Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Tibetans, second-class citizens? » The Peking Duck

Tibetans, second-class citizens?

Yes, I know all about the schools, the hospitals, the highways and the end of serfdom. I know about improvements in the quality of life and all the economic benefits. I know how Chinese people see Tibet and I know that there is some justification for it. But I also know that many, many Tibetans do not see the CCP’s involvement in Tibet to be liberating. Many rage against the interference of the Han Chinese even while they profit from it. (This phenomenon is described in one of the best chapters of the new book Chinese Characters.) Some even go so far as to self-immolate.

But the debate as to how much the Tibetans have benefited thanks to the largesse and munificence of the CCP is largely irrelevant to the discussion of how so many Tibetans are treated as second-class citizens. And the fact that they are is simply undebatable. It is a matter of fact.

I urge you all to read this excellent interview of a leading Tibetan scholar by my former blog buddy Matt Schiavenza. Tibetans are being denied passports because the Party fears they’ll travel to India to hear the teachings of the Dalai Lama. Han Chinese, of course, face no such restrictions. Tibetans are the Untouchables. Matt asks the scholar, Robert Barnett, about other restrictions:

There have been many. These include the Chinese government putting Communist Party cadres in every monastery, requiring every monastery to display pictures of Chairman Mao Zedong, putting troops on every corner of the Tibetan quarter in Lhasa, limiting foreign visitors to guided groups, having to give their names before photocopying, not being allowed to enter Lhasa without a police guarantee if they’re from another Tibetan area, and many more.

The strategy of pouring money into Tibet has failed to bring the Tibetan people to that stage of enlightenment wherein they view the Communist Party as liberators. It will never happen so long as the CCP tries to force its own culture down the Tibetans’ throats. Things have only deteriorated since the riots of the Spring of 2008, and no matter how thrilled the CCP propagandists say the Tibetans are with their liberation (and you gotta check that link), the truth is far darker. The Party can trumpet its generosity and label all protest as the work of the jackal the DL, but the fact remains that many Tibetans do not believe they have been liberated, and instead see the Han as colonizers. Is it that hard to wonder why?

Read the whole piece
.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 211 Comments

@T_co,

It was intended as an ad hominem. I think you’re a hypocrite for asking the Tibetans to live under a system which you yourself do not wish to experience.

This is a thread about whether Tibetans are treated as second class citizens. You certainly do see them as such, or worse, evinced by your statement that you ‘literally don’t care’ what they want.

February 9, 2013 @ 12:38 am | Comment

@TE Low,

Conventional American thought (which I don’t really find that compelling, but you apparently do) holds that we don’t need a right to secession because we have democratic elections. We all get to participate in the political process that way. On the other hand, the American Revolution was justified because the 13 colonies were not represented in parliament. No taxation without representation. This is an argument for Tibetan independence unless China starts having democratic elections.
PS – I love this bit that comes up sometimes about how no Chinese government worth its salt would ever cede Chinese territory and the people would never stand for it, full stop. In fact, Mao Zedong ceded Outer Mongolia to the Soviets in the 1940s. China is really no worse for wear for it.

February 9, 2013 @ 2:19 am | Comment

It was intended as an ad hominem. I think you’re a hypocrite for asking the Tibetans to live under a system which you yourself do not wish to experience.

First off, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Second off, when did I say I do or do not wish to experience the CCP myself? Third, what obligates me to care about their welfare? Finally, how does a lack of such an obligation mean I agree their treatment matches that accorded to your criteria of ‘second-class citizens’?

You’ve proven nothing.

February 9, 2013 @ 3:03 am | Comment

PS – I love this bit that comes up sometimes about how no Chinese government worth its salt would ever cede Chinese territory and the people would never stand for it, full stop. In fact, Mao Zedong ceded Outer Mongolia to the Soviets in the 1940s. China is really no worse for wear for it.

Mao did it because he needed Soviet support to win the Chinese Civil War, and even then, he had substantial opposition to overcome on his decision. Without such an extenuating circumstance, TE Low’s statement holds.

Of course, Tibetans can start dreaming about instability and unrest in China all they want, and a return to China being the ‘sick man of Asia’ in order for Chinese troops to leave Lhasa. That will win them support from Chinese dissidents, I’m sure…

In that same vein, it’s not surprising that in spite of Woeser’s efforts to bring attention to the immolations in the Chinese twitterati, most Chinese dissenters (even people like Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobo) have stayed mum on the issue, perhaps because of the aforementioned linkage between realistic conditions for Chinese explusion from Tibet and Chinese weakness. No dissident in China who wants popular relevancy (and let’s face it: which one doesn’t) will link themselves to a weak China.

February 9, 2013 @ 3:09 am | Comment

On the other hand, the American Revolution was justified because the 13 colonies were not represented in parliament. No taxation without representation. This is an argument for Tibetan independence unless China starts having democratic elections.

That’s disingenuous. The AR was justified because other people had representation while the colonies didn’t. In Tibet’s case, no one has representation in China, so the logic is exactly applicable. The proper impact of this example is that the AR becomes a justification for all of China to revolt against the CCP, not just Tibet, and in no way does it imply Tibet has a right to revolt separately of the whole entity.

February 9, 2013 @ 3:12 am | Comment

@t_co,

Mao did it because he needed Soviet support to win the Chinese Civil War, and even then, he had substantial opposition to overcome on his decision. Without such an extenuating circumstance, TE Low’s statement holds.

right, that’s what I’m saying. Obviously, no Chinese politician would give away territory without some kind of reason. That’s hardly the same as “would never do it and no one would ever stand for it, never.”

most Chinese dissenters (even people like Ai Weiwei and Liu Xiaobo) have stayed mum on the issue, perhaps because of the aforementioned linkage between realistic conditions for Chinese explusion from Tibet and Chinese weakness. No dissident in China who wants popular relevancy (and let’s face it: which one doesn’t) will link themselves to a weak China.

I completely agree with this (except for one thing: LXB has made some very pro-Tibet statements. He is currently staying mum about everything because he’s in prison). Actually, I wish Chinese dissidents would shut up about Tibet because it hurts their popularity levels. I liked Xu Zhiyong’s article “Tibet is burning”, but I also cringed, thinking, “this will go over like a lead zeppelin”.

February 9, 2013 @ 7:22 am | Comment

Well, you’ve done it again, Cookie, and gotten yourself banned. You can’t spout insults like that.

Richard

February 9, 2013 @ 7:25 am | Comment

Xilin,

Within t_co’s framework, I don’t think “second-class citizen” is quite the right description. I think it would be more accurate to say that they are subjects. A subject’s interests and preferences are not relevant unless they happen to coincide with those of the ruler.

February 9, 2013 @ 7:27 am | Comment

LXB has made some very pro-Tibet statements.

‘LXB’ has said a lot of things. “a cul­ture and (reli­gious) sys­tem that pro­duced this kind of threat, must be extremely intol­er­ant and blood-thirsty.”
“with­out America’s pro­tec­tion, the long per­se­cuted Jews who faced exter­mi­na­tion dur­ing World War II, prob­a­bly would again be drowned by the Islamic world’s hatred.”

Pamela Geller? No, Liu Xiaobo.

“Liu also published a 2004 article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S.-led post-Cold War conflicts as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” He predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.”

Ann Coulter? No, ‘LXB’

February 9, 2013 @ 7:28 am | Comment

@CM

Let’s back off from the ad hominems on LXB. Guy’s got credibility issues but we can say he represents a certain strain of Chinese dissident thought (and probably also shows why Chinese dissidents are so marginalized amongst the masses of their own country).

February 9, 2013 @ 7:58 am | Comment

@Otto, perhaps ‘second class subject’ would be more apt.

@T_co,

‘First off, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy.’

I know.

‘when did I say I do or do not wish to experience the CCP myself?’

You don’t live there.

‘Third, what obligates me to care about their welfare?’

Basic human decency.

‘how does a lack of such an obligation mean I agree their treatment matches that accorded to your criteria of ‘second-class citizens’?’

From your previously comments, I thought that you had an ethnic/cultural pecking order when it comes to the peoples of China. Tibetans, it seemed, fell somewhat low down on this order of yours. If, however, you don’t care about what anyone in China thinks, I take it back.

‘You’ve proven nothing.’

I’m not really trying to prove anything. You yourself have stated above that you do not care one iota what Tibetans themselves actually want. I’m just saying I don’t think much of a ‘Chinese citizen’ who sits in Chicago saying that Tibetans should accept passport restrictions.

@CM, shame you got banned. I hope the insult wasn’t aimed at yours truly. I was looking forward to a few more claims that you cannot support with evidence, like the Chinese people have the lowest crime rates in the world.

February 9, 2013 @ 8:50 am | Comment

CM’s ad hominem was directed at another commenter and was one os his nastiest yet. I try to keep things as unrestricted as possible but there are limits.

February 9, 2013 @ 8:58 am | Comment

t_co – What a short and defective memory you have! “Nobody fired a shot to defend China until the Japanese sank their battleships or marched into their colonial holdings.” I suppose that’s literally true as far as it goes, but also extremely misleading because it omits the material facts: Roosevelt’s embargo of oil against Japan, which was intended to force Japan to cease its war of aggression against China, led directly to Pearl Harbor. If the US really didn’t care about China, it could have left China to Japan’s tender mercies and Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines.

Your apologies are accepted.

February 9, 2013 @ 11:17 am | Comment

US would never have allowed japan to control CHina anyway, if japan controls china, it will have an empire as powerful as US and USSR

February 9, 2013 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

@Doug – Of course, Winston Churchill had been willing to go further sooner, but Roosevelt had his eyes fixed on the 1940 election and Britain could not act alone on this. The League of Nations did condemn the invasion of China, however sanctions against Japan were meaningless without US involvement – it is not for nothing that Churchill said that, of the democracies, it was the United States that held the gravest responsibility for the failure to act against aggression before the war.

The allies – Britain, France, and, later, the United States, supported China with arms throughout the war, firstly from French Indochina, then from Burma, and then by air across the Himalayas. All this at a time when a cynical, self-interested foreign policy demanded closer relations with Japan whilst war with Germany, Italy, and even possibly the USSR, was so pressing.

These measures followed years of sanctions against Japan of exactly the kind that the People’s Republic of China so often either opposes or fails to support when directed against modern examples of aggression such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

February 9, 2013 @ 2:50 pm | Comment

FOARP @165

The LoG could not realistically condemn Japan’s invasion of China because it would have set up a precedent whereby the rights of all the imperial powers to subjugate the people in their colonies would have been in doubt. That is likely the same reason that the LoG did not condemn the italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 (where, incidentally the Italians committed horrific atrocities)- how do you condemn imperial aggression when that is the accepted norm of your era?

I think that in the west we like to conveniently forget that we were just like the militaristic Japanese – at least in kind, and occasionally in degree as well. Most of the world was subjugated (truly subjugated) by the western powers so trying to paint the western world at the time as some kind of bastion for human rights and freedom is entirely dishonest.

February 9, 2013 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

@BB – Thanks for the faux-history lesson. Actually the League of Nations condemned both invasions, invasions then no longer being an accepted norm as it may have been 30-40 years previously. I know it’s SOP to simply make out that there has been no change in the way countries behave in the last 150 years on these boards, but you could simply have Googled a bit before posting.

February 10, 2013 @ 4:23 am | Comment

@ FOARP 167

Actually, no I didn’t say that the League didn’t condemn Japan’s invasion, I said that their condemnation was unrealistic – that is, it was a a joke since most of the world at the time had been subjugated to European imperialism.

And no, the League did not condemn Italy, and by 1938 most of the world – that is the west – had accepted Italy as the “rightful” rulers of Ethiopia. And the only reason that invasions may have ceased was because there was not much left to invade except for Ethiopia and China. Sorry but the truth is ugly.

February 10, 2013 @ 6:11 am | Comment

@BB – From “1935 SANCTIONS AGAINST ITALY” by CRISTIANO ANDREA RISTUCCIA, the sanctions consisted of:

“Proposal I which imposed a ban on arms trade to both Italy and Ethiopia; Proposal II which “asked States to render impossible all loans to or for the Italian Government, or banking or other credits to or for that Government or any public authority, person or corporation in Italian territory, and all issues of shares or other capital flotations in Italian territory or elsewhere, made directly or indirectly for the Italian Government or for public authorities, persons or corporations established in Italian territory”;2 Proposal III “related to the prohibition of importation into the territory of State Members of all goods (other than gold or silver bullion and coin) consigned from Italy or Italian possessions”;3 Proposal IV which “prohibit[ed] the exportation or re-exportation to Italy and her colonies of a certain number of articles…necessary for the prosecution of war, …[and] mainly exported by States Members of the League”.4 In addition, a suspension of all the bilateral clearing agreements with Italy was declared. The sanctions came into force on 18 November 1935.”

These measures were enforced without exception by the members of the League. It has been speculated that an additional embargo on oil and coal might have had greater effect, however studies on this subject show that Italy would probably have been able to do without them. The League was no more capable of managing Italian aggression than it was capable of preventing Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, or the Italian invasion of Albania, or any of the other crises of the era. Talking as if there were additional reasons for failing to act based on imperial expansion which had been completed 30-40 years previously and on which opinion in the 30’s was largely mixed lacks basis in fact.

February 10, 2013 @ 8:23 pm | Comment

@ FOARP

Yes, halfhearted sanctions, lasting less than one year, and not inclusive of the two of the most important raw materials necessary to wage a modern war, hardly constitutes condemnation. A year after the invasion of Ethiopia the international community had fully recognized and legitimized Italian control of Ethiopia, end of story, end of Ethiopia. The Italian empire was recognized as a legitimate and welcome member of the imperial community – to condemn it would have been an implicit condemnation of all imperial gains. This is common sense.

And what history books have you been reading? The Brits and the French took control of most of the Ottoman middle East territories in the 1920’s, and even post WWII the Brits, Dutch, and French tried with great brutality to reassert their control over their empires which had been (oddly enough) liberated by the Japanese in Asia. The French even tried to regain their territories in China, and the Brits are reported to have killed tens of thousands of Kenyans in their attempts to maintain their control there. European imperial expansion (including acts of suppressing liberation movements) was fundamentally ongoing until the late 1960’s.

February 10, 2013 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

@t-co

“And finally: my enjoyment of freedom does not give me a moral obligation to support the right to freedom of someone else.”

“Third, what obligates me to care about their welfare?”

Perhaps “I’m alright Jack” would have been more succinct?

This is where you reach your ethical nadir; one common to virtually all true educated Chinese nationalists – when the mask of geniality finally slips. Fine sounding words, elegant rebuttals, busy fingers dancing on the key board of hypocrisy as they weave euphonious arguments like a Lan Lan of logic. But at the heart of it, dissonance and discord – a moral vacuum.

Let’s face it – if you’re not Han (or willing to acquiesce to Han hegemony) then in China you don’t count. A disdain towards others that would be considered racist in more enlightened societies permeates China today. Sorry Tibet, sorry Xinjiang, sorry to all the 55 vassal peoples of the Han (excepting perhaps the pretend minorities, Han in all but name). As far as t-co and his (regrettably numerous) ilk is concerned, a ‘peacefully’ rising China means alea iacta est – and the Han wants his lebensraum, so you just lost.

February 10, 2013 @ 10:53 pm | Comment

Thank you, Peter.

February 11, 2013 @ 12:51 am | Comment

Peter Arthur @171

“This is where you reach your ethical nadir; one common to virtually all true educated Chinese nationalists – when the mask of geniality finally slips. Fine sounding words, elegant rebuttals, busy fingers dancing on the key board of hypocrisy as they weave euphonious arguments like a Lan Lan of logic. But at the heart of it, dissonance and discord – a moral vacuum.”

But this is the point at which self-righteous passion for human dignity becomes absurdly comical. Why is it that we western moral authorities are spending our time and effort trying to win dignity for Tibetans when in our own backyards we offer our own ethnic minorities with less dignity that we treat our dogs.

It is the problem that won’t go away; we, as westerners have nothing to offer China when it comes to uplifting our ethnic minorities – particularly here in the states. We certainly have no moral authority, and so far haven’t come up with a solution to how to successfully integrate our own ethnic minorities.

One reason might be that all of our moral superheroes and ethical activists are spending their time meddling in the affairs of other countries. Why is it that so many of us seem to be outspoken about the plight of Tibetans, yet so few of us are outspoken about the social injustices that contribute to the fact that 5-year-old African-American boys are selling crack a few blocks from our homes, and become serial offenders by the time they are 15, and prison regulars by the time they are 18, and then several times more likely to receive a death sentence?

The ugly fact is that Tibet advocates are only pretending that they can offer a solution, and that to me is the biggest moral scam of the whole phenomenon. Who knows, maybe the Chinese will come up with a better way of uplifting minorities than us.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:12 am | Comment

Peter is playing the classic race-baiting scheme. By doing that, is to ignore the history of rebellion channeled by the United States past and present where most critics of China’s policy on Tibet and Xinjiang fails to do.

The other 53 ethnicity where they have not being manipulated by the US, most of them all fine. It has nothing to do with acquiesce to Han hegemony or “inferior race” for the matter.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:18 am | Comment

This is where you reach your ethical nadir; one common to virtually all true educated Chinese nationalists – when the mask of geniality finally slips. Fine sounding words, elegant rebuttals, busy fingers dancing on the key board of hypocrisy as they weave euphonious arguments like a Lan Lan of logic. But at the heart of it, dissonance and discord – a moral vacuum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

And what moral vacuum are we speaking of? Han chauvinism? When I have ever said I am a)Han Chinese or b) morally obligated to care for the freedom of Han Chinese, either?

Let’s face it – if you’re not Han (or willing to acquiesce to Han hegemony) then in China you don’t count. A disdain towards others that would be considered racist in more enlightened societies permeates China today.

Quite a large generalization, is this not?

Sorry Tibet, sorry Xinjiang, sorry to all the 55 vassal peoples of the Han (excepting perhaps the pretend minorities, Han in all but name). As far as t-co and his (regrettably numerous) ilk is concerned, a ‘peacefully’ rising China means alea iacta est – and the Han wants his lebensraum, so you just lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

You can’t win the debate this way. Bring some logic to the table.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:42 am | Comment

I suppose that’s literally true as far as it goes, but also extremely misleading because it omits the material facts: Roosevelt’s embargo of oil against Japan, which was intended to force Japan to cease its war of aggression against China, led directly to Pearl Harbor. If the US really didn’t care about China, it could have left China to Japan’s tender mercies and Japan would never have attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines.

The US made those actions because Japanese aggression against China adversely affected American, French, and British interests in China, not out of some sense of international altruism. Your move.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:46 am | Comment

All this at a time when a cynical, self-interested foreign policy demanded closer relations with Japan whilst war with Germany, Italy, and even possibly the USSR, was so pressing.

This makes no sense. A cynical, self-interested foreign policy for whom? For Britain? In that case, British moves made perfect sense: closer relations with the United States, neutrality on Japanese moves in China; cultivation of UK-USSR relations; a formal alliance with France.

For the US? Remember that the US was looking not to get involved in Europe, period, at the time, so none of her foreign policy moves can be explained by war with Germany, Italy, or Russia.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:49 am | Comment

Peter is playing the classic race-baiting scheme. By doing that, is to ignore the history of rebellion channeled by the United States past and present where most critics of China’s policy on Tibet and Xinjiang fails to do.

He’s not just race-baiting, his arguments are illogical.

The other 53 ethnicity where they have not being manipulated by the US, most of them all fine. It has nothing to do with acquiesce to Han hegemony or “inferior race” for the matter.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say those ethnicities have been manipulated by the US–even for the Tibetans and the Uighurs. I would, however, say that subsets of those two aforementioned examples have been used by the United States to advance American interests at one time or another (and that includes the present-day). It is those acts of using ethnic tensions to advance American interests that are “fair game” for China to use full-spectrum options against (freezing financial flows, targeted kinetic operations, PSYOPs, etc.) The root ethnic issues themselves are ones that should be addressed with the normal tools of governance.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:56 am | Comment

@t_co –

“This makes no sense. A cynical, self-interested foreign policy for whom? For Britain? In that case, British moves made perfect sense: closer relations with the United States, neutrality on Japanese moves in China; cultivation of UK-USSR relations; a formal alliance with France.”

Right . . . it’s a funny kind of neutrality that includes sanctions and condemnation against one side and the supply of arms to the other side. But hey, feel free to ignore those parts of history that don’t fit into your ideological viewpoint.

“Yes, halfhearted sanctions, lasting less than one year, and not inclusive of the two of the most important raw materials necessary to wage a modern war, hardly constitutes condemnation. A year after the invasion of Ethiopia the international community had fully recognized and legitimized Italian control of Ethiopia, end of story, end of Ethiopia. The Italian empire was recognized as a legitimate and welcome member of the imperial community – to condemn it would have been an implicit condemnation of all imperial gains. This is common sense.”

So you admit there were sanctions, sanctions which were enforced? And the enforcement of these sanctions “hardly constitutes condemnation”? I guess you’re OK with the continuation of the EU/US arms embargo against China as well then? I guess the UN sanctions against North Korea, which still allow the import of oil, also “hardly constitutes condemnation”? And Italy was viewed as a “Welcome member of the imperial community”? The historical record shows that every country except the USSR stopped recognising Ethiopia – not just ‘imperialist’ countries, but even countries like Mexico and China, and that it was Britain that gave Haile Selassie sanctuary and British troops that helped restore Ethiopian independence.

February 11, 2013 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

@ FOARP 178

You think that insignificant sanctions that lasted about 1 year, after which the international community – yes, mostly imperial nations – made a complete 180 degree change of policy constitutes “condemnation”? And the opinions of Mexico and China hardly made much of a difference to world affairs or the decisions of the imperial powers. Plus, why would suggest that sanctions against North Korea don’t constitute condemnation?

Plus, when did the Brits liberate Ethiopia – do you mean the second world war when they were at war with Italy? That doesn’t change the fact that the Brits continued to acquire imperial territories they had no right to right up until the 1920’s, neither does it change the fact that several European countries attempted to brutally suppress liberation movements in their attempts to reassert their imperial authority post-war.

February 11, 2013 @ 3:18 pm | Comment

Peter, that is dead on. Well put.

February 11, 2013 @ 6:29 pm | Comment

I have to say that reading the above exchange I have come away with the very strong impression that the person who goes by the name “t_co” has profoundly disgusting and immoral views (stealing Tibetan children from their parents and raising them in some kind of government-controlled boarding camps, etc.)

If these are are views that anyone in China espouses, they should be aware that evil will be resisted around the world.

February 12, 2013 @ 9:00 am | Comment

@BB – So:

“No sanctions” = sanctions

“No condemnation” = sanctions stricter than those currently applied against Iran and North Korea.

“Imperialist community” = every country in the world at the time except the USSR.

You can keep going as if your argument hasn’t been torn to shreds, but you can do it without me.

February 12, 2013 @ 2:16 pm | Comment

@t_co 175

No less than four appeals to the arbiter of all discussion. Re. the first half of my post, QED I think. M. t_co, with all this wikimining you are really spoiling me! Flattering nonetheless.
Let me put this as simply as possible, lest I be accused of further rhetorical contortions (unintentional I assure you – I am a simple soul); I am not taking issue with your use of logic. Logic after all has been used, ad nauseam, to argue the toss for every political theory in history – both the crackpot and the mainstream, the admirable and the reprehensible. No, it is not your logic, it is your moral standpoint I find repugnant. Fear not, you may retire to your bed tonight, erudition intact. As for your of mind peace – that is your business.

I have just read your comment #56

“Sinify and secularize the children. All of them.”

Are you aware how blood-chilling this phrase sounds to anyone brought up in a region where genocide – cultural or actual – has been attempted. Have you any idea of the human toll of your glib plan for the cultural obliteration of an entire society? Of the inherent racism of your “Tibetan face on a … Chinese heart”?
The fact that you have obviously considered this plan carefully – and deliver it in the clinical language of the soulless technocrats that excel in such endeavours – appalls me. No doubt you would applaud the Nipponisation of Northeastern China (and many other parts of E/SE Asia) in the 30s and 40s. After all was it not for the greater good? First, for the good of the Japanese empire and second for the good of the “backward Chinese” – in the eyes of the Japanese conquerors – whose loyal Japanese-speaking children would prosper in the new Nippon centered Asia. That one ended up well.

Which moral vacuum? I think the above will make that clear – yours.

My dear t_co, beloved as you are of the accusatory rhetorical question, here’s one for you: Have I ever accused you of being a Han Chinese? Your provenance is irrelevant, your words speak volumes.

February 12, 2013 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

@ FOARP

Where did I say “no sanctions means sanctions”, where did I say “no sanctions”? I didn’t – what is it about you Tibet advocates and not being able to understand simple English?

I’m glad you have decided to back off because you have done little more than misrepresent what I’ve written and imagined that that amounts to a rebuttal – which incidentally seems to be another quality exhibited by some Tibet advocates.

I will also point out that no-one has even tried to illustrate how the west’s treatment of its minorities can serve as an example to the Chinese – probably because we know that we are only pretending to know what is best. Italy has sanctioned roaming bands of vigilantes who harass non-white Italians, Greek police have been reported to look the other way whilst Golden Dawn commits crimes against immigrants, Spain and Portugal have abysmal records of brutality, racism, and harassment of minorities. The poorest people in France and the UK are minorities, and police harassment of minorities is rife. And don’t even get me started with the US – African-Americans are dying in police custody by the dozens every year, and statistically are far more likely to get sentenced to death. And I won’t even go into the third world poverty of many African-American communities, and the poor investment in education within those communities that perpetuates the cycle. It may be a coincidence that in some African-American communities 47% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate, or it could be a reflection of our poor treatment of them – it is even possible that the Chinese are doing a better job of providing education for Tibetans than we provide for blacks.

So let’s cut to the chase; in concrete terms what exactly is it that western societies are doing with their minorities that we believe the Chinese can emulate? Some might stupidly claim that at least western immigrants have the vote and can speak out against their oppression, yet this would only seem to magnify the injustice by significant degrees – minorities have rights, yet, the experiences of a significant portion of them is almost indistinguishable from the experiences of a minorities in countries where rights are absent.

Yet, we have something to teach the Chinese about uplifting minorities. It’s a joke and deep down we all know that our self-righteous proclamations have no foundation.

February 12, 2013 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

@BB 173
This thread concerns the very real discrimination against Tibetans in China. It does not concern the very real discrimination that exists against many ethnic minorities in the US. If it did it, I might have something to say about that. But it doesn’t, so I don’t.
Bye Bye.

February 12, 2013 @ 4:13 pm | Comment

Right . . . it’s a funny kind of neutrality that includes sanctions and condemnation against one side and the supply of arms to the other side. But hey, feel free to ignore those parts of history that don’t fit into your ideological viewpoint.

Please, enlighten me about exactly what Britain did to oppose Japanese moves into China prior to Pearl Harbor.

February 13, 2013 @ 6:58 am | Comment

No less than four appeals to the arbiter of all discussion. Re. the first half of my post, QED I think. M. t_co, with all this wikimining you are really spoiling me! Flattering nonetheless.
Let me put this as simply as possible, lest I be accused of further rhetorical contortions (unintentional I assure you – I am a simple soul); I am not taking issue with your use of logic. Logic after all has been used, ad nauseam, to argue the toss for every political theory in history – both the crackpot and the mainstream, the admirable and the reprehensible. No, it is not your logic, it is your moral standpoint I find repugnant. Fear not, you may retire to your bed tonight, erudition intact. As for your of mind peace – that is your business.

“Do you see ? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don’t deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don’t say reason is evil – though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there’s something above it. What ? You don’t have to be too clear about it either. The field’s inexhaustible. ‘Instinct’ – ‘Feeling’ – ‘Revelation’ – ‘Divine Intuition’ – ‘Dialectic Materialism’. If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn’t make sense – you’re ready for him. You tell him there’s something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You’ve got him. Can you rule a thinking man ? We don’t want any thinking men.”

Take your BS somewhere else.

February 13, 2013 @ 7:00 am | Comment

Are you aware how blood-chilling this phrase sounds to anyone brought up in a region where genocide – cultural or actual – has been attempted. Have you any idea of the human toll of your glib plan for the cultural obliteration of an entire society?

Appeal to emotion. Also, it’s a strawman fallacy since nowhere am I calling for the obliteration of Tibetan culture. All I am saying is to assimilate and integrate the children so that they view Chinese culture as their dominant culture, much as most America gets most immigrants to view American culture as their dominant culture. Plus, yes, I do have an idea of the human toll–it’s not very high at all. Life is sacred. Liberty–for mentally competent, law-abiding adults–is sacred. Property–for mentally competent, law-abiding adults as well as corporate entities–is sacred. A culture is not automatically sacred.

Of the inherent racism of your “Tibetan face on a … Chinese heart”?

Appeal to emotion, loaded language, strawman fallacy. I won’t even bother to address this one.

The fact that you have obviously considered this plan carefully – and deliver it in the clinical language of the soulless technocrats that excel in such endeavours – appalls me.

Appeal to emotion. Plus, I don’t really GAF that what I say appalls you. In fact, I take it as a compliment.

No doubt you would applaud the Nipponisation of Northeastern China (and many other parts of E/SE Asia) in the 30s and 40s. After all was it not for the greater good? First, for the good of the Japanese empire and second for the good of the “backward Chinese” – in the eyes of the Japanese conquerors – whose loyal Japanese-speaking children would prosper in the new Nippon centered Asia. That one ended up well.

Tu quoque, ad hominem, appeal to emotion, cherry picking, plus a non sequitur to boot since you are subtly equivocating the Tibetan Autonomous Region with Japanese occupation. Hint: they’re not equivalent or even remotely comparable.

The Japanese killed 20 million Chinese people in their eight-year occupation. That act alone demonstrates they were unfit to rule over China, as it clearly shows a large part of China was willing to die to free the country. How many Tibetans have died as a direct result of resisting Chinese rule over the past eight years? Are they willing to bleed for their country? If not, they have no right to seize a social contract for themselves, except through the good graces of Beijing–which will not be forthcoming.

To paraphrase The Sopranos, the Tibetans will have to either come heavy (packing heat), or not at all, if they wish to earn the right to Westphalian self-determination. But alas, it seems most of them view themselves as Chinese–the silent majority, if you will, so it’s a moot point.

Which moral vacuum? I think the above will make that clear – yours.

Translation: I know I’m getting my ass kicked sideways in the logical argument here, so I’m going to retreat into the realm of emotions and morality since I can make up the rules of the game there in such a way that I always win. Sorry, I’m not playing your game.

My dear t_co, beloved as you are of the accusatory rhetorical question, here’s one for you: Have I ever accused you of being a Han Chinese? Your provenance is irrelevant, your words speak volumes.

Yes you have:

This is where you reach your ethical nadir; one common to virtually all true educated Chinese nationalists

And if you didn’t mean that to say I was a Han Chinese, then, great, I modify the below comment to drop claim “a”:

And what moral vacuum are we speaking of? Han chauvinism? When I have ever said I am a)Han Chinese or b) morally obligated to care for the freedom of Han Chinese, either?

You still haven’t answered what moral vacuum we are speaking of here. A vacuum, by what standard of morality–yours?

February 13, 2013 @ 7:24 am | Comment

@t_co – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Road – the British supplied weapons and materiel to China along the road from 1938, closed due to Japanese pressure for three months in 1940 – during the monsoon when nothing could have run along the road anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton_Report – Lord Lytton, with the support of the British government, declared the invasion of Manchuria to be Japanese aggression and advised sanctions. Sanctions that were eventually enforced against Japan by the British government. The British government also made large loans available to the Chinese.

Did Britain do enough? Arguably not. Did Britain remain ‘neutral’? Not by the standards for neutrality applied on this page.

February 13, 2013 @ 2:39 pm | Comment

BTW – As a demonstration of the bizarre lines of reasoning employed on this page, you couldn’t do much better than this:

“The Japanese killed 20 million Chinese people in their eight-year occupation. That act alone demonstrates they were unfit to rule over China, as it clearly shows a large part of China was willing to die to free the country. How many Tibetans have died as a direct result of resisting Chinese rule over the past eight years? Are they willing to bleed for their country? If not, they have no right to seize a social contract for themselves, except through the good graces of Beijing–which will not be forthcoming”

Of course the CCP racked up their own death toll, but since it wasn’t caused overwhelmingly through resistance then it isn’t demonstrative of their unfitness to rule China. The fact that the majority of Chinese who died during the war were civilians who did not die in acts of resistance but as a result of starvation and Japanese war crimes doesn’t register here. All that’s important is that Tibetans aren’t dying in millions – which is a pretty low bar to set, If you don’t mind me saying.

February 13, 2013 @ 8:31 pm | Comment

Google “Panchen Lama” and “Poison Arrow” for useful info on what went down in Tibet. I don’t think t_co’s line of reasoning here works at all anywhere in the world, but if one wants to go there, it can be argued that proportionally more Tibetans died at PRC hands than did Chinese perish under the Japanese.

February 14, 2013 @ 12:38 am | Comment

Wow. t_co, the ultimate fascist. We will fight you no matter what corner of the globe you live in.

Tibetans should maintain solidarity not just amongst themselves, but with China’s other minorities as well. Majority privilege is a problem in every country, China is no exception. Assimilation is code for cultural and ethnic genocide. Integration is the true path to multiculturalism.

February 19, 2013 @ 11:02 pm | Comment

Oh and let me show the Chinese fascist up there a bit of truth. Every fascist loves to imagine his own little utilitarian world, free of any moral concerns, and a monolithic national entity to back up his every desire.

Now the reality. The vast majority of people on the planet do care about morals and social justice. That includes people in China. Before your fascist fantasy comes true, you will be met not by plotting foreigners, but by Han Chinese objectors, born and bred in China. See all those liberals on weibo? That trend will only grow as the world becomes smaller, and China becomes more modernized. Your nationalism is a disease that will be cured by cosmopolitan pluralism.

Anti-fascists will rise to crack skulls. YOU will be the marginalized lunatic, just like we do with white nationalists here. Solidarity for all oppressed groups is rising around the world. Women, minorities, indigenous peoples and LGBT folk will only be more supportive of Tibet after hearing your disgusting proposals. You can whinge about America’s ulterior motives all you want, but like every squirming conservative in the US you know in your heart our cause is genuine and just. The world supports those who are oppressed, just like we do Ireland and Palestine.

So go ahead, make up more scenarios for subjugating the Tibetan people. Justice has time on our side.

February 19, 2013 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

Did Britain do enough? Arguably not. Did Britain remain ‘neutral’? Not by the standards for neutrality applied on this page.

Enough? There was no standard for ‘enough’; the standard was never there. The point is that no nation sacrifices for the benefit of another nation; nations only spend blood and treasure for their own interests, and history has taught China this lesson in spades. Your evidence merely serves to reinforce that point, as it appears British actions in the run-up to outright war were all designed with a possible rapproachement with Japanese interests in mind.

Wow. t_co, the ultimate fascist. We will fight you no matter what corner of the globe you live in.

Appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and appeal to force as well. We’re on a roll today!

Oh and let me show the Chinese fascist up there a bit of truth. Every fascist loves to imagine his own little utilitarian world, free of any moral concerns, and a monolithic national entity to back up his every desire.

That’s a huge strawman and ad hominem. When did I say I was constructing a worldview? When did I say I was explicitly shelving all moral concerns? All I was saying is that in argument, morality is no substitute for logic. What’s more, how does subscribing to that view hurt my arguments?

Now the reality. The vast majority of people on the planet do care about morals and social justice. That includes people in China. Before your fascist fantasy comes true, you will be met not by plotting foreigners, but by Han Chinese objectors, born and bred in China. See all those liberals on weibo? That trend will only grow as the world becomes smaller, and China becomes more modernized. Your nationalism is a disease that will be cured by cosmopolitan pluralism.

The real irony of your statement is that if you read my other comments on this site, you’ll see that I heavily subscribe to ‘Chinese liberal’ strains of thinking, such as rule of law, media independence, transparency, accountability, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

The other irony of your statement is the assumption that Chinese liberals somehow sympathize with Tibetan aspirations. They haven’t, they don’t, and they won’t. Woeser even covered this on her blog. This is because Tibetan exile views are overwhelmingly unpopular within China, and most people in China view the TAR as part of China. Indeed, as Chinese liberals wake up and realize that they have, for the first time in a hundred years, a chance to push a political mandate, Tibetan views will probably be the first thing they end up steamrolling in their rush to get traction and popularity.

Tibetans should maintain solidarity not just amongst themselves, but with China’s other minorities as well. Majority privilege is a problem in every country, China is no exception. Assimilation is code for cultural and ethnic genocide. Integration is the true path to multiculturalism.

….

Anti-fascists will rise to crack skulls. YOU will be the marginalized lunatic, just like we do with white nationalists here. Solidarity for all oppressed groups is rising around the world. Women, minorities, indigenous peoples and LGBT folk will only be more supportive of Tibet after hearing your disgusting proposals.

Furthermore, you’re conflating assimilation with cultural and ethnic genocide. You’ll find that logic to be unpopular not only within China but in most countries around the world, and you’ll find that logic internally deficient as well, as genocide implies killing or coercion, while most assimilation is passive and voluntary (or at best, ‘nudged’ by things like single-language education).

As for solidarity with other oppressed groups–first, you haven’t proven Tibetans to be an “oppressed group”; second, this sort of solidarity is not a given. After all, the TGIE’s very own Dalai Lama has spoken out against homosexuality, as has the FLG’s Li Hongzhi.

Finally, you’re making an appeal to force here. It’s a logical fallacy, in case you didn’t know. What’s more, if you believe yourself to be an “anti-fascist” while believing me to be a “fascist”, by your logic you should be trying to crack my skull. Come on, make my day. I dare ya. ^_^

You can whinge about America’s ulterior motives all you want, but like every squirming conservative in the US you know in your heart our cause is genuine and just.

I know in my heart that nations work for their interests, and that to the people of a nation, the interests of that nation (note: not its methods or actions) are inherently just, by the basic logic of the social contract.

So go ahead, make up more scenarios for subjugating the Tibetan people.

My proposals aren’t about subjugation–they’re simply designed to bring about a peaceful resolution of tensions in the TAR in a manner that fits my own interests. You are welcome to bring your own proposals to the table as well–I’d be excited to hear them.

Justice has time on our side.

By using the word “our”, do you imply that you are “justice”? If so, I do not subscribe to whatever notion of justice you are proposing, for the obvious reason that an abstract concept and an internet commenter cannot be one and the same.

February 20, 2013 @ 1:03 am | Comment

All your excuses and diversions only prove me right.

As the world globalizes your liberals will become more aware of social justice theories. Modernism chips away at nationalism, and there’s no regaining it without collapse and revolution. Your conservative old guard leftists will give away to real, compassionate, grassroots leftists who put EMPATHY before your sickening fantasies.

“Good treatment” is what oppressors uses to silence minorities and women into submission. It will be replaced by our own voices, our own ethnic determination. The more you try to split minorities, the more we band together against you. Excusing every bit of activism as outside interventionism isn’t going to work forever.

Eventually you will be just like the old white man in the west, clinging onto his privilege while telling minorities they’re not really oppressed and should just assimilate. Do you think young people of the future will buy that? Especially when a minority calls you out on it?

Go ahead, resort to denial and semantics. You know these trends are true throughout the modern world.

You know it, and you’re afraid.

February 20, 2013 @ 2:02 am | Comment

All your excuses and diversions only prove me right.

You realize how delusional this sounds, right?

As the world globalizes your liberals will become more aware of social justice theories. Modernism chips away at nationalism, and there’s no regaining it without collapse and revolution. Your conservative old guard leftists will give away to real, compassionate, grassroots leftists who put EMPATHY before your sickening fantasies.

Wha? I wasn’t talking about old guard leftists in my last comment. Also, the historical trends you’re talking about aren’t necessarily true–you’re going to need much more to prove that beyond a simple assertion. What’s more, opinion polling suggests the current Chinese government is much more conciliatory than the Chinese population on select issues like Chinese border disputes and treatment of ethnic minorities (especially as regards things like free heathcare, freebie gaokao points and the right to have a second child), which means your point will likely be flipped in the current situation.

“Good treatment” is what oppressors uses to silence minorities and women into submission. It will be replaced by our own voices, our own ethnic determination. The more you try to split minorities, the more we band together against you. Excusing every bit of activism as outside interventionism isn’t going to work forever.

When did I talk about “good treatment”? And again, you’re going to have to back up your assertions.

Eventually you will be just like the old white man in the west, clinging onto his privilege while telling minorities they’re not really oppressed and should just assimilate. Do you think young people of the future will buy that? Especially when a minority calls you out on it?

Actually, young people will, especially when they see those minorities getting affirmative action that puts them first in line for scarce jobs, education, and healthcare.

Go ahead, resort to denial and semantics. You know these trends are true throughout the modern world.
You know it, and you’re afraid.

Actually, I don’t know it. Maybe you do. Care to prove it to me?

February 20, 2013 @ 2:37 am | Comment

“Your evidence merely serves to reinforce that point, as it appears British actions in the run-up to outright war were all designed with a possible rapproachement with Japanese interests in mind.”

You mean they were designed to fall short of war between Britain and Japan? Yes. Were they ‘neutral’ (which was the term under dispute)? Not by any reasonable definition of the word.

“The point is that no nation sacrifices for the benefit of another nation; nations only spend blood and treasure for their own interests, and history has taught China this lesson in spades.”

This is an ideological stand-point not born out by even a cursory analysis of history, or even basic logic, since it assumes that all national leaders operate according to the same principles and execute them perfectly.

National leaders have in the past sacrificed significant resources where no direct benefit to their own country was possible – the US commitment to South Vietnam being one example, the USSR’s commitment in Afghanistan another. They have done so for ideological reasons (e.g., Mao’s support for the Khmer Rouge), religious reasons (e.g., the Crusades), reasons of regional or ethnic solidarity (e.g., Morrocco’s support for Syria during the Yom Kippur War), personal prestige (e.g., Colonel Gaddafi’s support for Idi Amin in his war with Tanzania), reasons of family (e.g., Napoleon III’s support for the Mexican monarchy), to curry public favour (e.g., Galtieri’s invasion of the Falklands), and for a host of other reasons that had little to do with ‘national interest’ even in the eyes of many of the leaders who made such decisions.

February 20, 2013 @ 6:53 pm | Comment

@t_co

The other irony of your statement is the assumption that Chinese liberals somehow sympathize with Tibetan aspirations. They haven’t, they don’t, and they won’t.

Doesn’t matter. Tibet can remain part of China only through the extreme use of authoritarian force. A liberal China won’t be able to continue doing that indefinitely.

February 21, 2013 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

“Tibet can remain part of China only through the extreme use of authoritarian force.”

It’s possible to maintain a union state practically indefinitely so long as the interests of all parties are aligned. The PRC has to some extent achieved the co-opting of Tibet’s elite, the question is whether this can be maintained into the future. A liberal China might not be so quick to use force to keep Tibet, but it would have less cause to do so.

February 21, 2013 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.