chaos of the Cultural Revolution? (Now THAT should have been enough justification for intervention IMO.)

To be fair, I wasn't alive 50 years ago.

 

[lobster]

If a Tibetian in Tibet say to me "if independence means my people will live in a below-poverty-line disconnected undeveloped middle-age slavery-practising undemocratic big-fish-following theocracy for many generations probably forever, I will still do it". Well I will be speechless.

Everyone just starts bothering you when you start to look big.

I'm not too sure about uranium or resources in Tibet. Dann and Uiler can you confirm? But in any case, it has much stretegic value for national defence, to say the least.

 

[punkbass2000]

"Xizang". Which is nothing but... Mandarin for "Tibet".

Not sure what you're implying. It's not "Tibet", and that is the point. That it's the Mandarin word for "Tibet" is obvious. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called that.

 

[punkbass2000]

Since you put it that way, here's my brutal explanation. Because they weren't able to defend their own freedom when it mattered.

They had their chance. Tibet and Mongolia both broke away when the Qing collapsed in 1911. Taiwan became de facto independent due to special circumstances in 1949. Why didn't Mongolia get reconquered? Why is Taiwan still a thorn in China's side until today?

Mongolia doesn't have a large or advanced military, but it was able to hitch itself up at once with big brother the Soviet Union. Taiwan also has the US to protect it all this time. Tibet when it was independent? Nothing. Its army when the PLA invaded was something from out of the Middle Ages. What's more, they failed to make "powerful friends" who could have applied pressure on an agressor WHEN IT MATTERED!

50 years after the fact, just when China is beginning to treat Tibet (and Xinjiang, and itself) right, we now have all these bleeding hearts wailing about how every ethnic group in it should be carved out into a separate nation. Where were they when the Chinese were dying in droves during the famines of the 1950s? (Stupidly self inflicted true...) Where were they during the chaos of the Cultural Revolution? (Now THAT should have been enough justification for intervention IMO.)

Most stuff that posters here are quoting date back to at the very latest, the late 1980s. Things have changed since then. Maybe not much by Western democratic standards, but they have.

Then I think our discussion is at an end. You seem to think military might makes right. Oh, and for the record, I too was not alive 50 years ago.

 

[punkbass2000]

I have to admit - I wonder why China even wants Tibet anyway. No offence to any Tibetans but it's not exactly the greatest prize in the world. It's mountainous, not very fertile and up until the Chinese took it over, was hardly even connected to the outside world. Nor is it rich in minerals or other resources that can be mined. As far as I know, Tibet is actually losing China money as government there has to be subsidised from richer regions. So, why?

I think Tibet is quite beautiful. And yes, it is very valuable minerally, as posted below. I don't know about the specific figure of "$50 billion", but there is certainly monery to be made there. Note that even if this is true, it doesn't render your statement, "As far as I know, Tibet is actually losing China money", false. I would imagine it is quite expensive to illegally control a region that does not want to be controlled by you, especially when you're intent on instituting draconoian measures.

 

[punkbass2000]

If a Tibetian in Tibet say to me "if independence means my people will live in a below-poverty-line disconnected undeveloped middle-age slavery-practising undemocratic big-fish-following theocracy for many generations probably forever, I will still do it". Well I will be speechless.

It is quite clear that your views on Tibetan life and culture are biased. Your statement is meaningless. Of course a Tibetan in Tibet wouldn't say that. That their way is not your way is immaterial. Also, note that if China did pull out overnight, it might be bad for Tibet too. The damage is done in many senses. Rebuilding all those temples and getting used to their traditional lives again would not be easy. I have faith in the Tibetan resolve, but nonetheless I think it can be compared to Western intereference all over the globe. Yes, they do need us now, but they likely wouldn't had we not conquered and destroyed their way of life in the first place. This does not absolve the Western world of guilt, nor China.

 

[Jeff Yu]

I have to admit - I wonder why China even wants Tibet anyway. No offence to any Tibetans but it's not exactly the greatest prize in the world. It's mountainous, not very fertile and up until the Chinese took it over, was hardly even connected to the outside world. Nor is it rich in minerals or other resources that can be mined. As far as I know, Tibet is actually losing China money as government there has to be subsidised from richer regions. So, why?

Probably Tibet's most important resource is its strategic value. It gives China a border with Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and India, and also provides a lot of strategic depth and buffer from invasion. It's a lot harder to invade through the Himalayas than into the Chinese heartland, where 90+% of the population lives (For an idea of the scale, the city of Hong Kong has more than three times the population of the entire Tibetan province). Without Tibet, China would have a huge, exposed, and vulnerable flank all along the Silk Road oasis cities and southwestern China.

 

[Jeff Yu]

Not sure what you're implying. It's not "Tibet", and that is the point. That it's the Mandarin word for "Tibet" is obvious. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called that.

Well, "Tibet" isn't the Tibetan name for the place, either. The name in Tibetan is actually Bod ( བོད་ ).

 

[lobster]

@punkbass2000: You have your views and I have mine. It's OK if we're different.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, "Tibet" isn't the Tibetan name for the place, either. The name in Tibetan is actually Bod (བོད&#3851.

Fair enough. The point I'm really getting at is difficult to verbalize. I don't know the whole system, but I doubt there were really signs that ever said "Tibet" in Tibet. There are many signs and other information there now, proclaiming it as Xizang. It is Chinese, and it is an all out cultural invasion.

 

[punkbass2000]

@punkbass2000: You have your views and I have mine. It's OK if we're different.

But of course.