Why I support China

[Reno]

Here's proof of my statement of uranium and the 50 billion thing in Tibet done by China.

http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Tibet/DalaiLama/DalaiLama.htm

Half of Tibet's forests have been felled since 1959 providing the Chinese with $50 billion worth of lumber. The most common form of timber harvesting is clear cutting which has led to vast hillsides being denuded. Four countries depend on the rivers of Tibet for their sustenance. Some of the major floods in these countries during the last decade have been attributed to deforestation related siltation of Tibet's rivers

More than a quarter of Tibet's mineral resources have been extracted since 1959. Tibet contains the largest uranium deposits in the world. Uranium has been processed in Tibet leading to contamination of drinking water and the death of Tibetans in Ngapa, Amdo. Radioactive contamination of other groundwater is a great concern. China is reported to have stationed approximately 90 nuclear warheads in Tibet.

Those are quite numbers, so i say that along with strategic value Tibet literally is a gold mine.

 

[silver 2039]

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.

What about Fauln-Gong? You don't call that persecution?

 

[Pikachu]

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 don’t think anyone who has tried to live in a nice warm Chinese house in Lhasa during the Tibetan winter would ever get used to live in a cold un-insulated traditional Tibetan house with an indoor temperature below -20C again. You shouldn’t glamorize the horrible sufferings of the traditional Tibetan lifestyle! A free Tibet should not try to go back to the traditional way, but it would be nice if the Tibetans were allowed to dramatically reform their own culture instead of having the Chinese dismantle it.

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.

Are you trying to blame the West for destroying Tibetan culture? How can the west be responsible for that? Do you imply that the West has the responsibility to baby-sit all the nations of the world? Or maybe you are using the words “we conquered and destroyed” as a Chinese?

 

[punkbass2000]

You shouldn’t glamorize the horrible sufferings of the traditional Tibetan lifestyle!

I don't.

Are you trying to blame the West for destroying Tibetan culture?

No.

 

[Jeff Yu]

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.

You mean like this?

You can see Tibetans are right on the Chinese Yuan.

And every single Chinese bill has, in addition to Chinese, native scripts for Mongol, Tibetan, Uyghur, and Zhuang (the largest minority group in China).

 

[Jeff Yu]

Here's proof of my statement of uranium and the 50 billion thing in Tibet done by China.

Those are quite numbers, so i say that along with strategic value Tibet literally is a gold mine.

China has pumped quite a bit of money into Tibet though, building up roads, rails, infrastructure, and electricity, so it probably goes both ways. Look at how Lhasa (capital of Tibet) looks like now:

 

[airrahul]

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!

I beg to differ. India was pledged to defend it but that bastard Jawharlal Nehru did his little "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai" (India and China are brothers) nonsense and allowed China to march into Lhasa unopposed. China of course rewarded India's stupidity with a border war against it in which it seized actual Indian territory. IMO, if the Tibetans have two groups/people to blame for their plight, they would be the PRC and that idealistic moron, Jawarhlal Nehru, who bartered away an entire people for what turned out to e nothing more than the usual Sun Tzu-inspired deception to humble potential rivals (India). I'm sure Silver could provide more info on this.

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.

Prior to the PRC occupying Tibet, India and china AFAIK throughout history had never clashed. The removal of this buffer state has created unnecessary hostilities between them while Chinese support of Pakistan as a counterblanace against India (guess where Pakistan got its nukes from!) and Chinese encirclement of India all are more than just strategic depth for defense. They constitute IMO an attempt to box in India, which has always been a potential rival economically, politically, and culturally in Asia.

Jeff, those pictures of Lhasa, wonderful isn't it, just like what we did to the native americans. Pour in migrants and money and before you know it, it's our land, not theirs!

If China hadn't tried to supress the Tibetans and make them a minority in their own land, I'd have no beef with them ruling Tibet (and Xinjiang). But they haven't, they've instead tried to Hanify the Tibetans. Genocide by demographics isn't something I'm a fan of so I don't support China's activities in Tibet. Anyhow, enough of my rant.

 

[Reno]

China has pumped quite a bit of money into Tibet though, building up roads, rails, infrastructure, and electricity, so it probably goes both ways. Look at how Lhasa (capital of Tibet) looks like now:

Edit: Pictures removed to make the quote look smaller.

Too bad most of that is for the Chinese immigrants and not the orginal Tibetans that is. and i guess you did not look at the quote and link i posted, contaminating water is not looked kindly upon you know.

 

[Jeff Yu]

Jeff, those pictures of Lhasa, wonderful isn't it, just like what we did to the native americans. Pour in migrants and money and before you know it, it's our land, not theirs!

If China hadn't tried to supress the Tibetans and make them a minority in their own land, I'd have no beef with them ruling Tibet (and Xinjiang). But they haven't, they've instead tried to Hanify the Tibetans. Genocide by demographics isn't something I'm a fan of so I don't support China's activities in Tibet. Anyhow, enough of my rant.

I think there's a difference between what the US and China does, though. The Chinese aren't exactly trucking Tibetans out to get shot. The population of Tibetans is still there, and growing. When the US took over the native lands, they didn't let the Indians stay, they either kicked them out to reservations or killed them. In Tibet, the countryside is still completely Tibetan, while the urban Tibetan population lives alongside Chinese. The population of the province is still 80-90% Tibetan. The Chinese population is about 150,000 or so total, concentrated in 4 or 5 cities, out of a total population of 2.7 million.

As for culture, it's my opinion that certain "traditional" cultural practices will always inevitably die with modernization. I mean, the pictures of a traditional yak herder are romantic and all, but if you were Tibetan, would you like for yourself and your descendants to live an Amish-like lifestyle without heating, running water, or electricity and continue yak herding till the end of time?

Being a Buddhist monk helps you attain spiritual enlightenment and all, but having 10% of the population be monks means that you have 10% unemployment in the form of people who do nothing more than sit around all day and meditate. In the old days, these monks were able to support themselves because they were basically the ruling class and the rest of the country were serfs that they owned taxed, but obviously you can't do that in a modern society. The devotion of large amounts of population to celibate monkhood meant that Tibet's population kept declining for hundreds of years and made Tibet weak. So again, a practice like this isn't sustainable in the long term, right?

 

[colontos]

How about Falun Gong? Horribly torturing people because they like to do slow-motion martial arts with a sort of vague philosophical message. And, insulting or no, China is a dictatorship. Sorry.

Where were we in the 1950's when the Chinese were starving thmselves? Well, shut out and prevented from helping by the xenophobic, paranoid government.

 

[stratego]

Falun Gong are secret Nazis

And the only "evidence" you see of torture are "reenactments" by Falun Gong members.

Anyone can splash some pink blood on themselves and claim torture.
link
link

 

[Reno]

You should know better that the swastika has a more sofisticated history as a Asian symbol for good luck, when it's turned that way. Hitler only mirrored it and turned it 90 degrees, thus taking away it's orginal meaning. Just because someone uses the swastika does not mean that they are nazis. Period.

 

[Pikachu]

The population of the province is still 80-90% Tibetan. The Chinese population is about 150,000 or so total, concentrated in 4 or 5 cities, out of a total population of 2.7 million.

The province is only a part of the historical Tibet. Before the “peaceful liberation” Tibet was a lot larger. It had 6 million Tibetan citizens. The historically Tibetan territories still has 6 million Tibetan inhabitants, but now it also lives 7.5 million Chinese there, so the Tibetans are currently outnumbered by the Chinese in their historical territories.

 

[Jeff Yu]

How about Falun Gong? Horribly torturing people because they like to do slow-motion martial arts with a sort of vague philosophical message.

I've posted my views on Falun Gong on a new thread, so that this one doesn't get hijacked further.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2601175#post2601175

 

[punkbass2000]

I think there's a difference between what the US and China does, though. The Chinese aren't exactly trucking Tibetans out to get shot. The population of Tibetans is still there, and growing. When the US took over the native lands, they didn't let the Indians stay, they either kicked them out to reservations or killed them. In Tibet, the countryside is still completely Tibetan, while the urban Tibetan population lives alongside Chinese. The population of the province is still 80-90% Tibetan. The Chinese population is about 150,000 or so total, concentrated in 4 or 5 cities, out of a total population of 2.7 million.

Great, so they're allowed to live there. They're just not allowed to worship their leader or leave. How nice of the Chinese

As for culture, it's my opinion that certain "traditional" cultural practices will always inevitably die with modernization.

So what? The Tibetans are not the ones modernizing.

I mean, the pictures of a traditional yak herder are romantic and all, but if you were Tibetan, would you like for yourself and your descendants to live an Amish-like lifestyle without heating, running water, or electricity and continue yak herding till the end of time?

Yet another meaningless point. What you or I would want has bearing on the situation.

Being a Buddhist monk helps you attain spiritual enlightenment and all, but having 10% of the population be monks means that you have 10% unemployment in the form of people who do nothing more than sit around all day and meditate. In the old days, these monks were able to support themselves because they were basically the ruling class and the rest of the country were serfs that they owned taxed, but obviously you can't do that in a modern society. The devotion of large amounts of population to celibate monkhood meant that Tibet's population kept declining for hundreds of years and made Tibet weak. So again, a practice like this isn't sustainable in the long term, right?

This is a subjective point. You could say the same about many professions. All I do in my job is prepare food for people. This doesn't really do anything useful it is simply a convenience people enjoy. If the people of Tibet enjoy and appreciate the wisdom imparted from the monks, then who are we to call it useless? Are students in school useless because all they do is learn? Should we ban liberal arts from post-secondary institutions?

You may have noticed a central theme to my criticisms here, as I have noticed with yours. Modernization is not the be all and end all of societal progress. What they did with their autonomy and your opnions on the subject are irrelevant. It is their right to decide, not yours. End of story.

 

[Jeff Yu]

So what? The Tibetans are not the ones modernizing.

And exactly how do you know? Have you gone to Tibet yourself? You were certainly wrong about there being no Tibetan writing or culture anywhere in Tibet.

Yet another meaningless point. What you or I would want has bearing on the situation.

Ah, the noble savage. The noble Tibetan nomad romantically herds Yaks in the mountains to the end of his days, having no secure means of living, food or subsistence, enjoying no modern ammenities like running water, heat, or electricity, having half his children die from malnutrition or disease, and himself enjoying a life expectancy of 40 years.

Make up your mind. If Tibetans remaind as yak herders, and thus stay poor till the end of time, the Chinese are discriminating against them, barring them from the improving economy, and not and barring them from economic development. But if Tibetans do join urban culture, get educated, join the economy, and do productive things that people in modern societies do, Chinese people are destroying their culture, committing genocide, and assimilating them. Which one is it?

This is a subjective point. You could say the same about many professions. All I do in my job is prepare food for people. This doesn't really do anything useful it is simply a convenience people enjoy. If the people of Tibet enjoy and appreciate the wisdom imparted from the monks, then who are we to call it useless? Are students in school useless because all they do is learn? Should we ban liberal arts from post-secondary institutions?

I'll bring up the very point that many, including you brought up in the Falun Gong thread. Your view being that religious practices are fine and dandy if they harm no one else. The case in Tibet being that the 10% population of monks were able to practice their religion by enslaving 90% of the population in order to support them.

Are you now going to try to argue that slavery was ok or that it was something the peasants enjoy and appreciate?

You may have noticed a central theme to my criticisms here, as I have noticed with yours. Modernization is not the be all and end all of societal progress. What they did with their autonomy and your opnions on the subject are irrelevant. It is their right to decide, not yours. End of story.

Very well, then. Since the Tibetans aren't interested in modernization anyway, why should any modernization go to them at all? Why not simply direct them towards the Chinese people who are interested in them, and who arern't interested in Buddhism or yak herding? Modernization provides concrete and measurable benefits, like standard of living, nutrition, education, income, infant mortality rate, and life expectancy, unlike some vague assertion that spiritual happiness is superior to or exclusive from such things.

 

[colontos]

The positivism in your argument is troubling. You sound suspiciously similar to Japanese militarists justifying the colonization of Korea and Manchuria. "They weren't modernizing fast enough, so we went in and did it for them. They should thank us. Never mind the discrimination, supression, and murder, they should thank us!"

Is this your argument?

 

[luiz]

The only question that matters is: did the Tibetans want the chinese to invade, humiliate them, destroy their temples and their faith, put an end to their millenar culture and flood their nation with chinese colonists?

The answer is of course a resounding no, and so we all should condemn the CCP for yet another major crime.

Together with the Nazi Party of Germany and the CP-Soviet Union the CCP is the absolute scum of the 20th century.

 

[punkbass2000]

To preface my post, I will make it clear that I am no longer involving myself in discussion with you. I am simply pointing the countless times you put words in my mouth here so that others will not confuse my views.

And exactly how do you know? Have you gone to Tibet yourself?

Fair enough point. I have seen documentaries about Tibet, however. I'm there are some who are for the modernization, and I am sure there are some who oppose it. In any case, those who do not wish to modernize and who would like to return to their traditional ways should be able to do so without interference. BTW, has anyone on this site been to Tibet? Is there any source better than documentaries about the Tibetan people that are primarily interviews with people in Tibet? If so, I'd be pleased to take a look at it. I've also read several of The Dalai Lama's books, incidentally. I would like to believe he is a reasonable authority on the subject.

You were certainly wrong about there being no Tibetan writing or culture anywhere in Tibet.

How can I be wrong about a claim I never made?

Ah, the noble savage. The noble Tibetan nomad romantically herds Yaks in the mountains to the end of his days, having no secure means of living, food or subsistence, enjoying no modern ammenities like running water, heat, or electricity, having half his children die from malnutrition or disease, and himself enjoying a life expectancy of 40 years.

You can malign anyone's lifestyle as much as you like. I prefer to give people the right to choice.

Make up your mind.

About what?

If Tibetans remaind as yak herders, and thus stay poor till the end of time, the Chinese are discriminating against them, barring them from the improving economy, and not and barring them from economic development.

I don't know why you believe that, but I don't

But if Tibetans do join urban culture, get educated, join the economy, and do productive things that people in modern societies do, Chinese people are destroying their culture, committing genocide, and assimilating them. Which one is it?

Can you not make arguments without putting words in your opponent's mouth?

I'll bring up the very point that many, including you brought up in the Falun Gong thread. Your view being that religious practices are fine and dandy if they harm no one else. The case in Tibet being that the 10% population of monks were able to practice their religion by enslaving 90% of the population in order to support them.

Are you now going to try to argue that slavery was ok or that it was something the peasants enjoy and appreciate?

Who says they enslaved them?

Very well, then. Since the Tibetans aren't interested in modernization anyway, why should any modernization go to them at all? Why not simply direct them towards the Chinese people who are interested in them, and who arern't interested in Buddhism or yak herding? Modernization provides concrete and measurable benefits, like standard of living, nutrition, education, income, infant mortality rate, and life expectancy, unlike some vague assertion that spiritual happiness is superior to or exclusive from such things.

Again, this is just your opinion, no more, no less. "Standard of living" is a clearly arbitrary term. "Nutrition" is not measureable, sorry. If you think "income" is of significance that's fine, but not everyone feels that way. "Infant mortality rate" is a dubious positive. I could easily argue that many of the worlds problems stem from its reduction. "Life expectancy" is a measureable. Quality of life is not. I would rather live 30 years happily than 90 years of opaque oppression.

EDIT: Very good points, colontos and luiz, striking at the heart of the matter

 

[Louis XXIV]

The positivism in your argument is troubling. You sound suspiciously similar to Japanese militarists justifying the colonization of Korea and Manchuria. "They weren't modernizing fast enough, so we went in and did it for them. They should thank us. Never mind the discrimination, supression, and murder, they should thank us!"

Is this your argument?

I definately can see similarities between Tibet/Xizang and Manchuria/Manchukuo