Regarding your point 1, I was asking for a proof, not simply saying you note "one of many". Which one, exactly? and please give a source to the official document. Also, I said recognition by the "international community", not by a single government. Since you are so believing in democracy, you should know what the majority law is.
Regarding your point 2, Chinese have the power to elect the representatives, who will elect the president. (Source: http://english.gov.cn//2005-09/02/content_28476.htm). The system is not simply the same as in U.S., where every person will vote for the president directly. You cannot call Chinese government "non-legitimate" because it is different from yours.
I am a Chinese in America. I went to the Olympic Torch Relay in San Francisco. I did see a poster which reads: "Bush lies, Iraqis die. China lies, Tibetans die." (Note, it is Bush, not America being protested here)
You have the feeling that Chinese is not tolerable being criticized about their government, partly because you had never been criticized as a Chinese. The fact is, when it comes to criticism, it is American media that criticize the Chinese people/nation as a whole, not a single person, not a single party.
In the case of CNN, Chinese are angry towards CNN these days not because CNN criticized Chinese government's policy in Tibet, but because of its commentator Jack Cafferty said:"I think they're (Chinese) basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."
It is hard to be convinced that Jack is only bashing the Chinese government/party, not the Chinese people, isn't it? Oh, BTW, Jack/CNN has not made any apology regarding this insulting comment. And CNN simply excused that Jack is criticizing the Chinese government only.
You entire judgement about Tibet and China is based on the following "facts" you believed:
1. Chinese government is evil because Tibet was an independent coutry before 1950.
What is an "independent" country? when was Tibet recognized as an independent country by the international community? Prove to me that Tibet was an independent country before 1950. The proof here I mean is a legitamate and logical proof, not just by saying that because CNN, BBC, NBC, our American history textbook, or even CIA told us so.
2. "Further I don't see the government of China as legitimate. Who selected China's head of state? Who makes China's laws? Where in those processes do the Chinese people have a say?"
If you don't know the answer to these questions, you should go ahead and seek out, not by imagination or by listening to CNN, NBC, or CIA media. Futhermore, it seems to me that you define "legitimate" solely by comparing with the U.S. government system. If any government is formed differently than the U.S. government, in other words, if the president is not voted by every single citizen, then the regime not "legitimate". How ironic?
1. Must supporting Tibet and the Olympics be mutually exclusive?
>> Totally agree with you. But from the violent protests against Olympic Torch Relay in London and Paris, it seems Yes in the Western society to me.
2. Talking to my Chinese friends (I have many), almost none have ever actually seen CNN. They have A. read www.anti-cnn.com or B. read or seen about it in Chinese media.
>> It may be true since many Chinese cannot read English websites without looking up dictionary. I am a Chinese living in U.S.A and I watched CNN and browsed their website almost every day. It appears to me that CNN has played a worse role in this event than those reported in anti-cnn.com or Chinese media. In some sense, anti-cnn.com only disclosed the tip of a iceburg of CNN's biased and frad report on the issues in Tibet. For example, none of the CNN reports stated clearly that 18 civilans (including a Tibetan girl) were killed by the violant Tibetan protesters. What was said in CNN reports is "Chinese government claims 18 people died in the riots." (Who died, the protesters or the civilans? the Tibetan Chinese or the Han Chinese? CNN's report gave most readers the illusion that some of the 18 dead people could be killed by the Chinese crackdown during riots)
3. China is not the last bastion of independent thought, nor is the USA for that matter. Chinese people almost never seek out secondary sources of information, either because of lack of education (cannot read English, etc), Western media is blocked (i've lived there, don't tell me it is not true, though it is accessible if you know where to look), or lack the desire, or discipline, to seek out other perspectives.
>> Unfortunately, as you said, not every Chinese can read English website without difficulty, just like many Americans (I guess much more than Chinese couterpart percentagewise) cannot read Chinese media. Most of American friends seek perspectives only from CNN, ABC, NBC, plus some local newspaper.
Like I tell my Chinese friends, if I want to know what bad things Taiwan has done this week, I'll read Xin Hua or People's Daily. They are at least as crappy as CNN, though they are a different kind of poison than CNN.
>> I agree that both the Chinese People's Daily and CNN are politically biased. It seems to me the difference is that Chinese People's Daily would hide some bad image of the government, while CNN will cook up some bad image of the Chinese government.
One lesson China should be taking from this, and I have seen no evidence of this so far, is that they really need to do a better job of Public Relations.
>> Totally agree with you. The Chinese government is still a novice in building its PR.
So, what to take from all this. I'm not quite certain, because I do not have all the information. I am sympathetic to both sides. Living in China was the happiest part of my life.
>> Good to know you enjoyed your stay in China. I've lived in U.S. for 7 years and it was also my happiest time so far in my life. But I have determined to go back China to help the government build its PR after I saw what happened recently...haha.
>>Lastly, I really appreciate your suggestions to the Chinese.
Apprently you have some basic knowledge about Tibet and its history. I appreciate you making the comment after doing some research on the issue first.
Here is some of my comments on the conclusion you drew:
"To the best of the knowledge of anyone who lived in Tibet previous to the Chinese occupation... they already were independent."
Here are some maps of Tibetan/Asia region way before 1950 (from 18th centry to 19th centry). Note that, none of them is from a Chinese source. However, I do not see in any of the map is Tibet marked as an independent country.
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-EkaDu_rkI/AAAAAAAAAE4/Dik37sc9ln8/s1600-h/001IndiaChina.JPG)
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-EkbDu_rlI/AAAAAAAAAFA/sxWGjgNslUM/s1600-h/002GgermanChinaMap.JPG)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-GGsJlFDbI/AAAAAAAAAGs/ToMUrepbIKE/s1600-h/US1900.JPG)
Maybe the "independence" you refered was during 1913 to 1950. During that period, even the entire China (The Qing Dynasty) was falling apart into several war-lords fighting against each other, followed by the Japanses invasion and civil war. Tibetan rulers at that time did make some form of claim of independence. But as far as I know, the claim was never recognized by neither the Chinese government nor the international community at that time. (Please prove me if I am wrong)
" the fact that several 10's of thousands of people walked over the Himalayas "
I do not know where and how you get that number. Let's for now assume that what you said is correct. At that time, the entire Tibetan population is 2 million.(Wikipedia) "20 thousand of people" means 1% of the total population. Under the Theocracy government of Dalai Lama in Tibet before 1950, 5% percent of the Tibetans belong to the highest cast, which has the previledge to rule the rest of 95% Tibetans as serfdoms (Wikipedia). After the Chinese central government retook control of Tibet in 1950, the cast system was removed and the 5% ruling were deprived of their previledge. Hence, they were not happy about it and stood to fight against the Chinese local government, they lost in the fight and consequently exiled to India thru Himalayas. They do not and never will represent the other 95% of Tibetans' voice.
Therefore, it is not clear to me how you want the Tibetans be "freed". Let the Dalai Lama and his theocracy system regain ruling power over Tibetans? Or let the U.S. troops establish a "fully democratic" government in Tibet, like the one in Iraq?
Thanks for your discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding your point 1, I was asking for a proof, not simply saying you note "one of many". Which one, exactly? and please give a source to the official document. Also, I said recognition by the "international community", not by a single government. Since you are so believing in democracy, you should know what the majority law is.
Regarding your point 2, Chinese have the power to elect the representatives, who will elect the president. (Source: http://english.gov.cn//2005-09/02/content_28476.htm). The system is not simply the same as in U.S., where every person will vote for the president directly. You cannot call Chinese government "non-legitimate" because it is different from yours.
I am a Chinese in America. I went to the Olympic Torch Relay in San Francisco. I did see a poster which reads: "Bush lies, Iraqis die. China lies, Tibetans die." (Note, it is Bush, not America being protested here)
You have the feeling that Chinese is not tolerable being criticized about their government, partly because you had never been criticized as a Chinese. The fact is, when it comes to criticism, it is American media that criticize the Chinese people/nation as a whole, not a single person, not a single party.
In the case of CNN, Chinese are angry towards CNN these days not because CNN criticized Chinese government's policy in Tibet, but because of its commentator Jack Cafferty said:"I think they're (Chinese) basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."
It is hard to be convinced that Jack is only bashing the Chinese government/party, not the Chinese people, isn't it? Oh, BTW, Jack/CNN has not made any apology regarding this insulting comment. And CNN simply excused that Jack is criticizing the Chinese government only.
You entire judgement about Tibet and China is based on the following "facts" you believed:
1. Chinese government is evil because Tibet was an independent coutry before 1950.
What is an "independent" country? when was Tibet recognized as an independent country by the international community? Prove to me that Tibet was an independent country before 1950. The proof here I mean is a legitamate and logical proof, not just by saying that because CNN, BBC, NBC, our American history textbook, or even CIA told us so.
2. "Further I don't see the government of China as legitimate. Who selected China's head of state? Who makes China's laws? Where in those processes do the Chinese people have a say?"
If you don't know the answer to these questions, you should go ahead and seek out, not by imagination or by listening to CNN, NBC, or CIA media. Futhermore, it seems to me that you define "legitimate" solely by comparing with the U.S. government system. If any government is formed differently than the U.S. government, in other words, if the president is not voted by every single citizen, then the regime not "legitimate". How ironic?
1. Must supporting Tibet and the Olympics be mutually exclusive?
>> Totally agree with you. But from the violent protests against Olympic Torch Relay in London and Paris, it seems Yes in the Western society to me.
2. Talking to my Chinese friends (I have many), almost none have ever actually seen CNN. They have A. read www.anti-cnn.com or B. read or seen about it in Chinese media.
>> It may be true since many Chinese cannot read English websites without looking up dictionary. I am a Chinese living in U.S.A and I watched CNN and browsed their website almost every day. It appears to me that CNN has played a worse role in this event than those reported in anti-cnn.com or Chinese media. In some sense, anti-cnn.com only disclosed the tip of a iceburg of CNN's biased and frad report on the issues in Tibet. For example, none of the CNN reports stated clearly that 18 civilans (including a Tibetan girl) were killed by the violant Tibetan protesters. What was said in CNN reports is "Chinese government claims 18 people died in the riots." (Who died, the protesters or the civilans? the Tibetan Chinese or the Han Chinese? CNN's report gave most readers the illusion that some of the 18 dead people could be killed by the Chinese crackdown during riots)
3. China is not the last bastion of independent thought, nor is the USA for that matter. Chinese people almost never seek out secondary sources of information, either because of lack of education (cannot read English, etc), Western media is blocked (i've lived there, don't tell me it is not true, though it is accessible if you know where to look), or lack the desire, or discipline, to seek out other perspectives.
>> Unfortunately, as you said, not every Chinese can read English website without difficulty, just like many Americans (I guess much more than Chinese couterpart percentagewise) cannot read Chinese media. Most of American friends seek perspectives only from CNN, ABC, NBC, plus some local newspaper.
Like I tell my Chinese friends, if I want to know what bad things Taiwan has done this week, I'll read Xin Hua or People's Daily. They are at least as crappy as CNN, though they are a different kind of poison than CNN.
>> I agree that both the Chinese People's Daily and CNN are politically biased. It seems to me the difference is that Chinese People's Daily would hide some bad image of the government, while CNN will cook up some bad image of the Chinese government.
One lesson China should be taking from this, and I have seen no evidence of this so far, is that they really need to do a better job of Public Relations.
>> Totally agree with you. The Chinese government is still a novice in building its PR.
So, what to take from all this. I'm not quite certain, because I do not have all the information. I am sympathetic to both sides. Living in China was the happiest part of my life.
>> Good to know you enjoyed your stay in China. I've lived in U.S. for 7 years and it was also my happiest time so far in my life. But I have determined to go back China to help the government build its PR after I saw what happened recently...haha.
>>Lastly, I really appreciate your suggestions to the Chinese.
Apprently you have some basic knowledge about Tibet and its history. I appreciate you making the comment after doing some research on the issue first. ... they already were independent."
Here is some of my comments on the conclusion you drew:
"To the best of the knowledge of anyone who lived in Tibet previous to the Chinese occupation
Here are some maps of Tibetan/Asia region way before 1950 (from 18th centry to 19th centry). Note that, none of them is from a Chinese source. However, I do not see in any of the map is Tibet marked as an independent country.
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-EkaDu_rkI/AAAAAAAAAE4/Dik37sc9ln8/s1600-h/001IndiaChina.JPG)
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-EkbDu_rlI/AAAAAAAAAFA/sxWGjgNslUM/s1600-h/002GgermanChinaMap.JPG)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_jSTjX1OQZp4/R-GGsJlFDbI/AAAAAAAAAGs/ToMUrepbIKE/s1600-h/US1900.JPG)
Maybe the "independence" you refered was during 1913 to 1950. During that period, even the entire China (The Qing Dynasty) was falling apart into several war-lords fighting against each other, followed by the Japanses invasion and civil war. Tibetan rulers at that time did make some form of claim of independence. But as far as I know, the claim was never recognized by neither the Chinese government nor the international community at that time. (Please prove me if I am wrong)
" the fact that several 10's of thousands of people walked over the Himalayas "
I do not know where and how you get that number. Let's for now assume that what you said is correct. At that time, the entire Tibetan population is 2 million.(Wikipedia) "20 thousand of people" means 1% of the total population. Under the Theocracy government of Dalai Lama in Tibet before 1950, 5% percent of the Tibetans belong to the highest cast, which has the previledge to rule the rest of 95% Tibetans as serfdoms (Wikipedia). After the Chinese central government retook control of Tibet in 1950, the cast system was removed and the 5% ruling were deprived of their previledge. Hence, they were not happy about it and stood to fight against the Chinese local government, they lost in the fight and consequently exiled to India thru Himalayas. They do not and never will represent the other 95% of Tibetans' voice.
Therefore, it is not clear to me how you want the Tibetans be "freed". Let the Dalai Lama and his theocracy system regain ruling power over Tibetans? Or let the U.S. troops establish a "fully democratic" government in Tibet, like the one in Iraq?
Thanks for your discussion.