China 08'

[raja_indy14 8]

China needs to learn its historyquote>

I think China is acutely aware of it's history...


Anyways, while the 'learning from history' theory has some merit, I think it also has some serious flaws.  Firstly, it makes the assumption that simply because people have the knowledge of something that has happened before, know the consequences, and even have the means - in China's case this is debatable - to prevent or alleviate it they will necessarily 'learn from their mistakes' and prevent another round - history has told us this is patently untrue.  Secondly, it ignores the idea of developmental stages, and posits that really any state at any level of human rights, environmental, economic, or political development can make rapid - near instantaneous based on what some people here have been saying - changes to the levels of the most advanced and enlightened states in the world.

So some would say that heavy pollution (along with a long list of other 'ills') is a natural and likely unavoidable feature of the early stages of development when a nation is poor and in the throes of rapid urbanization and industrialization.  There simply isn't enough time or resources to invest heavily in environment saving technologies.  Most on these forums would say that really all that is immaterial, the technology exists in the world - western developed and available for a fee - and regardless of all the other pressures on the government really the environment should be a top priority - because the west has gone through all this China should simply know better.

And don't tell me how bad the environment is, I did a project entitled "Environmental Degradation in China as a Result of Rapid Industrialization" and the numbers are truly astounding.  The toxicity of the watercourses and the air costs the Chinese economy about 7-10% of their GDP per annum and is expected to increase to 15% by 2020 if nothing is done.  And it is the responsiblity of the Government to enforce environmental regulations - even within the west corporations have been loathe to comply with environmental regulations; it is not something that a free market economy will do by itself - however it is a delicate balancing act between enforcing environmental regulations and producing jobs and expanding the economy (one that, given the track record of governments, it is likely to get wrong).  The maxim is "bad air and water may kill you in 100 days, no food or heat will kill you in 3", and for a country which still has a sizeable population living on the brink of survival the ideals of environmentalism become more than just a western fad, but a question of life and death.  As I said, it's a delicate balance, and who am I to know what the right course of action is?

Lastly, people have pointed out 'Europe learned from it's mistakes'.  Quite simply no, at the time they - generally - didn't think they were doing wrong, and it's only very recently that they have been largely recognized as 'mistakes'.  Europe gradually, as a result of increasing wealth, education, and democracy (and a dash of humanism and christian charity) increasingly became more liberal and open - at least within Europe itself.  Cultures very rarely realize societal 'mistakes' and move to remedy them, certainly not in one fell swoop - though a small cumulative action over time will have an overall positive result.

Really, it depends on your ideas of how cultural/societal changes come about...

@ krbe - You distaste of relativists is noted.  To be honest, I'm really not a relativist, but when I'm engaging in an academic discussion where my own personal opinion is largely irrelevant and are discussing facts, realities, and root causes I tend to be relativistic because (a) it gives you a broader

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

@ krbe - You distaste of relativists is noted. To be honest, I'm really not a relativist, but when I'm engaging in an academic discussion where my own personal opinion is largely irrelevant and are discussing facts, realities, and root causes I tend to be relativistic because (a) it gives you a broader understanding of problems/situations from ALL viewpoints not just your natural/deep-seated one, (b) it helps to remove emotion from the equation - which everyone knows leads to irrationality, and © most people don't approach discussions - in my experience - relativistically and so it adds something to the discussion (which would otherwise be a bunch of people whinging about human rights and vilifying China with little or no controversy because this is the accepted 'dogma') and often throws people off because they cannot actually understand what you're saying. Like here, people think because I'm trying to be relativistic in an academic (i.e. irrelevant) and rational discussion I must be a freedom-hating, oppression-loving, Suharto-hugging, morally bankrupt soul who gladly supports everything from the holocaust to stoning rape victims - okay, a slight exagerration. I'm really not, it's just that oftentimes I do like to try to see things from others' perspectives. quote>

So what you're saying is that you yourself do not hold an opinion on this subject (except for that bird killer Mao wasn't the best guy in the chair?)? This is not an academic discussion per se, but it does rest upon a few simple facts:

* China has pledged to improve conditions relating to governing, specifically the individual's rights towards the the state; these conditions, specifically in relations to the Tibetans lately, have deteriorated.

* China claims that these conditions are "internal affairs", and are seeking to avoid "auditing" by shutting of regions for foreigners, and are pointing to the fact that China "does not intervene in others internal affairs". Both counts are wrong, as they've comitted themselves to improve conditions, they do allow demonstrations against other countries within their border, and they've even published "Human Rights" (sic) reports regarding the situation in the US (similar to those of the State Department). They have also accepted that the Chinese can't no longer stand idle and watch as people are being slaughtered in Darfur.

* China constantly points to its "history" and the "fact" that Tibet has "always" been Chinese as to why they are allowed to what they do in their mountain regions. History tells us that it was the Mongols that first conquered Tibet, that they hadn't been externally ruled (government rested upon Mongol, and later Chinese legislation, but the executive was done by a Tibet government); they conveniently forget that the Tibetans broke away and that the Chinese had to invade it and occupy it in order to bring it back to the fold; they conveniently forget the PR part of the reason to the invasion; they conveniently forget that the Tibetans had their own government until 1959.

These are the facts that the current situation in China rests upon; not the rest of their history, wether real or not; not the history of the West, wether in the Far East or not; not in any of our's wishes to preserve a free society over a totaltarian regime.

The maxim is "bad air and water may kill you in 100 days, no food or heat will kill you in 3", and for a country which still has a sizeable population living on the brink of survival the ideals of environmentalism become more than just a western fad, but a question of life and death. As I said, it's a delicate balance, and who am I to know what the right course of action is?quote>

Isn't this a typical, Western view of forward-looking? Where is the near past? F

[belfastuniguy 18]

Page flip bug

[belfastuniguy 18]

page flip......again.....

[belfastuniguy 18]

All very noble, but (a) you don't mention fighting simply that you'd rather be dead, and (b) through curious 'moral loophole' you actually justify the large numbers of executions in China: since living in such an oppressed society is apparently worse than death, the Chinese government is actually doing these people a huge favour ()quote>

I've addressed that point already please go a read the previous posts before rambling. I CLEARLY stated that I would fight to defend my freedom if my nation was invaded and an oppressive regime imposed.

In regard to the Chinese government doing the people a favour by executing them....are you serious?? I suggest that point be re-addressed and looked at more carefully...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

 

In regard to the Chinese government doing the people a favour by executing them....are you serious?? I suggest that point be re-addressed and looked at more carefully...quote>

 

No, he is being sarcastic.  Thing is, sarcasm doesn’t translate well into writing.

 

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

 

History has also shown that the vast majority of people have endured oppressive regimes without deciding that it was all too much for them decided to be dead instead of oppressed. quote>

 

That may be the case but there are many people who truly do not understand why.  The conclusion that most come to is, never having experienced freedom, the oppressed people don’t know what it is and accept their situation as normal, or at least as something better than their previous situation.

 

It is also not widely understood is that some people actually prefer having their life (or major parts of their life) dictated to them.  Some people do not want to have to make decisions.  Or, to put it more accurately, would rather have a limited selection of decisions. 

 

Alvin Toffler talked about this in his book “Future Shock”.   Basically, he said that people and societies as a whole, can have a difficult time dealing with change.  One of the things that can be overwhelming is a wide range of choices.  Some people find it comforting to be told where they fit in and what they should do.  Others find it oppressive.

 

I read that book when it came out in 1970.  Couldn’t quite get my mind around it then.  I have since seen people who fit that description.

 

Not really true, it's exceedingly difficult to seperate the government of a nation from the people themselves quote>

 

Not for westerners talking about an oppressive government.  There are the people being oppressed (the general population) and then there are the oppressors (the government).   It is quite easy to feel supportive of one while condemning the other.

 

I know that if my country faced such constant criticisms I don't think i'd disassociate myself in such a manner from my country and government.  Indeed, I read an article about how this spate of free-Tibet riots - while perhaps directed at government policy - will have a backlash against all Chinese, and that the country will grow more xenophobic and distrustful of the outside world as a result. 

I don't blame them, a country that has made massive strides and accomplished so much in so little time after a century and a half of humiliation and economic mismanagement - finally the people are able to feel a sense of national pride - and not only that but they have the opportunity of the Olympics to show to the world the "New China", their Coming Out Party so to speak, and all the world has to say to them is a barrage of criticisms, protests, and boycotts.  I think the Chinese people have every right to feel disillusioned with a world that apparently thinks little of them, to distrust a world that seems only to notice the negative aspects of China's rise. quote>

 

I understand what you are saying here and it’s sad.   Part of this stems from how hidden things were before.  When I was a kid, China was a closed country.   About all we knew was no one had been allowed in or out for years.  Then we see a few ping-pong players.  There wasn’t exactly a host of “oh look how bad things are in China” documentaries so i

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

That may be the case but there are many people who truly do not understand why. The conclusion that most come to is, never having experienced freedom, the oppressed people don't know what it is and accept their situation as normal, or at least as something better than their previous situation. It is also not widely understood is that some people actually prefer having their life (or major parts of their life) dictated to them. Some people do not want to have to make decisions. Or, to put it more accurately, would rather have a limited selection of decisions. quote>

As we saw last about that sect in the US; telling people about how evil the rest of the world is, and all the bad things about the protective walls is a sure way to retain control for the leaders, while the commoners willingly/gratefully accept to be leaded.

And appearances matter a lot - sure these protests might be against government policy, but they are percieved by many as against China itself and the Chinese people.quote>

And, often, perception is more important than reality.quote>

One should also remember that the media is government controlled in China. True, they might have editors not receiving memos from the Politb

[ephorex_77 0]

Well, seeing as I've some time to kill, and reading those replies just fired up something in me...here goes: (I'll try to address the more salient points...as well as the more patently ridiculous)

@ VT:

Again, it's kind of hard to look back on that and feel all warm and fuzzy about the Chinese government when it's been evidenced that they'll kill you if you speak against them.  That, and there's the whole deal about a few good acts not covering up the stain of a serious black mark on their record.  All they've really done is changed one aggressor for another. quote>

All right. Now, let's work backwards, shall we? It might prove a little more elucidating were I to show things step-by-step (I find it sometimes helps people visualise the whole point of my comments). 

1) I said:

And even if you really would die than be under a regime that oppressed you, does that mean other people in China should follow suit?? quote>

2) To which you replied:

No, they can do what they want.  But lets see.  I seem to remember this little thing happened called Tiananmen Square.  If memory serves me correctly (and it does) there were people there protesting the Chinese government and calling for more freedom.  What was the Chinese government's response?  They killed them.  It's kind of hard to consider that and arrive at the conclusion that they aren't oppressive. quote>

3) To which I replied:

Of course, and when I meant "Chinese people", I had just the students in Tiananmen in mind? I was thinking more of the countless others, heck, the entire country which should be grateful for the Communists for liberating (nice patriotic term, eh?) them from foreign aggressors, if nothing else. quote>

4) To which you replied:

Again, it's kind of hard to look back on that and feel all warm and fuzzy about the Chinese government when it's been evidenced that they'll kill you if you speak against them.  That, and there's the whole deal about a few good acts not covering up the stain of a serious black mark on their record.  All they've really done is changed one aggressor for another. quote>

Now, apologies for the gentle reader who got bored reading what I just copied and pasted above - I promise there's a point to this. Now, VT, kindly note that I made my first comment 1) in reply to besfasinguy's comment that he would rather die than be under an oppressive regime. I hope that's quite clear. The point of comment 1) was this: "Even if someone (belfastinguy) IS willing to die for freedom (in conflict or otherwise; it doesn't really enter into this equation), why should anyone else in China do likewise?"

Your response 2) to that, which, in retrospect, doesn't seem very coherent given the point I was trying to make in 1), was that "China = oppressive". YES they certainly are, by western standards, yet you haven't made a single iota of a rebuttal when it comes to my point, namely, that Chinese people aren't all like belfastinguy. 

As I also mentioned, at that point, I didn't notice how irrelevant your reply 2) to my comment 1) was, so I replied with 3), which admittedly, didn't quite address the point. And then you replied with 4) which brought up China's bad points all over again.

Now, I hope that you can divine what I'm about to say. If not, read on --> "This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT". It's useless trying to points like 1) with how arguments that merely outline how bad China is, a topic which composes the bulk of your replies 2) and 4).

[krbe 193]

About factories being closed: They're already on their way. Not necessarily because they pollute; but because they're bad for the Chinese image. The Economist's special report on China told the tale of a factory city which is soon to close because it isn't that good to have chimneys spewing out pollution close to the foreign visitors ahead of the Olympics.

About the military / sex toy argument: This is still about the harm you choose to inflict upon yourself v. the harm others inflict upon you. If your parents considered a dildo harmful, it wasn't because it was; it was because they chose to percieve it as harmful. [Marc- Though it was a mere example, let's not discuss sexual toys, please.]

About "impact": Again, this is the damage you choose to inflict upon yourself. I can choose to be "impacted" by the terrorist by letting fear tell me to use the bike that extra mile instead of the metro, but that I would choose, and not the terrorist. And I won't be impacted by anyone that are jews, gays or robbers until they do something. If you want to preach polygamy, or if you want to have sex with underage "slaves" of both genders (how does that alter the perception of the acts? Why not say that the person's first name is "Sheik", too? It doesn't actually carry any weight) or that someone are talking about the righteousness of sodomy don't affect me as a person. Some might detest that, but still, that's their choice; it's not something I, or the society at large, has anything to do with, unless it's illegal. And if you take a look in the Bible again, you might find that in addition to the usual interpretation, there were other good reason to destroy Sodoma (also pay attention to certain acts that are not punished by God, but which are highly illegal today).

About the relativity of the 10-dollar bill: It's value is actually highly relative. As a foreigner, the only value it has the value of the price I'm willing to give for it (which today can't be said to be a lot), and even as an American, it's value is based upon the willingness to accept it as payment (something which has to be enforced by law in all countries issuing fiat money)

About life inflation: I believe you're right here, though I'm not too sure that the situation can be likened to the the old feudal systems were life was not considered a right. The Chinese has an amendment to the constitution, which claims that "The State respects and preserves human rights"; in which the most basic is the right to life.

On euphemisms: You may want to be cautious, but euphemisms only conceals the meaning. Take "enchanced interrogation" as an example: Today few would contest that this actually means torture when we're talking about the Gestapo; the CIA however claims that "enchanced interrogation" means something else. However, in itself  "enchaned interrogation" is useless: Interrogation has a meaning, but how do you "enchance" it? Why not just call it by it's right name, unless you want to hide something?

On the article: It's not provided for the purpose of enlighten you about intellectual property; it is provided for the purpose of enlighten you on the differences of rights, property and legal interest. Seeing as you provided nekrophilia as legal in the event the corpse "belong" to you, you failed to see the distinction between these three concepts. You have a right to life, which no one can infringe upon (capital punishment, measured out by independent courts, are, in those places were this is allowed, not seen as an infringement on this right) and which is wholly personal andnot challenged by others legal interests, property is a concept similar to rights but which extends to dead things and might be challenged by others legal interests (say you can't build a skyscraper on your property because there is an airport next to it), and legal interest is a concept of varying de

[Meg 368]

I do not believe that anyone here is “vilifying” China.  That implies a level of emotional intensity that I believe most people in this thread lack.  “Disapprove of”, sure; but that’s not the same thing.

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

For the record, I enjoy the western rights afforded to me, but that does NOT preclude the possibility that others are content without them. What for me, is an essential keystone of legal theory, what I think is good for the entire world, might not be for people in other countries. quote>

I understand that different cultures have different values and what works for Culture X might not work for Culture Y.  and I do believe (as I have said before) that more densely populated groups need to have different rules than more sparsely populated ones.  But a key point here is what the various cultures have chosen to do.

For example, people in the UK have chosen to have a more socialist government than people in the USA.   It doesn’t mean that we don’t get along with each other although we may each scratch our heads and wonder why the other group made the choices that they did.  But we do, generally, accept that the others have chosen to live as they do and don’t try to impose our will on them.

Did the people in China have a choice?    Is there a possibility that they are content with their situation?  For centuries, people in what is now the USA told themselves that their slaves were content being slaves because they believed that their slaves were lesser beings.   Is it a racist statement to say that that the Chinese people are content with fewer rights than we have?  If we (whoever “we” are) insist on having a certain set of rights but think it’s acceptable for other people not to have them, are we not being elitist?   Or it is okay for other people to have fewer rights if that is what they have chosen to do?

It sounds like Tibet wants to live differently.  It also sounds like they aren’t being given a choice.

That said, I do believe that it doesn’t work to impose democracy on a group of people.  To paraphrase a quote:  Democracy is advanced citizenship; you have to really want it.

Not everyone does.

  

[threeswept 12]

On a separate note from back and forth conjecture here, I thought I'd paste a positive message I received this evening from AVAAZ regarding China and the Olympics. I'm all for a more positive  approach and agree and believe it's a great step...no matter how small...in the right direction in dialogue with China and the issues revolving around the Olympics and government repression.

Dear Friends,

The Beijing Olympics are a crucial chance to persuade China's leaders to support dialogue and human rights in Tibet, as well as Burma and Darfur, and we need to seize it.

China wants the Olympics to be a coming out party for a newly modern, powerful, and respectable nation. But the Olympics are about humanity and excellence--we can't celebrate them in good conscience while ignoring the suffering of Tibetans and others.

So Avaaz is launching a major new campaign: SAVE THE OLYMPICS. We'll ask China to save the Olympics for all of us, by making specific, reasonable progress in dialogue with the Dalai Lama, securing release of Burmese and Tibetan political prisoners, and supporting peacekeeping in Darfur.

Our appeal will be placed on billboards and ads in major cities, in Chinese overseas publications, and we'll hire a Chinese language team to engage directly on China's lively blogs and in chatrooms. We need 10,000 donations from people from 100 countries to kickstart the campaign this week with a truly global sponsorship--click below to see the ads and donate whatever you can, however small:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_olympics/4.php

Within China, where the Olympics were once seen as a victory for greater openness and internationalism, the internal debate has taken a bitter turn. Most Chinese are now growing angry over Olympic activism, seeing it as biased and "anti-Chinese."

If the games are a fiasco, China's repressive hardliners will win the day--and we could see the worst crackdown yet.

We need to stop this, and fast. So our campaign aims to reach out to China and Chinese people to show that we're not anti-China but pro-humanitarian, and that our desire is to save the 2008 Olympics, not ruin them. Click below to donate now:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_olympics/4.php

The Slogan of the 2008 Olympics is "One World, One Dream". Let's reach across barriers of perception and division, and ask the Chinese to make this dream come true for us this summer.

With hope,

Ricken, Ben, Graziela, Galit, Pascal, Iain, Milena, Sabrina and the whole Avaaz Team.

PS – If you are new to Avaaz, we are a new global campaigning organization launched in January 2007 that has rapidly grown to over 3 million members in every nation on earth. The Economist magazine has written of the power of Avaaz to "Give world leaders a deafening wake up call", and we have been featured on the BBC talkshow HARDtalk. David Miliband, the UK foreign secretary, calls Avaaz "the best of the new in foreign policy". You can see the results of our last campaign fundraiser, on Burma

[6underground 11]

You know, if you haven't heard already, there's a Chinese cargo ship off the coast of South Africa filled with arms for Mugabe's regime. Since he cannot win democratically, he plans to slaughter all democratic opposition with Chinese bought weapons. China is hardly alone in doing this, but really, it's just another reason why I dislike China so much. Either practice what you preach China, or don't!

[ephorex_77 0]

Well, I'll take the plunge and just engage in a good 'ol pointless discussion:

Originally posted by: krbe About factories being closed: They're already on their way. Not necessarily because they pollute; but because they're bad for the Chinese image. The Economist's special report on China told the tale of a factory city which is soon to close because it isn't that good to have chimneys spewing out pollution close to the foreign visitors ahead of the Olympics. quote>

1) You're behind the times; this has already happened and was announced many months (I think even years) ago. 

2) This is another example of facts that add nothing to the discussion. In fact, I'm not even sure (apart from your obvious anti-China predilection conveyed) of the point you're trying to make in that. 

You said:

On euphemisms: You may want to be cautious, but euphemisms only conceals the meaning. Take "enchanced interrogation" as an example: Today few would contest that this actually means torture when we're talking about the Gestapo; the CIA however claims that "enchanced interrogation" means something else. However, in itself  "enchaned interrogation" is useless: Interrogation has a meaning, but how do you "enchance" it? Why not just call it by it's right name, unless you want to hide something? quote>

The moderator said:

About the military / sex toy argument: This is still about the harm you choose to inflict upon yourself v. the harm others inflict upon you. If your parents considered a dildo harmful, it wasn't because it was; it was because they chose to percieve it as harmful. [Marc- Though it was a mere example, let's not discuss sexual toys, please.]

quote>

Should I consider myself exonerated of this deplorable crime of excessive-euphemism use? 

You can stop being so suspicious; I'm not hiding anything. If I thought it prudent, I'd have mentioned everything explicitly, but seeing as I've fortunately been endowed with an elementary understanding of how this site works, I didn't. As evidenced by Marc's comment, wasn't really that bad a choice.

And once more, apart from attempting to portray me as someone with an ulterior motive by using euphemisms, your point criticising my use of euphemism adds what, exactly, to this discussion? 

It's almost as useless as my pointing out that the right word is "enHANCED" and not "enCHANCED", as you've used four times above.

About "impact": Again, this is the damage you choose to inflict upon yourself. I can choose to be "impacted" by the terrorist by letting fear tell me to use the bike that extra mile instead of the metro, but that I would choose, and not the terrorist. And I won't be impacted by anyone that are jews, gays or robbers until they do something. quote>

Well, others would be horrified by jews; others would be horrified by gay people; others would be horrified by; animal-loving deviants; others would be horrified by muslims; others

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77

Well, others would be horrified by jews; others would be horrified by gay people; others would be horrified by; animal-loving deviants; others would be horrified by muslims; others would be horrified by sodomisers. 

They're impacted by them. You're not. Does that mean their opinions don't count? So having a homosexual next door or a animal-loving deviant can't impact on anyone's lives just because you're not impacted? Just because it "don't [sic] affect me as a person"?

quote>

Anyone who is freaked out that their next door neighbor practices a different religion than they do needs to get a grip and realize this is the 21st century and we live in a global society.  Everyone on the planet doesn't follow the same religion and they aren't going to any time soon.  People freaking out over this is the cause of many of the wars on the planet.

Are there cases where people can be justifiably horrified at someone else's religious practices?  Of course.  Just look at the case down in Texas. [Thread here]   Yes, we believe in freedom of religion but that doesn't extend to raping teenagers and torturing babies.

There is this thing called the law.  People who are following the law of whatever land they live in  should be able to live without being harassed by their neighbors' prejudices.   I know that is an idealistic view.   But we live on a planet with a wide variety of people and beliefs.   We can either continue killing each other over that fact or we can learn to live together peacefully.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: ephorex_77[...]quote>

Though you might have given, just allow me to elaborate on a few of my own points:

On euphemisms: Oldspeak is always preferable to Newspeak, though in an effort to make this site edible to the parents of the young ones on the other side of the pond, one must, regretfully, resort to vague and sometimes double-meaning terms. Seeing as this is a somewhat controversial subject, one would prefer to get correct meaning of a phrase across instantly.

On my spelling errors: When the error is consistent, keep in mind that the corrective actions is perpetrated afterwards. I've had bigger problems with "decide" in the past.

On impact: You're emphasising the person; it might well be true that you're horrified by jews, but in countries where rule of law is an absolute value and not a relative one, the "choose" part is emphasised—so that individuals are protected against arbitrary arrest, etc.

On the relativity of money: Perception is everything. That you'll let it drop after two paragraphs is fair enough, but on most issues one can argue either (or all) way(s).

On the Japanese occupation: This sounds like the Latvian stance on Nazism v. Communism. The communists, of course, didn't do things better for themselves when they shipped Latvians away to Siberian concentration camps, and littering the place with Russians.

On the relativeness of China's wrongs: They've pledged to improve—sure, they haven't any "goals", as they're probably well aware of the facts that they a) can't improve without letting some power go, and b) they're not at all wiling do <i>that</i>

On "facts" regarding the "core of the discussion": "Facts" is legalese for "what we're quarreling about", while everything we bring to the table to hit each other in the head with, are called "arguments" (which of course should be backed by facts).

[patriots_1228 51]

raja: by its history, i do not mean chinas history, i mean the history of the world.

[sixers33 3]

We just had the torch relay here in Australia. Suprisingly it all went well without any trouble! There were plenty of protesters, but the Australian Federal Police did very well in protecting the torch. Canberra was the first major city to successfully have the torch relay without a hitch this year Chinese were very annoying though, the government got together 10,000 supporters to taunt the Tibet protesters which i don't like. They also wanted to do the security for the torch and several times tried getting close when it's the Australian Police's job and not the Chinese security.

I hope that governments pressure China and hold boycotts, but don't withdraw atheletes from the olympics. I would like to see China's export reduced, that would annoy them in a big way.

[krbe 193]

It's actually been pretty peaceful ever since Buenos Aires, though they cancelled or cut the routes in Pakistan and Jakarta (both large Muslim countries, a religion the Chinese have some troubles with) and in India (though they did well in Kuala Lumpur).

Funny to read about the "rent-a-crowd"-students you got down there, though. They weren't that easy to be with, I saw? And good to see that at least the Australians understands whose responsibility internal security are.

[geoffrey_198226 0]

guys,before you talke about how horrible and how human rights abusing china was,have you ever been to china,and how much do you know about china?

You think tibet should be an indepent country ,but do you guys know that even 800 years ago when was Yuan dynatsty tibet was a part of the empire.You think Taiwan should enjoy her independence ,but do you guys know that even Chiang Kai-shek admitted that taiwan was part of china and if you guys dont like this dictaor,maybe you would like to refer to history books about china to find out by yourselves.(Dont say that tibet and taiwan were independent before,if you guys say so ,maybe you guys would like Soctland ,Walse to be independt countries,or you guys would like Hawaii to be a new member of the UN)

It is ridiculous when you guys talked about the environment problem of china.just lets go through the development history of each developed country to see which one avoided the pollution period?besides,if you guys really concerns about the environment of china,why dont you just tell your government that help china with tech.?!

As for human rights and freedom,plz dont make me laugh.you guys just dont have any idea about china,a country with 1,3 billon people most of whom have been out of poverty for years and are enjoying their prosperous life.maybe you think china is not free enough,maybe you can imagine what a country would be with over 1.3 billion people just talking about their own freedom,their own rights,not to caring others'

What i said dont mean that china is perfect,actually we still have numerous probelms which need to be solved ugently.we welcome suggestive questions and we appreciate you guys point out our backdraws,however,if you just talk evil of china based on nothing,you better shut up!!!

[sixers33 3]

No offence geoffrey, but China has done alot wrong, and i am saying that since i am currently in the middle of an assignment about the History of China, Tibet, Mao Zedong, Long March and most people do really know what is happening. There have been major human rights violations and you cannot say that the Chinese government is not to blame, because they are.

"As for human rights and freedom,plz dont make me laugh.you guys just dont have any idea about china,a country with 1,3 billon people most of whom have been out of poverty for years and are enjoying their prosperous life"

Have you totally missed all the adults and *kids* who work 20+ hours each day in terrible conditions un thinkable here in the western world for as little as a few dollars a week if they are lucky? I wouldn't call that "enjoying" or having a "prosperous life".

Stick your head out of the Pro Chinese propoganda and learn the truth.

[geoffrey_198226 0]

Well,have you ever know about the 'old system'of tibet?maybe you would like to see some pictures of tibet before.

Tibet is part of china,you admit it,and also the governor fo tibet is tibeten rather than han or other chinese.besides,tibeten culture has been maintained,and also,they study their own launguage at school,they enjoy previliges at the national college entrance examination.they also keep their belif,their religon.the chinese government just built a railway to tibet and also introduce a new social system which allows more tibeten enjoy freedom and better life(I adimit that compared with most devloped countries,we still cannot have as much freedom as people of those countries,since we have our own situation.)

You cannot find Dalai Lama's pictures in tibet,however,thoes pictures are avilable in qinghai ,si chuan,gan su provinces that are near to tibet.

If you think the old system of tibet is better and that is what tibeten really wants,then stopping saying that human rights in china is abused,and chinese cannot have any freedom.

[patriots_1228 51]

geofrey: here is the difference. Hawaii wants to be part of the US. Scotland and Wales want to be part of Great Britain. But do Tibet and the Tibetian People want to be part of China?

As I said before, just because we had a period in history where we recklessly polluted with our factories doesn't mean China can. Back then, we didn't know it was harming our earth so much. But China does. Messing up unintentionally is okay, but messing up intentionally is not. Just because your sibling goes out and murders someone, does that mean you should be able to?

[Callbat 8]

Hey everyone, It's called learning from your history.

[geoffrey_198226 0]

those pictures are about how most tibeten's life under the old system which you guys think that should be re used in tibet

[Callbat 8]

How many years ago was this?

[krbe 193]

My grandfather drove a car without seatbelts before they found out how much they do to save lives (and speed was much lower), so I should be allowed to drive without seatbelts, too!

Neither China nor China (Chinese Beijing and the Republic of China) have renounced their Tibet claim. But you can't really compare Scotland to Tibet here: Tibet is a remote region, one which it took a fortnight just to get a message from Lhasa to China. This made a rule similar to that of Britains over Scotland not feasible. Also, Tibet was conquered by Mongols, while Scots had a much more ambivalent relationship towards their monarchs.

Also, all the Tibetans "rights" fades a bit on the background of the Han influx. However, the railway makes it at least easy for both people and goods transporters to get to and from China Proper both easy and affordable! Wonder for whom this service makes Tibet more enticing..?

And Taiwan IS China. Both ROC and PRC says that. Saying Taiwan is not China is like saying that East Germany wasn't Germany, or North Korea not Korea.

Originally posted by: Callbat How many years ago was this?

quote>

Those pictures are from before 1950. China liberated Tibet from the serfdom they lived under. That lasted for about nine years, then they instituted direct rule from Beijing. If it had been so important to shield everyone from information in China, you could easily have found pictures of the same type today.

EDIT: We could begin with the Great Leap "Forward" for example.

You might not learn this in Chinese history classes, but Tibet has never been "Chinese" the way it is today. The remoteness of the region has ensured that Tibetans was the lords of the Tibet manor, even though the Chinese owned the lot. The Chinese direct rule is a result of the Communist revolution, not of Chinese rule. Thus the kind of rule we see today stems from 1959; not from the 1240 Mongol (not Chinese) invasion. From Littel's Living Age we have this excerpt from 1878:

Although the presence of the Chinese in the country, as more or less de facto rulers, since the time of the first Mantchoo emperor, Chuntche, has effaced the secular power of the lamas to a great extent, the Dalai has always been more concerned in the public administration than the Teshu. The latter, who resides at the lamasery of Teshu Lumbo, near the town of Shigatze, on the Sanpu, is the great theological authority in Tibet, and is styled the "Gem of Learning;" whereas, the: former's designation is "the Gem of Majesty."

It would also be interesting to not that real autonomy (instead of in the name, as it is today), not independence is more than fine for the Dalai Lama himself. Again, it's a question of being the lords of their own manor, instead of serfs on Chinese land (the paradox is of course that the rationale for the Chinese invation of 1959 was exactly the Tibetan serfdom in the manor's garden). However, young Tibetans are opposing this move, and that's not strange at all: They don't know how things were before, and all they've seen is this sudden Chinese influx. They cannot be blamed for that.

[geoffrey_198226 0]

well,maybe you should do a survey in tibet to see whether most tibeten wants to be part of china or not.

Maybe soctland ,walse want to be part of the UK,however,there are still many people in scotland want to be indepedent,dose that account?how about northern ireland?

China dose realise the pollution problem,and we also put a lot of effort to it,but just to a country with 1.3 billion population with only 2000US dollars gdp per capita 2007,how much money you think we should put to curb the pollution and how many advanced skills you think we own now?actually,in china many serious pollution factories have been closed already,not just because of the bloody Olympic.maybe you guys dont know that the government has strick control on any new industry projects,and environmental companies are the most profitable ones of china(the average income for empolyees on that field is over 6000US Dollars per year which is three times of the average income of whole china)

Actaully we adimit and we know that we had a lot of problems,and to us territorial integrity is of the utmost importance.most of we chinese just want you guys to know that we have improved a lot and we always welcome you guys to help us with our problems on condition respecting us(if boycotting olympic in china and making troble to the torch are your way of showing respect,then maybe you would like to see such kind of scene in 2012 to the london olympics)

[patriots_1228 51]

look, geoffrey, China has had 8 years to improve us. These last 4 years the world has been watching their every move, hoping for improvement. And until recently, they hadn't made any efforts to do the promised emmission cutdowns. I had heard recently they had finally implemented some sort of system to fix it in time for the games. I think thats wonderful they are finally trying, but im wondering if it's too late?

As for human rights, they also had promised improvement in this arena. Well, it has, in many ways gotten worse. Sure, the overall Chinese population is living a better life style, but still, children spent hours in factories making our kicks and Tibet is full of protests and violence. Iwould help China, unfortuantly, im just a teenager, and don't have the tools or ability to help out right now.

[krbe 193]

Alright, let's take this on the growth: China has a growth rate exceeding ten percent per year. Britain had one at about 1 percent during the industrial revolution. And they didn't have the knowledge. So don't compare China 2008 to Britain 1800.

As I already said, autonomy, not independence is the biggest question here. Lord of the manor, though China might well own the lot.

And don't come talking about "respect" from countries. In many parts of the world, people are allowed to demonstrate without the government rubber stamping and controlling the protests. And if this kind of respect is so important, why boycott Carrefour because of something you believe they believe about the Olympics? I thought it was you guys that was so good in separating the Olympics from politcs? Or just this just work one way? Good thing your embassy managed to organise a protest against the Tibet demonstrators. Not so good that you rounded up goons and thugs. Is this the Chinese way of showing respect, both home and abroad?

If territorial integrity is so important, why do you need to have your own police force surrounding the torch? Internal security, no matter what object we're talking about, is for the national police to handle. Isn't this intervening in other nations internal affairs (a bit like the wepons shipments to Mugabe, that guy you helped build the house for remember?).

PATRIOTS_1228: You should read one of my former posts. They have actually shown some improvements: Like handing out death sentences after court sessions is becoming a bit more normal (which must mean that death senteces used to be a desk decision before...).

[sunrise7 0]

i am feeling so strange that so many people interested about this thread.

I really want to know why you guys so interested and concerned about China/ Chinese government/ Chinese and of course Chinese living in Xizang(you may like to call Tibet)?

People just living your life, you wont live in China,you wont live in Xizang, why you so concern how they doing?it for me just not a problem i should concern,not my bussiness and of course not one thing Western people should be concern. Let Chinese government deal with it, how they doing, is not something relate to Western people, and should be not a topic to discuss in Western countries.