China 08'

[sunrise7 0]

If people look at the pollution that China creats, OMG, that is a huge threat to the earth, I have to say. Although Chinese government start to realize this situation and trying to do sth about it, but i am sure the emission wont stop growing up for next few years until certain work could be done to reduce pollution.

some people say Chinese government sponsors massive genocide, from 1980's social-economic reformed, except 4th June, 1989, I can't see any other evidence of this. However, even after 2000, how many wars does American and UK did all over the world without any "good" reason? would that be sth genocide? should their governmnet also need be punished? should Tony Blair and George Bush being the second class people?Yes, they are.

Also some people think Chinese government treat their people as minions, in most cases, this is not ture. What the population is for China?and what the GDP the creat?The average GDP, income etc. just too low for so many people to living well, i can see why few of them would find life is so hard, but everything is improving. Even change a government, even China do not have communism, this situation won't change too much until the economics really comes up.

I agree to simfox for this word:sinophobia. for last centry, Western people, especially white people dominant the world develop and other things, psychologically they scared about China, Eastern world become so strong especially China with communism party in control. However, no matter how many protests and scary over there, China is going to be even stronger in future, the situation of people living is China is going to be much better in future, from what i can see the improvements of their living conditions in last 20 years. This is non-stoppable.

[thesimbug 0]

skigeek previously says:

To put it another way:  after years of fighting wars in various parts of the world, people were not ready to start fighting another one at that time.

thesimbug then says:

but the us is ready to fight china n the soviet union in taiwan which may be caused by smaller conflicts like the 1st n 2nd taiwan strait crises?

[patriots_1228 51]

sunrise: China does sponsor mass-genocide. Ever heard of Darfur?

[coolotter88 2]

Isn't mass-genocide redundant? unless if you are talking about many(>10) genocides happening right now...which I don't think there are. And I thought China pressured Sudan to do something about the genocide.

[SimRabbit 48]

patriots_1228: Ever heard of Rwanda? When this genocide broke up, the US didn't do nothing to stop this mass murder. But of course they sent soldiers to stop the genocide in Kosovo. The US also mass murdered thousands of Indians and took their lands. And most of them helped settlers survive and asked for nothing in return.

[thesimbug 0]

i know youll protest me, everybody, but let me repost my previous post here, in the new page, to invite your attention.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   

i need your answers, everybody.
ephorex_77, would you answer this one question in your lengthy post?

let me rewrite my question:

in the point of view of political strategy, why does the us not support tibet independence since the very year of chinas occupation of 1950?

if the us does not give open n all out economic n military supports for tibet independence because of post world war II devastation then why does it not even give at least, in the diplomatic realm, formal recognition of tibet as an independent state?

let me remind us all that in 1949, in the same time of post world war II devastation as the chinas early occupation of tibet, the us gives not only diplomatic recognition but also open n all out political, economic, n military supports to another chinas region which is undisputably too chinas own, taiwan. in the midst of post world war II devastation, the us takes a huge risk by standing firmly behind taiwans back if we remember the 1st n 2nd taiwan strait crises in which not only china which will be plunged into war with the us by its military manuvers against taiwan but also the soviet union which will be dragged into the war if its fellow communist is intimidated by the "the godfather of the capitalist world", a probable war between nuclear weaponed super powers of the communist n capitalist blocks or perhaps even larger (warsaw pact vs nato, for example, perhaps). but knowing the giant risk it faces, the us is even determined to bind its self further with taiwan relations act.

so let me restate my question:

from the angle of political strategy, why does the us not support tibet independence since the very year of chinas occupation of 1950?

belfastuniguy n krbe, thank you for your replies!
im waiting for your replies, everybody.

   

--------------------------------------------------------------

[belfastuniguy 18]

If one goes by the same token, let's just shut this thread down and affix a large post at both the start and end of this thread saying "AS FOR BIG BAD CHINA IN TIBET...CRY ME A RIVER". Indeed, it's rather tempting; it'd certainly solve this d

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: thesimbugAbout Tibet and Taiwanquote>

Tibet has ever since the 11th century been ruled by either Mongols or Chinese, and has thus not been an independent country since the fall of its empire. However, this did not mean that the Tibetans didn't govern themselves.The remoteness of the region meant that ruling it from Beijing, or whereever the Chinese have had their capitals in the past, would be very impractical, as just to get a message from Lhasa to China proper took up to two weeks on horseback. This meant that while Tibet was a Chinese region, they still had considerable autonomy.

I can not say wether the Sino-Tibetan arrangment resembled the kinds of unions and personal unions that were common in Europe until the 19th century, but I would suspect that, due to British accounts telling about encounters with Tibetan soldiers. The reason why we have these accounts at all are because of the relative weakness of Chinese military during certain periods, and during these periods, the British and Russians were very interested in getting a stronghold on the roof of the world, betting on that the Chinese would lack the strength to fight back an invasion of Tibet.

It was during another such period in the early 20th century, when the Qing dynasty broke up, the Tibetans withdrew from China. China itself fell apart with several warlords fighting for control, before they eventually was reunified under the Nationalist flag.

The great problem with Tibet's status before 1959 is that it cannot be conveyed in neither good English or plain modern legal lingo; their status is called suzerainty, which basically means that they're neither a country (not a union like the US or UAE, not a republic like France, not a constitutional monarchy like the Netherlands), or a "normal" part of a county (like a state, province, territory, et. al.). The problem gets even greater as the Chinese way of diplomatic theory treats this differently than the rest of the world does.

The September 1903 issue of National Geographic described it thus:

“

Since the fifteenth century all power, civil and spiritual, has been nominally in the hands of the Dalai Lama, but China maintains a Manchu resident and an army. Until the Dalai Lama’s 22 year, the government is in the hands of a regent appointed by the Emperor of China. In order to avoid strife in selecting a Dalai Lama, the electoral council places three strips of paper with the names of three boys in an urn, and the Manchu resident removes one with a small staff. The dalai lama’s council, in whose hands is the actual power, embraces four so-called “Galons” appointed by the Emperor of China. The administration is in the hands of a closed aristocracy, and bribery and corruption are nearly universal.[5]

However, the Chinese did adopt "Western" nation building tools late in the 19th century, which means that from that point onwards, they made it more difficult for the Tibetans to excersise the control they had had, mainly as the Chinese representatives were getting more unwilling to communicate on the Dalai Lama's beha

[raja_indy14 8]

btw, i wasn't bashing the UK in any way in my post.  i simply stated that the west had a long history of foreign intervention, which is an undeniable fact.  while i don't think colonialism was a necessarily good thing, especially the way a lot of non-British countries carried it out, there's not much you can do about it now.

and sorry, but the dissemination of technology is NOT the same as state-led military or diplomatic intervention.  the first often comes about naturally, for instance the technologies that spread to europe from britain during the industrial revolution, the second is the action of governments to alter the policies or government of another state.  technological innovation has spread back and forth across eurasia for millennia, technologies moved from east to west (and vice versa) and did not require that the rulers of India intervene in Europe, or that the Holy Roman Emperor demand better "human rights" in Ming China.

Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented. quote>

i found this comment particularly amusing, as if i were chinese; not only am i not chinese, i'm half-british .  and the comment wasn't even relevant to what i said, just a case of opportunistic nationalism i suppose.  as i said, western foreign intervention is a fact, no need to get so touchy - i merely mentioned that maybe some of said interventions were less than exemplary (another fact).  and no need to get into a debate on how wondrous the west is, and certainly don't aplogize for it - i loathe the western guilt complex.

i found the subsequent listing of western inventions amusing and irrelevant as well .  i actually am finding myself in an odd position, since it's normally me who has to debate against people who think colonialism was one of the most evil things ever to occur...

(and sorry, but i had to point out that i wasn't 'attacking' britain - in fact i hardly mentioned colonies at all )

@krbe - yes, it often seems that China is setting up dependencies in east african countries with questionable regimes with the aim of creating a neo-colonial empire in africa to get at that continent's bountiful natural resources.  thanks to all the instability and poor infrastructure, it is one that isn't quite so dominated by western countries, and so gives them a perfect opportunity to develop economic dependencies.

(and sorry if a lot of this is outdated, but i don't have time to check this forum everyday )

[patriots_1228 51]

SimRabbit: The native americans is not the same. The only thing IMO that would be a real genocide from that would be women/children/elders who died moving to a reservation, such as the Trail of Tears. Most of the deaths were in war/resistance, which is not genocide.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

SimRabbit: The native americans is not the same. The only thing IMO that would be a real genocide from that would be women/children/elders who died moving to a reservation, such as the Trail of Tears. Most of the deaths were in war/resistance, which is not genocide.quote>

Hmmm . . .

I think a lot of the deaths were due to smallpox.

As to the war/resistance not being genocide, that is debatable.  I think a more accurate term would be "ethnic cleansing" which is a semi-diplomatic way of saying "no, we didn't want to kill them; we just wanted them to go somewhere else and we'd kill them if they didn't."  

Not a policy to be proud of, imho.

[thesimbug 0]

krbe, your reply is a very explaining one.
you add my knowledge on tibets original status as a tributary region n its only demand of mere autonomy from "the middle kingdom".
i do appreciate your lengthy reply n i thank you very much for this.

so im right, here are your core statements:

The US has also recognised the Chinese claim for Tibet in 1943; long before the Communist regime was in control. The Tibetans main goal was, as I've said before, to be the "lords of the manor", like it was before the Chinese imported western nation building tools.

but im very sorry to say that your reply does not fully answer my question yet.

if the us does not support tibets independence on, say, "historical legality" consideration, why then does it aggressively support the de facto independence of another region of undisputedly "historically legal" chinas own too, taiwan, this day? if the us supports taiwans de facto independence on political strategy consideration, say as an outpost in the face of the historically hostile china, russia, n north korea, why then does the same political strategy consideration not base the us stance on tibet? or it does? then what is the political strategy consideration?

in short, my question lies in an assumption that a foreign policy decision making is not merely based on, say, "legal correctness" consideration, rather its often heavily based on pragmatic interest consideration. telling me that the us unsupport to tibets independence in the very year of chinas occupation of 1950 is purely based on "legal correctness" consideration just wont satisfy my scepticism on wether the foreign policy of such a global power as the us is really merely based on such sincere, honest, n modest consideration.

in short, i dont believe that your explanation is wrong, krbe. indeed, your answer is an enlightening light for my question. but is it really merely that which bases the us stance in tibet? no pragmatic interest consideration?

your next reply would be really appreciated, krbe.
only if you dont mind, of course.
some dare analysis on real politik is preferable.
however, thank you, krbe.

[raja_indy14 8]

@ krbe, i was wondering where you get the statistics on demographic swamping of Tibet, and which figures do you trust?  although the PRC figures are likely distorted, those of the Free Tibet movement could be similarly manipulated - both sides are trying to make a point, and why should the pro-Tibet side be necessarily more transparent?  i just wonder because in my own research there seems to be quite a broad range of possible figures, which only becomes more complex depending on which definition of 'Tibet' one is using.  another reason to call into question the pro-Tibet movements numbers is the highly questionable statistics they give on Tibetan deaths under PRC rule, which even non-PRC sources claim are highly exaggerated.  those seem to be the two major sources, since i don't think the PRC allows foreigners to carry out census research in Tibet.

i just mention it because you state that Han Chinese are now the majority group, but i think this is only within 'Greater Tibet' if at all, since i believe those are pro-Tibet statistics.

as far as demographic swamping is concerned, i'd say it's very similar to what happened between Canada/US and the native populations - it's the opening up of the western frontier for settlement, at least in this case some semblance of Tibetan culture has been preserved and they haven't simply been packed off into reserves.

@ simbug, during the Cold War the US had a policy of containment directed at the USSR and the PRC, by which it gained major allies near the borders of these states and fostered economic development and friendship - as well as the usage of these countries for large deployments of US troops.  S Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and W Germany were key parts of this strategy, the idea being to develop a highly successful capitalist economy which would be invulnerable to the spread of communism.  also, during WWII the ROC had been a major ally of the US, after their defeat and exile to Taiwan the situation remained unchanged - it was now a crucial ally against Red China instead of the Japanese.

Tibet had never really had a close relationship w/ the US, it wasn't a sovereign state after all, and i don't think any country has ever recognized it as such, was strategically unimportant and in any event would have been exceedingly difficult to support in any meaningful way.  also, immediately after the war, the US policy of supporting independence and democracy rapidly changed to the containment of communism, so independence was no longer the overriding criteria - most noticeably during the Vietnam war.  admittedly, i believe the US did support the rebellion of the Tibetan nobles and monks to some extent.

basically, Tibet was unimportant, so there wasn't much interest.

personally, i really can't see what's so bad about Chinese rule, it's certainly much better than whatever the Tibetans had before, i mean it's hardly as if the typical Tibetan was "free" before the PRC came, seeing as how it was a serf-based, feudal economy.  i imagine many of the Tibetans in exile are the monks or nobles who really had a lot to lose, no wonder they want to return to a "free" Tibet where they can be overlords once more.  i mean, even if the PRC numbers are exaggerated, the Tibetans are likely much better off economically then they were 50 years ago, and i do wonder how effective the theocratic-feudal regime would have been in improving the lot of the Tibetan serfs...

(although i suppose a die hard self-determinist would say it's their own choice if they want to remain a backwards mountain state which western tourists can visit to gawk at the 'quaint' ethnic culture...)

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

i just mention it because you state that Han Chinese are now the majority group, but i think this is only within 'Greater Tibet' if at all, since i believe those are pro-Tibet statistics.

as far as demographic swamping is concerned, i'd say it's very similar to what happened between Canada/US and the native populations - it's the opening up of the western frontier for settlement, at least in this case some semblance of Tibetan culture has been preserved and they haven't simply been packed off into reserves.quote>

The first paragraph is right; I believe it's in the Uighur region that the Hans now comprises about half the population. The second pargraph is not right, wether in stated policy (none, due the location of the region) or reality (no "pushbacks"). However, to take over the government of an area one only enough to fill the important civil service functions.

@ simbug, during the Cold War the US had a policy of containment directed at the USSR and the PRC, by which it gained major allies near the borders of these states and fostered economic development and friendship - as well as the usage of these countries for large deployments of US troops.  S Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and W Germany were key parts of this strategy, the idea being to develop a highly successful capitalist economy which would be invulnerable to the spread of communism.  also, during WWII the ROC had been a major ally of the US, after their defeat and exile to Taiwan the situation remained unchanged - it was now a crucial ally against Red China instead of the Japanese.quote>

The Republic of China consisted both of the Kuomintang and the Communists at the start of the republic; and later, after the communists were expelled, they still somehow "united" against the Japanese (though they didn't exactly cooperated very well).

There is also the Chinese view of the "successor states"; the ROC is the successor to the old Qing China, and the PRC is the successor to the ROC. However, that question is de jure unresolved, as the war is still ongoing; and the de facto solution isn't that the question is solved, but rather a kind of Memorandum of understanding; both are committed to the One China policy, both claims soverginity over the same areas, both accept each others as visitors, and so on into eternity.

personally, i really can't see what's so bad about Chinese rule, it's certainly much better than whatever the Tibetans had before, i mean it's hardly as if the typical Tibetan was "free" before the PRC came, seeing as how it was a serf-based, feudal economy.  i imagine many of the Tibetans in exile are the monks or nobles who really had a lot to lose, no wonder they want to return to a "free" Tibet where they can be overlords once more.  i mean, even if the PRC numbers are exaggerated, the Tibetans are likely much better off economically then they were 50 years ago, and i do wonder how effective the theocratic-feudal regime would have been in improving the lot of the Tibetan serfs...quote>

Oh, guess in which part of the world that transformation happened all on its own; it took a good fifty year for the rough work to be done, but one didn't need outsiders (except for the ideas). And I vaguely remember someone talking about cultures...

Anyway, as good as everybody (or any country might be more correct) is better off today than fifty years ago. Admittedly, they are far from everyone and pretty much uninteresting, but they still would have developed, wether on their own, under the ROC or the PRC.

(although i suppose a die hard self-determinist would say it's their own choice if they want to remain a backwards mountain state w

[thesimbug 0]

o, god, strangely, i dont look up the thing i search on the very first place everybody must go to when search things yet, wikipedia. once i get into the page i need, i get my question more than answered.

too abundant historical legal facts provided in wikipedias tibetan sovereignty debate page which strongly justify chinas sovereignty legality over tibet to cite here. but to sum up the theme i raise on tibets independence status, let me cite "a third party view" from the very bottom of the page.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This lack of legal recognition of independence has forced even some strong supporters of the refugees to admit that:
“ ...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican. ”
---------------

then the tibet problem we are talking here is not about tibets independence from china, rather a mere autonomy improvement within the borders of "the middle kingdom".

hereby, my question is closed. some more replies would very appreciated though. n dare analyses on pragmatic real politik interest consideration on the us unsupport of tibets independence in the very year of chinas occupation of 1950 would be much much more appreciated.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

hereby, my question is closed. some more replies would very appreciated though. n dare analyses on pragmatic real politik interest consideration on the us unsupport of tibets independence in the very year of chinas occupation of 1950 would be much much more appreciated.

quote>

The Soviet Union started nuclear testing in 1949.  The focus was there.

[raja_indy14 8]

The second pargraph is not right, wether in stated policy (none, due the location of the region) or reality (no "pushbacks"). However, to take over the government of an area one only enough to fill the important civil service functions.quote>

i'm sorry, i don't completely understand this. 

Oh, guess in which part of the world that transformation happened all on its own; it took a good fifty year for the rough work to be done, but one didn't need outsiders (except for the ideas). And I vaguely remember someone talking about cultures...

Anyway, as good as everybody (or any country might be more correct) is better off today than fifty years ago. Admittedly, they are far from everyone and pretty much uninteresting, but they still would have developed, wether on their own, under the ROC or the PRC.quote>

again, i don't understand the first part, as for the latter part i wonder how you can so confidently state that Tibet would've developed regardless; that it's feudal masters (the nobles and monks) would've voluntarily abandoned the feudal system, implemented land reforms, and started the economic development of the country.  it hadn't gone anywhere between 1912-1950, why would the leadership have necessarily done much more than that subsequently?  plus, the revolt against Chinese rule in 1959 was based around resistance to land reforms, land reforms that would've been necessary for development - perhaps they resented it because it was enforced by an extrenal agency, but it hardly supports the thesis that Tibet's leadership would've gladly undergone tremendouse land/economic reforms and freed the serfs.

and no, countries don't just automatically get better.  perhaps small improvements occur over time - although conditions in Tibet had been virtually static for centuries - but it's hardly as if every economy inevitably doubles in size within 6 years.  many parts of Africa have failed to see significant growth since the 70's, indeed certain states have seen their economies shrink.  i agree, however, that they would've likely developed under the ROC as well.

Some actually prefer it that way. Look no further than right across the border. quote>

yes, because Nepal is such a successful country...

[krbe 193]

1) According to the Tibet Wikipedia page, there's neither a stated Chinese policiy of immigration to the Tibet region, due to the harsh conditions (altitude, communication, etc.), and those who have come (the Hans) have not pushed the nativs further inland the way it happened in the US.

2) Europe managed to transform itself from a highly aristocratic, mercantilist and feudal society from c. 1750 onwards. Notable incidents are the publishing of The Wealth of Nations, the industrial revolution, the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars/Vienna conference.

For example, a system that can be likened to serf systems around the world plays a large role in the independent national spirit in Norway, and the dissolution of it and reestanlishment of local democracy a kind of return to the old days, with free men deciding their own fate in local councils in Norway.

3) The 1959 revolt was against the redistribution laws enacted in the Tibetan areas outside the Tibet region. In regards to the growth statement, I believe it would be difficult to keep up the pace without outside contact, though the Chinese overlordship would probably had ensured that regardless of direct rule or not.

[...] but it hardly supports the thesis that Tibet's leadership would've gladly undergone tremendouse land/economic reforms and freed the serfs.quote>

Agreed. But read it again, this time replacing Tibet with China and and land/economic with political—the present day situation is hardly different.

4) It is generally agreed upon that no country experienced has experienced any significant growth since the fall of the Roman Empire, and even within the old empire it's believed that redistribution played a much larger part than growth. Growth as we know it didn't occur until the 1500s, as war, diseases, etc. countered high birth rates (Malthusian period). Until the industrial revolution the growth rates were low but positive, and even after the industrial revolution were such modern rates as e.g. 3,5% unheard of.

The African countries with low growth aren't your average secluded mountain realm however; they're typically former colonies with abundant foreign connections, whose curse is their dependence on one or few raw materials. With the exception of the rise in food prices (which both benefits and hurts these countries), raw materials tend to decline in price, or remain nominally unchanged, which means a real decline in income. However, many African countries have experienced an average growth, which would be seen as "fair" in developed countries.

Click for larger version

Nonetheless, it's clear that they're missing out on the OECD convergence which has been happening in Asia. The four triangles labelled "Asia" are the tigers.

5) I was actually thinking of Bhutan, with their opposition towards the king's latest democratic move. But Nepal will be interesting, with the maoists in power. It proved no good in China, and people are still admiring these crooks?

[raja_indy14 8]

1) According to the Tibet Wikipedia page, there's neither a stated Chinese policiy of immigration to the Tibet region, due to the harsh conditions (altitude, communication, etc.), and those who have come (the Hans) have not pushed the nativs further inland the way it happened in the US.quote>

Oh ok.  I didn't exactly mean that they were precisely the same, just that the idea was similar in that the dominant culture is opening up a largely empty western frontier for settlement and economic development.  whether stated policy or not, that's what's happening to a greater or lesser extent, and is one of the major causes of Tibetan resentment of the central government.

As for Europe, no doubt society can pull itself away from serfdom, especially when there are large external influences on a region - as there undeniably was in europe - but this is neither inevitable and much less likely under a rigid theocratic system existing in some excluded mountain fastness.  And the changes that occured in europe happened over centuries, is there any reason to believe that the Tibetan leadership would have carried out drastic reforms and set their country on the path to economic development and social enlightenment within 50 years?  Landowners and nobles don't voluntarily abandon serfdom and redistribute their estates, this happens as a result of serious societal, military, and technological changes.

anyways, all i said was that in my humble opinion the average Tibetan was likely much better off under the PRC then they would've been under the native leadership, and i can't see what all the fuss is about.  I mean, the GDP doubled in size in six years, and the country is being opened up to Chinese entreprenuers (which is likely a healthy thing).  Of course, unrest is likely to result, as in SE Asia where overseas Chinese were behind a large part of the economic development of countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, but were resented for controlling a disproportionate amount of the wealth, but overall it's good for the economic well-being of the country (especially since not all nations are equal when it comes to entreprenuerial skill).

As for Maoism, it is rediculous that people still believe in it, considering that it's been virtually abandoned in China itself...

[patriots_1228 51]

^to be honest, my main beef with China is not Tibet, Taiwan, w/e. Its darfur, child labor and unfair hours/wages in general. I gotta say, most of my dislike of China stems from the fact that they have gotten wealthy from treating their workers like *****. Also to a lesser extent, the pollution, however, that is also a problem here, and in other countries, and not somthing i would be boycotting the olympics over.

[raja_indy14 8]

meh, it's hardly as if western states don't support, or haven't supported recently, highly questionable regimes when it's expedient. Saddam's Iraq is a pretty major example of that. of course you can be against it, but it's hardly unique to China.

and yeah, chinese workers are treated poorly in comparison to western standards, but that's just symptomatic of her economic position - it'll improve over time; present working conditions in the west weren't reached overnight.

[thesimbug 0]

skigeek previously says:

The Soviet Union started nuclear testing in 1949.  The focus was there. 

thesimbug then says:

then the global power ceases to a huge extent working its foreign policy over the rest of the world, concentrating its attention to the soviet nuke?

or fears to death the "evil empires" nuke but challenges its neighbour giant fellow communist frontally in taiwan?

both i dont think so.

thanks for your try, however, skigeek.

[Meg 368]

I'm not saying it made sense.  I'm saying that's what I believe happened.

[patriots_1228 51]

raja_indy: you are right, eventually china will have good conditions. However, I think now is a good time for those conditions to take place. China has reached a point where it is a very important and i guess you could say well off nation. Back when America's industrial revolution got of the ground, we started raising the wages and providing perks. And now that i think of it, there was child labor during the industrial revolution, I know there was a lot in britain, and close to home there was the Mill Girls and the Grease Monkeys. But as i said, China has played the growing card enough, i think now its time they raised their standards.

However, if what i've heard is correct, the Chinese factory worker is much better off these days than before, so in a way, China is already doing that.

[Meg 368]

The child labor in the USA wasn't that long ago.  My grandfather went to work as a breaker boy in the coal mines when he was 11.

[patriots_1228 51]

yea, if im right it probably lasted up until the great depression?

All I know about child labor in the americas was the older teen girls who worked in the mills up here, and the boys (7-13) who were "grease monkeys" in the mills around my area. And I guess in the mid atlantic as you said, some boys worked in coal mines?

[raja_indy14 8]

i guess it doesn't really count as child "labour", but my dad worked as a sweeper/cleaner in a factory when he was 9. his family was well-off, so his dad made him work to instil some worker values. that would've been in the 50's. (in canada, btw)

in third world countries, almost everyone works to bring in some income for the family, and so income from children can be essential to their survival.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: krbe Also, an article "detailing" the views of the common Chinese (which unfortunatly are largely missing from everyday debate here) shows that they have been very effective in making Jin Jing into a hero, because she "saved" the torch from the "vicious" demonstrants in Paris—granted, they did try to rip it from a girl in a wheelchair, but dieing for an torch must be even more ridiculous than dieing for freedom (Golden Girl Lifts a Nation, China Daily 14^th April).quote>

 

Admittedly, this was posted a long time ago, but I find it has relevance for my comment. 

I was just thinking of the rank hypocrisy evident in that comment by krbe. The US sets great store by "freedom", which is in essense, something intangible and subjective. But if you like, I wonder how people would react if I burned an American flag (oh, and spat and urinated on it for good measure beforehand) in front of the Lincoln Memorial (or any other place of national/political significance)? And as to the charge that it's ridiculous to be "dieing for a torch", I wonder how the Roman legionnaires felt when they fell to protect the Eagle? I wonder how many people have venerated icons and safeguarded flags with their lives. 

Your comment just exposes how there seems to be one standard by which China (and ostensibly Chinese) are judged, and one for others. 

Which leads to my next comment:

___________________________________________________________________________________

When We were called Sick man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.

When We are billed to be the next Superpower, We are called The China Threat.

When We our doors were Closed, You smuggled Opium to Open Markets.

When We Embrace Freed Trade, You blame us for Taking Away Your Jobs.

When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your "fair share".

And You killed, burned, maimed and looted, We were broken into pieces.

Just go to the British Museum and The Louvre, which of those Arts and Relics were bought fair?

( Even Woodrow Wilson Couldn't give back Birth Place of Confucius back to Us, But But, He did buy a ticket for the Famine Relief Ball for us...

-A trickle of good will in a sea of despair. )

Never again, we said, We stood up and fought for our survival.

And piece by piece we put our nation together again,

, "Free Tibet" you screamed, "it was an invasion!"

Never mind, that those who shouted did the original invasion.

When We Tried Communism, You hated us for being Communists

When We embrace Capitalism, You hate us for being Capitalists.

When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet.

When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse.

When We were Poor, You treat us like dogs.

When We Loan you cash, You blamed us for your debts.

When We build our industries, You called us Polluters.

When we made you consumer goods, You blamed us for global warming.

When We buy oil, You called that exploitation and Genocide.

When You fight for oil, You called that Liberation.

When We were lost in Chaos and Rampage, You wanted Rules of Law for us.

When We uphold law and order against Violence, You called that Violating Human Rights.

When We were silent, You said you want us to have Human Rights and Free Speech.

When We were silent no more, You say we were Brainwashed-Xe

[patriots_1228 51]

Thats actually a pretty good poem, although I disagree with a few things. One question though, by this line "When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse." is the author refering to the One Child Policy? I don't exactly see the problem with that, in fact, I think the world would be a better place if other populous countries such as a america and India adopted that policy.

In fact, I would propose some sort of UN thing where for 50 years, half the nations follow the one child policy, then for another 50 years , the other half does. I think that would be great.

[Meg 368]

It is a pretty good poem.  I think it explains that perspective effectively.

I agree with patriots that limiting population growth is a good idea and it's everyone's responsibility.    Not sure of the best way to implement that, though.

and I really don't think it's sinophobia.   I think it's commie-phobia.   Which isn't exactly the same thing.