I feel like that the Western media has demented the actual happenings in Tibet and its legitimacy in claiming independence/oppression with regard to its history. Thus, let the debate commence about Tibet. Is it the Dalai Lama's fault? Is the Chinese Government REALLY to blame?

Before you post, please watch these videos:

Regarding Western Media:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas

Regarding Tibet's legitimacy as a country (excuse the poor spelling)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo

Regarding the Dalai Lama - further extensions upon his corruption:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=acHkXqik_Bo

Hit me with your best shot. If you bring me a stupid argument, I will NOT hold back.

I've held it for a long time that China needs to stop hate'n.

Even before this whole issue, that was my "un-media'd" opinion.

Your views do not combine to form an empirical argument. They are respectable.

However, your opinion could not be pristine, as something must have formed your view that Tibet was either an independent state or had the right to be.

Clearly, you did not watch any of the videos. The "China hate'n" is merely an image that has formed in your mind. In reality, the little time that Tibet was independent in history was due to European colonization and Chinese civil war after World War II. That was a puppet regime that served only to feed the Dalai Lama and his monks through SLAVERY.

Next.

Zhou why not tell us your opinion first, mate?

I thought I made it fairly clear when I posted the videos.

I think the calls to side with Tibet and boycott the Beijing Olympics are utter BS.

The image of Tibetan independence and the ideal seems to be a humanitarian cause, whereas this is untrue for both sides of the political line. The liberals are quick to fight for the seemingly just cause of the call for independence, while the conservatives exploit such a view with the intent to keep the hegemony of the United States. The typical story of a just revolution is only viewed with such reverence because the revolutionaries were able to rewrite history both through actual influence and the revolution itself.

In other words, the general public does not actually know the history of Tibet. Rather, they are fed information that forces them to believe that Tibetans are being oppressed. This is the essence of media. Tibet was NEVER independent except for a short time during which Great Britain actually controlled Tibet, running a puppet regime with the Dalai Lama as a religious figure to exploit their powers. When China seized THEIR LAND, the Brits were a bit taken aback, and thus started the "humanitarian cause" to "Free Tibet." In reality, during the Puppet Regime of the Dalai Lama, Tibetans had to endure slavery. However, these Tibetans are religiously convicted, and that makes them susceptible to control over the predominant figure of their beliefs. Essentially, they've been brainwashed by propaganda.

Clearly, there are incentives for the Dalai Lama to gain power in Tibet. He claims that he only wants "autonomy" but this only means that he gets to rule. The public only views the Dalai Lama to be an altruistic figure because he has been marketed that way to them. Who wants to be exiled when you had slaves to work for you and lived comfortably? Power has been the bane of many religious leaders, and in the end they have all been deemed "corrupt." Yet, why isn't it possible that the Dalai Lama is just another corrupt religious leader?

Hegemony.

Your point sounds pretty sound to me.

I think people should boycott the Beijing Olympics regardless of Tibet, the olympics are supposed to be a peaceful and prosperous event not an event, led by the nation with the worst human rights record on earth. Not a nation that has evicted millions of people from their homes and sent them onto the street. Not a nation that has thousands of "black" prisons across the nation, detaining anyone that the "state" doesn't like.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/...98487-20321671/

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/...57099528_2.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0913/p01s06-woap.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3247027


And onto Tibet, China claiming they own Tibet is as ludicrous as the state of Israel existing. Both claiming ownership over 'laws' or statements written hundreds of years ago.

Oh and no surprise, something your nation f*cked up, lets blame the British, that seems to be more and more countries easy answers to political and moral violations.

Tiananmen Square.

If a country is incapable of listening to it's own people, it has no right to dictate the affairs of another.

I'm not up for boycotting the Olympics though - just free and fair elections, independence for those Chinese satellite states which desire it and freedom from oppression.

The Tiananmen square incident was merely a protest by a group of young, nationalistic and rather naive students. They do not represent the majority of China, as at the time, the government had made great leaps in comparison to just a decade or two before then. My dad was a student when the protests happened, and he knows that those people were morons.

If those students represented a majority, that would not have been a protest. It would've been a revolution.

What is oppression? Oppression is merely a term to define people who are unhappy. It is not to be used as a means of labelling something to be unjust. Rather, it is just a tool by which people can express their malcontent hoping for sympathy. In other words, many people are not happy with the government. Yet, there is little evidence for "oppression." In reality, the Chinese government just cannot meet the precedent set by the US, which takes every opportunity to exalt itself while covering up its own faults. In fact, the Chinese government cannot meet the precedent set by many European countries because they can't keep all their people from starving. That doesn't mean they're oppressive. It just means that people are naive.



Good job. I denounce western media and you use it as evidence against me. If there's no proof of these people existing, you label China as "swept the streets." Whether Chinese citizens have been kicked off of the street is irrelevant. Whether the Chinese Government is completely fair to the people is irrelevant to the debate, as we are taking an objective evaluation. I'm not arguing for the government. The bias of the article immediately denounces any claim it has to legitimacy, and this was one of my MAIN points. I already gave a clear logical reasoning as to why this fails. You have to attack THAT before you pompously just post the sort of thing I denounced from both extremities.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the US has the worst human rights violations on record. Nobody boycotted the Atlanta Olympic games for slavery, much worse than any you've listed. The "China is the worst humanitarian violater" is merely a liberal slogan. Your examples just show why capitalism is bad; it doesn't set a precedent for the world to follow. Sweat shops are not created because the Chinese create them; rather, the US and the advancement of capitalism created them. In the same way, the marketability of the Olympics causes a need to make money and show nationalism, and this is not a fault within China. Rather, it is a systemic epitome.

Oh yeah, except for, it's always been a part of China. The state of Zhou protests for independence. Give him his land! As soon as the US gives up all its land and the UK gives back Northern Ireland and Scotland, we'd be happy to comply to granting independence to Tibet. Otherwise, don't bring that hypocritical logic here.

Oh yeah, obviously you didn't read my post, obviously you have no idea what went on, and you play the victim. The British are not the scapegoats. Rather, China is. Clearly you have failed to view the videos and read my entire post. In fact, it is even more blatant that you have diverted off topic and have no idea of the present situation or the history of it. I argued not only for Tibet's illegitimacy as an independent state, but also it's illegitimacy of claiming to be just in protesting for "autonomy."

Next.

I denounce your videos on the grounds that it is also BIASED to support your point of view.

okay, i get that you hate western media, i don't blame you. so what would you want me to post? videos and articles from the chinese media? what a joke. Western media distorts facts to support its propaganda, while the chinese media creates its own "facts" to support their actions. Bsing imo isn't any better than distortion.

Have the US give up all its land? To who? I don't see any protests in any states that want independence. Legitimacy to independence? If the people feel that their rights and such are being controlled and restricted, they have the right to independence.

You do realise, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own independent parliament and can pretty much do what ever the hell they want, including using all of England's laws and resources? And Funnily enough, neither England nor America owns any other land, sure a few countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have The Queen as the highest form of law, but do we actually own them? of course not nor do we get involved. So before you try and accuse me of having hypocritical logic, learn a bit about the world please.

All your arguments are, I say black, you say white, I say no, you say yes. We're not arguing anything here, your just stating the opposite to what ever comes up.

I denounced it to be biased because I (or the video, rather) gave clear examples why, whereas you give none. There are examples of the western media taking pictures of Nepalnese policemen hitting people and claiming them to be Chinese. Unlike many, I don't just jump into an argument without reading and viewing what's been requested to enter such a debate. However did I realiz that this could be a non-unique argument, and even if that argument falls, it doesn't matter because the articles aren't even relevant to the topic at hand. My side is further fortified because EVEN if it were relevant, China is just one of many. I notice how there is no answer to the example I gave (Slavery) or a mention about Guantanamo Bay. Nor is there a mention about the argument I made pointing out that this is just a part of a globalized economic system. There are no countries that don't dehumanize, and that includes the Vatican City. Thus, none of the arguments that Henry made can be won because of the three points I made.

Sorry, it's the Western Media who's bullshitting.



Taiwan has its own government. Doesn't mean they're happy. Doesn't mean they're legit. If Scotland and Northern Ireland were so autonomous, why aren't they independent? Your logic is still intrinsically flawed and clearly shows that not only are you deviating from the topic, but you also draw analogies to misconceptions. Oh, good job. Britain right now doesn't own any land. GREAT feat, considering the grotesque humanitarian rights violations that occured during its imperialism.

Hmm. No body in America protests. Oh, wait. Which people did they just push out of the way and steal land from? Oh that's right. The Native Americans. Well, they're savages and they don't even know how to protest. Let's just ignore them totally! You know, the entire United States wasn't taken by force or anything. It's not like the white people didn't try to share the land. Those Indians just got in the way, and the savages have to move.

Not only this, you draw two moronic examples to an analogy that makes no sense. You assume that China has imposed on Tibet's independence. Clearly, this shows that you failed to understand at least half my argument because you didn't watch the videos. Moreover, I explained that Tibet was ALWAYS a part of China until Britain's imperialism seized Tibet and then in an attempt to run under a humanitarian facade, instituited the Dalai Lama with the puppet regime that legalized slavery. Clearly, you missed this part of the argument because you say "blame the Brits." The argument is not black and white because you don't know what you're talking about, at least regarding to the topic at hand, and you fail to even address the arguments I made clearly denouncing your claim that China was the worst human rights violator by making comparisons with the US.

The videos are taking quotes out of context, and have you verified it yourself? definitely not. Try hearing a whole speech by the Dalai Lama and attempt to judge him that way. I bet you have not even heard a single speech from him, and instead refer to these erroneous videos to justify your distorted view of the world.

Okay, do you know why the western media was unable to correctly identify the pictures? its because the Chinese government only allowed one foreign reporter into the area to report on what is going on. Why censor and restrict journalists if there is no wrong doing?

Taiwanese people certainly isnt infuriated with their government or else they would be throwing protests left and right. Legit? You CANT attach the word legit to independence. Nor should you attempt to draw correlations between Native Americans and the topic of discussion because then it would be going off topic, which apparently you hate right?

You use the argument that Tibet is "always" a part of China? That is not true if you know the history of Tibet (are you as knowledgeable as you say you are? I am highly doubting this.), nor does it mean it has to continue to be in the future.

You said h3n7y did not address your arguments regarding China and human rights violations. First you tell him that it is a deviation from the topic, then your reprimand him for not deviating from the topic. YOU are the hypocrite.

That's not the point, the point is that the Chinese government murdered people in cold blood for voicing an opinion, freedom of speech is the most important Human right.

And yes, the Western media lied to us, all of the teenagers in Tienanmen Square were not shot dead by the army, they all faked it as a publicity stunt.

The non-unique argument has already been addressed. The same way that the Dalai Lama's speeches can "be taken out of context," the Western Media can "take the situation in Tibet out of context." There is no offense coming out of this argument whatsoever. I refer to these videos merely as a tool by which I can achieve convenience, so I won't have to re-type the same thing every single time some moron brings up the same argument. I am not judging the Dalai Lama, nor is it necessary for me to judge the Dalai Lama. Fact is, he's a privileged religious leader who clearly would have a motive to gain power. You also ignore the references I made to the puppet regime and slavery. Prove that I'm an idiot or you'll end up looking like one. If you want to call me out for taking something out of context, back it up. I have with my view of western media. Now corroborate your claim. Don't just say "well, you don't listen to his speeches."



Okay, I'm pretty sure there is a fine line between China and Nepal. Oh yeah, it's called the Himalayas. Even if what you say is true, the offense collapses on itself because it's the western media's responsibility to already know what Chinese Policemen look like. It's not like this is the first time we've seen Chinese Policemen. I don't know, maybe THE VIOLENCE!? If there's nothing going on in Iraq, why not let reporters in and follow soldiers around to see if they die? Even more so, I have already given reasons why western media would be motivated to distort such situations, and allowing journalists in masses would only proliferate what I have denounced.



CLEARLY you missed the argument. First of all, "Taiwanese" is a politically incorrect term. They are Chinese. They are NOT an independent nation, and I was referring to their belief that China is "oppressing" Taiwan. I was making a response to the argument that Henry made that made NI and Scotland seem autonomous.

You deserve a high five for pointing out that in responding to an off-topic post, I made an off topic post. Congratulations! You can see! I TRIED to attach his arguments to the topic, and I had to address other parts which were clearly ludicrous. I called him out on China being the worst human rights violator and pointed out that the Beijing Olympics clearly have nothing to do with Tibet (directly). Calling me a hypocrite for responding to an off-topic post doesn't make you smart. It just makes you not stupid.

Furthermore, you have no attack on my Native Americans argument other than the "off topic" argument in which I didn't even refer to. I was debating whether Tibet was a legitimate entity. I made a comment saying that if the US gave back all the land and UK gave back the land, we would yield to the requests of the American people. Thus, I made an analogy between how the US stole the land from the Indians. Mhmm? Smiley face nod if you understand.



I didn't "reprimand" him. I merely noted that the majority of his post was now useless, because we were discussing Chinese human rights violations, and then he made the claim that the argument was black and white, and I pointed out that that wasn't true. I refer to the word 'hypocrite' as a means by which the US denounces China as an oppressor when they themselves seized one of the largest countries in the world from another native people.



I could even concede this. You know why? Because someone has yet to give me a legitimate reason as to why Tibet should be "freed." Excluding suppressing the revolt, what has the Chinese government done that is SO wrong as to call for independence?

Wikipedia:

Lets see, from what you have said...you believe:
1. wikipedia is a absolutely credible source that you quoted a whole article from
2. Dalai Lama is a person motivated to gain power, which you say is a definite fact! I think i shall go judge him personally, I'd definitely get a chance to do at Emory University next year.
3. Taiwanese is a "politically incorrect" term. That is saying that "Hawaiians" are Americans and not Hawaiians.
4. Journalists should not be allowed to do their job simply because what they will report would prove harmful to your views?
5. "if the US gave back all the land and UK gave back the land, we would yield to the requests of the American people." You now represent the Chinese government? Give me a break, no one would ever make such a ludicrous demand nor would it be even remotely possible.
6. You are adamant that the US is worse than China when it comes to human rights violations, that is objective. If i consider the freedom of speech and the right to access information the most important human right, then China would be far worse right?

(peace)

Interesting points junky, well done.

I think it would be useful if everyone involved in this debate read this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7327886.stm

Fyi, BBC is not Government operated/funded. It is publicly funded, renowned for being neutral.

1. The fact that you have no argument against both my evidence and my claims shows that there is no substance behind your arguments. Rather, you default to the general "Wikipedia sucks" argument. Yet, you fail to denounce that in this specific article, it is somehow distorted from the way Tibet is actually viewed. I did not quote the entire Wikipedia article.

2. Did I claim that it was a definite fact that the Dalai Lama is a person motivated to gain power? Perhaps I mis-stated my contention. Rather, I gave logistical evidence to why the Dalai Lama would fight for "autonomy." You don't refute this, and rather you just expect people to believe that he is a benign being. The Popes weren't corrupted either.

3. No, it's more like using the term "New Yorker." But otherwise, yes, that is true. It should be noted.

4. Clearly you missed the analogy I drew to Iraq; I was making a reference to the safety of the reporters. But the argument doesn't REALLY matter because there are two arguments backing it up that have yet to be refuted.

5. Good job. You recognized that it is absurd. Now take the step of logic and connect it with what I was saying. I was not representing the Chinese government. Rather, I was making a sarcastic remark. Obviously, the US is never going to give back the land. So they shouldn't request the Chinese to do so. You ridiculed my statement because you failed to see the sarcasm. The United States should not make ludicrous demands in the name of hypocrisy.

6. Sure, you could say that. However, I'd weigh slavery and apartheids a little heavier. But that's a little more subjective (which is what you're actually trying to say. You mistook objective for subjective). Of course I'd yield that my argument is subjective. That's why I'm arguing for the Chinese. The fact that I'm arguing for a side indicates that I am biased for that side, just as the fact that you're arguing for the opposing side indicates that you're biased towards the opposing side.

Opps on my error of usage at nearly midnight when i posted.

I don't recall arguing for the opposite side, which would be "Tibet should be freed" like you said. Well unless you count the part where i said the people that live there should determine their state.

And also, if you can show me some sort of article where its reported that the US demanded that the Chinese give back the lands as you put it, it would be great. It is not hypocrisy because Tibet is an isolated area where the minority is ethnically Han, can you "give the land back" to the Tibetans? Yes you can. It would be impossible for the US to give back the land to NAs , unless you can think of a brilliant plan to do so And no, NAs are not protesting to regain their lands.

You have no evidence and your claims are based on biased videos that happen to support your claims. I am not supporting the opposing view, i am simply attacking your points which i believe were made due to your distorted view of the world. I say let the people who actually live there decide their fate, if you let them become independent and they see that it is not beneficial, then they would willingly go back to what it was before.

Okay. First things first. The videos gave an EXAMPLE of the western media being biased (from various sources), whereas your only attack was that one of the videos took the Dalai Lama's words out of context. Yet, you failed to prove why they did so. You keep claiming that I distort the view of the world, and yet, you don't corroborate your claims. Again, it's obvious that because I am arguing for a side, my evidence is going to be biased towards my argument. That's not to say the evidence is flawed; merely that it supports my argument. You can keep calling it biased, but I have given an example whereas you have not.

Okay, I guess I'll have to draw this out. Some people think that Americans should boycott the Olympics because of what's going on in Tibet. If they didn't want China to "give back the land" why would they care? I was merely making a historical comparison pointing out hypocrisy, and not ACTUALLY making a demand. Nobody boycotted the Atlanta Olympics. Whether it is plausible or not is not a question of whether it's hypocritical; nor is it a question of moral uprightness.

MY distorted view of the world? Seriously, if you think that every single time a nationalistic uprising happens, we should just let them secede, then once again, look to the US. The South had the RIGHT to secede during the Civil War, yet the Union forced them to re-unite. To say that the war was fought over slavery is a grotesque humanitarian facade. Furthermore, are you sure that the MAJORITY of Tibet wants independence? Again, someone has yet to give me a legit reason WHY Tibet should secede, other than that they want their religious leader to be in power.

Furthermore, I give an objective source (Wikipedia), which I could even claim to be biased towards the opposing side, and yet it supports my argument.

What, would you like me to show you a video of every country's media being flawed in some way? It is not only western media. Partial evidence is flawed is it not? Its not the complete truth. And why not look back at history, the civil war. I would definitely be against stopping the southern secession, so by drawing analogies to that event, you are merely saying that what my beliefs are consistent.

First off; lived in Tibet much Zhou? I'll even go Chinese for you: "When your own tooth hurts, you can understand another's toothache". I oppose all forms of oppression from the highest to the lowest and from the most marginal to the maximal. So long as there are those who wish for Tibetan independence and are not even granted the opportunity to campaign for it, I will oppose Chinese humanitarian law.

As to your questions of why Scotland and Wales don't declare independence, it's very simple - as is the case of Northern Ireland. I'll go through each of their reasons in order:
Scotland: Scotland is currently making a fortune out of the UK. Scottish parliament can raise taxes by up to 3% on the UK whole and get to decide where to direct public funding. The Result?: Scotland currently costs it's citizens the same amount in taxation as anywhere else in the UK, but they have no higher education top-up fees (Saving every university student around £3000 a year), better care for the elderly, better health care and greater money being spent on urban regeneration.
Wales: There's never been a call for Welsh independence. There's never actually been a Welsh country. The Welsh language was invented last century out of a number of tribal dialects to give the small number of Welsh nationalists some national pride. Wales could not exist as an economic or political force outside of the UK.
Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland is full of protestants and an ever growing number of Catholics (contraception makes things so unfair), the republic is full of Catholics. As soon as the protestants get integrated into the Republic, they'll no longer have any say in the religious affairs of the nation. It's a bit of a no-brainer on their part really.

If you're claiming that a country should not have independence on religous grounds, you're infact denying Northern Ireland any reason to exist. You're denying the legitimacy of the Vatican City as a nation in itself. You're denying Israel, most of the Middle East and even to some extent the USA. If you're denying a country independence because they want to choose their own ruler, I fail to understand how you can claim to have any interest in liberty. Why is it that your opinion matters any more than the Tibetans themselves? Even if there's no majority, why won't China come to some kind of concession allowing them some degree of political sovereignty? I'm not necessarily suggesting an annexing of a separate state such as in the case of India and Pakistan, but at least some kind of socio-political power for a Tibetan assembly headed by the Dalai Lama.

And finally to your rebuking of my argument. I'm not even sure I should bother. "as at the time, the government had made great leaps in comparison to just a decade or two before then."
Just because something's better than than it was does not make it alright. That's like saying "I've got cancer of the liver, but it's alright because I used to have skin cancer as well". And as to the statement about your father's beliefs: I again query - what makes him more right than any other? All the world is an opinion. There is no set reality on Earth - only a shifting which differs from person to person. Try explaining to the students who died that they were wrong in their beliefs and - moreover - that they were not proved entirely right by the actions of the Chinese government against them.

As to what is oppression, that's easy. Op means Against and pression means pressure. Oppression is simply "against pressure" regardless of the measure of pressure being applied. In this case, there is pressure from Tibetans for freedom and they are being denied it. That does not mean that all Tibetans are systematically oppressed - although in one of the fastest growing and already largest economies in the world, it is amazing how much money doesn't travel to the people who actually need it - but it does mean that those seeking independence and freedom are being oppressed. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple grammatical and literal fact.

I do accept that it's easy for me to say this; I'm an anti-nationalist, anti-capitalist, anarchist and all that I see in China is an authoritarian state on a level with "Communist" Russia which takes a fundamentally good idea and perverts it to the twisted notions of one narcissist who was convinced that he could change the world for the better. I completely understand Mao, much as I understand Lenin or Che Guevara. Given a hundred chances I'd do the same thing every time just in the hope that one time it might just pay off - just that one time you can make the world a better place. But that's entirely why I don't try to do so - the problem is that power corrupts and you inevitably lose sight of your original goals. Where in modern China is Mao's dream of a state for the common good?

Really difficult...I was one of those "China Haters," but when you hear the other side of the story it makes it a lot more interesting. Not really sure anymore. But China does have a history of ignoring its people's wants. But great points guys.

Okie dokie. Bear with me on this, I haven't read the whole thread. I don't know if what I'm about to say has already been said.



I do not need to denounce this video, as this lovely chap already does a nice job in doing so himself:

QUOTE(oioioi @ 2008-3-29 03:07 AM)

A quick summary of the situation so far:

CNN: cropped a picture to show people running in front of a military vehicle
Distorted reporting? Not at all, plenty of people were running in front of military vehicles (had CNN been allowed to report from Lhasa, they could have taken hundreds of pictures of this)

BBC: “There is a heavy military presence in Lhasa”
Distorted reporting? Absolutely not, there WAS heavy military presence in Lhasa. To state: "no military presence" or "little military presence" WOULD be distorted reporting. It doesn't MATTER that the photo showed an ambulance (had BBC been allowed to report from Lhasa, they could have taken hundreds of pictures of the heavy military presence in Lhasa).

Berlin Morgenpost: "insurrectionist taken away by police"
Distorted reporting? Absolutely not, insurrectionists WERE taken away by the police. To state: police failed to take away insurrectionists WOULD be distorted reporting. Obviously, it's a mistake to show a photo of some other activity taking place, but it doesn't change the fact that the paper reported the truth: insurrectionists WERE taken away by the police. Again, had they been allowed to actually report from Lhasa, they would have had no difficulties presenting plenty of photos of insurrectionists being taken away by the police.

Fox: "Chinese military dragged some protesters onto a vehicle"
Distorted reporting? Hardly. It seems HIGHLY plausible that plenty of protesters were dragged onto Chinese vehicles. That's how most countries would arrest protesters. We can be fairly sure that had Fox been allowed to report from Lhasa, they would have had no difficulties presenting plenty of photos of protesters being dragged onto vehicles.

Now, luckily for all of us, I've JUST received the following revised statement from BBC together with an APOLOGY and a plea to CD not to take legal actions:

"There was NO military presence or military vehicles in Lhasa and NO insurrectionists were arrested by the police. Since nobody has been arrested so far, NO protesters has been put on any vehicles whatsoever. In fact, there were NO riots in T/bet at all. We now know (thanks to photos from Fox TV) that it ALL happened in Nepal."

Now that's what I call ACCURATE and UNBIASED reporting


Oioioi

(Parts of the above may contradict me later on, I'm aware of this. No need to point it out).

To quickly summarize, the media was not lying. Because the articles used different pictures to what is being reported does not make the article a lie. Had the media been allowed in Tibet during the riots, it is likely that pictures which supported the articles would have been used.






He quotes from Xinhua (it's watermarked), the Chinese state run media, the same state trying to keep Tibet in China. He also quotes from nothing at all, with nothing to back up his reasoning I cannot take his word for it.

QUOTE('HolyZealot from Yoouuuttuuubbeeee')

Film-maker,
You relate the occupation of Tibet to the oppression of Native Americans. I too belive the natives were and are still oppresed, but that would mean that China too commits a terrible wrong, and does that make it right just because some other people do it too?
And last of all, yes at time Tibet was a part of China, but there were many intervals of independance in between, so saying that Tibet was always a part of China is like saying that ancient Egypt was always ruled by foreigners

The bold highlights the film-makers flaw Tu Quoque. (The 'If they did it then I can do it' one.) Also quoting for relevance.



I like this. Sourced. Although in an appeal to history (5:35 onwards), he compares right-wing nazism to left-wing Communism, which is a dis-analogy as they are opposite extremes of politics and there is no saying that the same will happen again.

But does this film actually support the reasons that the Dalai Lama shouldn't be leader of Tibet? There were 7 reasons made in the film, one is irrelevant because it was about a previous Dalai Lama, the debate is about the current Dalai Lama, and bleh.


Back to this:



These films are pro-China. Now the two conclusions I managed to get out of that were 1) You are using them to support your argument. I decided this was not the conclusion since you have posted no argument in this post. And 2) They are cited because, and don't take this the wrong way, as propaganda (for lack of a better word...that I know) to stop people posting for Tibet. If it is neither of these, please enlighten me

There is no clash upon this paragraph. The fact that I don't live in Tibet doesn't change anything. Of course, Tibetans have been told another view because of their religious leader. However, I will later go on to prove out some fallacies. I would like to point out that when protests become violent riots, force is necessary to quell it.

[Response to Rob's reasoning behind why Northern Ireland and Scotland don't secede] Interesting facts you give upon those geographic reigons. Yet, it more reinforces my point, because the reasons which you state are quantifiable benefits. In a similar fashion, when China "took over" Tibet, they removed an oppressive theocracy with a slave regime. We've already freed Tibet; they are no longer in slavery. We've modernized a geographic region whose people always seemed to be isolated. It's a bit of a no-brainer; why return to an oppressive theocracy? Religion + Government = Disaster. I will even admit that Christianity, no, Catholicism exemplified that best.

[Response to Rob's argument that I'm denying religious grounds] In order to analyze this argument, let's go back to the beginning of the protests. Were they not lead by monks? What we have is a group of earnest, religious, and quite frankly, gullible people who are trying to best fulfill the demands of their faith. However, I believe that the Dalai Lama and his subjects have stretched these demands for purely their own gain.

During the feudalistic regime (or the slavery regime that I often refer to, an argument yet to be addressed), Tibet ran under a caste economic regime. At the top of the caste were special monks, the Dalai Lama (of course), and other various religious "nobles." These people lived in luxury, though a monk's life is supposed to call of self denial. The second caste was made up of merchants, lesser monks, and the middle class. The lowest caste was made up of slaves and serfs, who literally had no rights and worked for no pay. They were mistreated, tortured, and not given enough food to eat.

Now I'm going to make a link between religious oppression and gullible people.

Because the majority of Tibetans are Buddhist, it is obvious that they will answer to the Dalai Lama because of their faith. Thus, these people are very easily manipulated. There is clear logical reasoning behind WHY the Dalai Lama would call for "political autonomy." Obviously, the Tibetan MONKS are calling the Dalai Lama to return to power, and this is the only regime that they really want. Who doesn't want power? These MONKS used to make up the upper class of the citizens. Reinstating an influential religious leader would make it much easier for a religious sect to have what they want. In summary, the people listen to the Dalai Lama because he's an influential figure, and that causes ease with corruption, and history shows why, even with Tibet. In fact, he just happened to be privileged. If the Dalai Lama truly wanted a free Tibet, why didn't he dispose of the feudalistic regime while he was in power?

[In response to Rob's rebuttal of my rebuttal] When the Communist government was instituted, peace was brought after decades of violence, economic struggle, and instability. But barely a decade or two after such a government was made, young students called for a radical change. The fact is, China is moving towards democracy, but to completely institute a new type of government would bring back the instability, as radical changes do not come with ease. I won't try to defend the way the Chinese Government handled the situation. However, calling for immediate change is neither practical nor possible.

[In response to "oppression"] The definition of a word cannot always be connected to the means by which it is used. Pressure is subjective to the people feeling it. If I mislead someone and tell them that they are being pressured, they will recognize a certain tool and call it pressure because I have told them to label that tool a mechanism of pressure. China has problems. In fact, the majority of China is poor, despite the fact that you think we might even rival you in economics. Furthermore, economic prosperity should be recognized with respect the the region by which it is occurring. Tibet is a remote place. The fact that there is not as MUCH economic development there is no fault of the Chinese Government.

Apply your final analysis to religion and that's what you get in the Dalai Lama. I'm not advocating Communism, the Cultural Revolution, or even anything Mao ever did. Why? I hate Communism, it's destined to fail every time, I hate the Cultural Revolution, and though Mao did some good things for China, he also did some bad things.

I found another interesting video yesterday. I haven't finished watching it yet, but I will post the link anyway.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY

A western scholar citing reasons. If you thought some of my videos were illegitimate, maybe this could win you over. It's quite graphic and shows you exactly what went on when the Dalai Lama was in power.

[In response to Turaak citing Oioioi's rebuttal] Many of the arguments that this guy makes are the same. He says that just because the picture doesn't show the described event doesn't mean the described event didn't happen. Okay, if you buy this guy's argument, then there's got to be something seriously wrong. Listen to what he's actually saying. He's saying that even though the caption is lying, it doesn't change the actual situation. Um, I think it does. Because it proves western media fallacy and bias. Why DON'T they show the pictures of the actual events happening instead of taking vague images and label them as something else? The fact that the media has limited knowledge doesn't give them the right to publish false information. THAT is what you call propaganda. Furthermore, if the media is flawed (which I have already given several reasons why) then none of the claims he makes can be true, because he ASSUMES these given set of statements to be true, and he relies on the same media which I have just denounced to back up those claims.

At the end, he ridicules the apology given by the BBC with satire and denounces it because he thinks that bias is clear. OH WAIT!? WHAT'S THIS!? A VIDEO!?! The video I provided showed many examples of western media labelling NEPALNESE policemen as Chinese. So he just made himself look like an idiot for ridiculing something that actually happened.

I will concede the first video I posted. Watch the one I posted in this post.

[In response to Turaak's "EYE FOR EYE MAKES WORLD BLIND" argument] Sorry if I made it clear. I'm just saying that the US has no right to boycott a neutral international event while acting on hypocrisy.

[Turaak's Dalai Lama Argument] Not sure what you were trying to get at. You didn't really attack anything.

[Propaganda] Just look at the video I posted above. Also with the reasoning when I attack Oioioi's arguments. It is only propaganda because you have labelled your own media as infallible and thus, when something clashes with something else mainstream, it is deemed propaganda. However, if you take a historical analysis, I win.

So you're suggesting that India is an oppressive quite probably morally bankrupt society? India had a caste system for thousands of years which even now lingers in many parts of society, despite it's abolition in the nation - much like racism is still inherent in many parts of the USA and Britain. India however, remained a caste society throughout British rule and didn't abolish the system until the 1950's when the constitution was drawn up. It took India twenty years after their independence to shed the system, but they still did it themselves.

What you're saying is that you feel China had a moral obligation to invade Tibet on the grounds of how it treated it's citizens, while simultaneously attacking Western nations who believe that China is treating it's citizens in a way that they find abhorrent. And then you cite hypocrisy.

And then twenty years. Admittedly it's now thirty years, but the effects were the same after twenty years. After WWII, Great Britain adopted a form of social democracy called Economic Keynesianism. This led to the expansion of the welfare state, the NHS, council housing, nationalisation of business and a load of other nice benefits for British subjects. It was a nice time and the state would prop up any nationalised industry which was failing. In 1979, a lady called Margaret Thatcher came into power and started Neo-liberal conservatism, based on the free market ideals of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek. Between 1979 and 1992, Margaret Thatcher had broken the trade unions, rolled back the welfare state, created a division of wealth much akin to that of the United States, taken milk from children, caused the largest levels of unemployment known for around a century and Britain continued to vote her into power. Infact, after a radical upheaval of the socio-economic structure, Britain came out arguably a stronger economic force with a much higher GDP per capita. Thatcher had achieved most of these things within the first 8 years or her reign as Prime Minister.

The French revolution lasted from 1788-1799 - a mere 11 years - and completely overhauled the French nation, introducing ideas of individualism, liberty, citizenship and science.

In terms of radical change, twenty years is not radical at all. Infact, in every instance where radical upheaval is prolonged, the resulting body itself becomes a greater institute of corruption; just look at Russia 1917-1989 or "modern" Cuba.

As for the Chinese economy, the USA is two trillion dollars in debt to China. China has not called in this debt, nor has it used it to manoeuvre the US into aiding the Chinese populace. Infact, many nations are in debt to China and China has still to call these in. China is below the poverty line because the government pours money into aiding business and gaining political power. Furthermore, the majority of Chinese industry is still in the secondary sector - manufacture and industrial labour. If the populace moves above the poverty line, such jobs will become undesirable. If China then focuses on tertiary sector jobs, it will be no different from any other nation and - with an accent and language unconducive to speaking English - unable to export it's services around the world. For China to get richer, it must keep the populace undeveloped. Being poor is hardly a necessity for China but infact a choice that benefits government rather than people.

And in no real order a few other points which I've not got time to expand upon but I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate:
The Republic of Ireland is more or less a theocracy.
Setting oneself on fire can't generally be deemed a selfish act.

You're suggesting that Tibetans are merely listening to a religious leader while you're merely relaying what you understand of a situation. Until you experience something first hand, you cannot make a decision for someone else. You must leave choice up the person whose right it is to make that choice. There are many Tibetans who choose to listen to the Dalai Lama, the same as there are undoubtably many Tibetans in support of Chinese rule, but what you - and the Chinese government - are suggesting is that they do not deserve the right to make that choice. If Tibet is made worse by theocratic rule, that's a terrible outcome but the choice of the people. And next generation, another people will get to make the choice and every generation after that.

You've rambled a tad. What Oioioi said was repeated because it's the same, over and over again. Western Media weren't allowed in Tibet. And the Chinese media...well the China Daily in front of me doesn't have anything on it. The Shanghai Daily doesn't have any on it...something about the Dalai Lama being a Terrorist lol. (not a nerd, my sister came back from Shanghai on Sunday.) But the Western Media is allowed in Nepal, but reporting on Nepal's riots is not what the editors of our media want as they write about Tibet's riots, but with different pictures. They have not done anything wrong.

The caption is not necessarily depicting the image, that is your assumption.




I didn't get that part either...I thought he was just contradicting what he just was talking about?



Where? Lost me .



I is peaceful innit, g.

I didn't choose a side.



Will watch it soon. Don't appeal to history. Ok I just re-read what I said. Propaganda isn't the right word for what I'm trying to say. I mean 'You posted those videos to show the pro-China side of the argument straight away.'

Okay, here's the problem. You start out by using the analogy of India. It is a strong assertion. But then you go on and you explain how India has gotten rid of its caste system, and though something similar to racism is still occuring, it is not a means to govern. The fatal flaw is here. The caste system I was referring to was a regime that the Dalai Lama ran, not a societal hiearchy in which no real power lies. It is not merely racism, but something that oppresses people to the point where they cannot escape. The caste system was removed by China. Yes, I would declare that any caste regime automatically makes a society morally bankrupt. I won't declare India to be so since they do not govern under such a regime.

This isn't even the big hit of the argument. The big hit is that you have yet to explain the Dalai Lama's humanitarian atrocities such as the slavery regime that I repeatedly bring up. If you cannot win this argument, all other arguments become meaningless.



This is sophistry and I'll tell you why. On premise, you automatically assume that Tibet is by right, an independent nation and always has been so. If this is untrue, then the whole argument falls through. First, look at the Wikipedia article I cited. The Dalai Lama was only in power because the Qing dynasty instituted him as so. He is not a rightful ruler; rather, he is a privileged religious leader. The Tibetan region was always a part of China. The fact is, Tibetan citizens ARE Chinese citizens, whether you recognize them to be or not. You'd sooner tell America to seperate because of its cultural differences. We are not invading a country on the premise of humanitarian right. Rather, we reformed our country after the collapse of the Qing dynasty. However, we do cite our humanitarian benefits given to Tibet when the West calls upon us for oppression.



The twenty years reference I cited was a comparison between the Qing monarchy and the Communist government.

Your example of Britain as I understand it is only showing how capitalism works. As you explained it, what Thatcher did was make Britain a stronger economic regime as the expense of the well-being of some of its citizens. After which, you cite GDP. This is the exact problem with Capitalism. Though capitalism creates opportunities and generally makes the country as a whole richer, the distribution of wealth is problematic. A freer market may propel a country up the economic hierarchy of wealth, but at the expense of its citizens. From your point of view, Thatcher did you a favor. But what about the impoverished ones?

Whether radical change can happen is not a question of whether it will happen or whether it should happen. Again, if the majority of Chinese citizens were zealous for a right cause, revolution would've happened. Clearly, the majority diddn't agree with a new democratic regime, because the collapse of the Qing dynasty WAS a radical change for the Chinese, and many of them lived horrible lives for many years. After the Communists took over, the new government was FAR from perfect. But more people were happy. Why risk that for a few zealous college students?

I'm not going to support socialism/communism as an economic regime, because again, I hate it. I hate Che Guevera. However, the Soviets did make Russia a "superpower," though not necessarily in terms of the well being of their people.



I do not have an explanation for why China doesn't call in the debt. I believe it's irrelevant. Perhaps it has to do with international relations. However, let's not discuss this as this is rather unimportant. Surely there is a reason why the Chinese don't call in on the debt. Even if the Chinese government is insanely corrupted, they'd still want that money for themselves. Anyway, let's not discuss this as I believe it to be unimportant.

When you say that China is below the poverty line, I assume that you mean on average. However, your explanation is not plausible. Given that you are talking about the average, the reason why China is below the poverty line is not of which you cited, but rather our population. We have 1.3 billion people. Yet the majority of them are farmers. Proportionality in respect to population is what causes more factory workers and thereby a stronger workforce. It would be a huge feat for China to surmount the poverty line, because it would require a large percentage of the population to be "middle class." I don't think this will happen any time in the near future just because China has SO many poor people. While you may view China to be a place where many can get opportunities, the big cities are in the East, and the majority of the land that China has has yet to develop economically.

Now to your reasoning. True, the differences between Chinese and English seem to be unimaginable. However, most of the Chinese Children being educated nowadays are being taught English. But an extension upon that is - why should language be such a big problem? The US can export its services to China. China can do the same to other countries.

Lastly, nobody chooses to be poor.



Whether theocracies are intrinsically bad is another argument. However, we look to the history of this specific theocracy (slavery regime) and their manipulative ways amplified by western media, you shouldn't label it "just."

Not sure which incident you're referring to. Please cite.



Good - you pointed that out. Unfortunately, there are no statistics to show exactly how many Tibetans want independence. However, the protests were started by Monks. These Monks do have an interest for the return of the Dalai Lama, which I have already explained through my post and the last video I posted. Though I agree with you that it should be the choice of the people, when you cite humanitarian rights violations with an arrogance of objectivity (I'm not attacking you personally, but rather the attitude some people I've met have. I probably should expand upon this, but I don't want to.), you must evaluate this specific situation as to whether we can allow that humanitarian violation, which is far worse that what China's being called out on.



Of course the Communist media is going to label the Dalai Lama as an evil figure. Terrorist doesn't mean that he's going to bomb anyone. Portraying someone as evil is hardly significant when you look to what the western media has done.

I will focus on your last sentence and make references to your specific paragraph.

Your last sentence seems like a smug technicality win. Clearly we are talking about a certain set of images. The caption DOES depict the image, at first look. Otherwise, it's MEANT to mislead. The western media HAS done something wrong, because they have no proof of humanitarian atrocities China has committed, and yet they use pictures of other policemen in their articles as a tool to mislead the people. Again, in the specific instance, the captions were clear references to the picture. That's the DEFINITION of a caption.



What I got from the end of his post is that he labelled the Chinese government as oppressive for making the BBC apologize. In reality, FoxNews made inaccurate reports all the other forms of media followed their lead. I noted satire because he capitalized 'biased' and 'accurate.'



What you said was that just because the US took the Indian's land doesn't mean that China should do the same. First, it's China's land. Second, it's an international event that is SUPPOSED to be NEUTRAL and FREE FROM POLITICAL ARGUMENTS, and yet both the media and people living in the US have the audacity to call a boycott.



I was trying to sway some of the morons who say "Free Tibet" but have no actual knowledge of the other side of the argument. It was also a means by which I presented my view on the deliberation.

i heard somewhere in an interview documentary thing that the dahlia lama supported china.

Amusing place really, India; the caste system exists in rural areas as strongly as it ever did and in the cities there's positive discrimination towards the "untouchable" castes. Politicians now go out of their way to prove that they're not of one of the higher castes. The caste system is now a means to govern through reverse discrimination. If you're of a higher caste, you're not eligible for a lot of state benefits for instance.

Once again, I'm reinforcing your point further here. There is a point to it however; it's easy to sit here with a Western mentality and say "Why doesn't anyone just change it? That's a stupid system". The caste system has - as I mentioned - existed throughout Asia for thousands of years. What you are changing is not a system, but an entire mentality and that is wherein the danger lies. Whilst you can change a person's actions, you cannot change their mentality. In forcing someone to change a mentality, you infact only move them further from the ultimate goal - as shown in the Middle East, where we have striven to introduce our civilised culture and infact degraded the society.

What we're saying is that our culture - where we promote the individual over society, show women the glass ceiling in industry, grant no rights to the young or the old and are invariably taught to love our own reflection over anyone else - is more right than any other flawed system. In two thousand years, people will be looking back on our society and wondering how people the world over ever lived in such an unenlightened dystopia.

My eventual point is this: when left alone, problems are resolved by those affected by them. If you try and sleep at night but there's a drip coming from the ceiling onto your head, it's not going to be long before you get some duct tape and patch it up for the night before fixing it properly in the morning. What China have done is much akin to pulling the ceiling off and gutting the walls of the whole house just to stop a drip - one facet of the many problems in a society. If the people of Tibet were truly oppressed generation after generation by the Dalai Lama - how long until they had themselves revolted? What's instead happened is that they've had one - in your view - oppressive rule traded for another - in my view - oppressive leader.



Sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding how nations are formed. Do you think the USA was always an independent nation? Do you think the Russian satellite states were always independent nations? Tibet is an independent nation now. When people have a claim to land (any people who live on an area have a claim to the land - as evidenced by US occupation of Native American lands), a shared history, a common people and the variety of other criteria I listed earlier, they have every claim to be an independent nation.

As far as I'm aware, the US did separate on account of it's cultural differences. Infact, as I recall the US citizens all seceded from European countries on account of their cultural differences. The US has simply traded one set of cultural differences for another and assume that every other country in the world doesn't have the exact same culture clash.

P.s - I dare you to go to Glasgow on a Saturday night and announce in a bar that the Scots are all English. Actually, not Glasgow because you'd die, but Aberdeen or somewhere.




I can assure you I don't blame her for the downfall of British society because I feel she did me a favour.



I told a bit of a fib earlier; total Chinese loans are two trillion, the US debt is about 500billion. But personally I believe that when a government has leant out enough to subsidise the agricultural industry, it's actually rather important. The agricultural industry in China rather skews stats as a lot of farmers will be subsistence farmers rather than commercial admittedly, but do you really think even those working in the secondary industry are going to be earning anything like as much as those working similar jobs in Britain or the US?

The language thing was merely applied to tertiary industry jobs. If you think that most Western businesses are exporting call centres to places like India and Pakistan - where people speak different but similar languages - they're unlikely to work out of China where the language doesn't even contain the same sounds.

And actually, some people do choose to be poor.



Point of view.


Take your pick



I can't really answer that as it's a matter of opinion. All I can do is ask if you truly think that things would be worse with Tibetans ruling Tibet? I don't dispute that the monks likely have a vested interest, but do you believe they would be allowed to recreate the caste system and instigate a system of rule which benefits them and them alone? Personally, I don't believe so.

I am writing this, asking people not to trust the news for the sole-source of their opinions but to judge things for themselves and make up their own minds as there is nothing worse, in my opinion, than the current trend in the news of giving opinions as fact.

The recent pro-Tibet uprisings have been almost glossed over by British news-sources so I thought I'd inform people of the back-ground to the Olympic protests.

Obviously, Tibet has been under Chinese rule for 58 years. However, other nations which have had similar issues with Chinese rule have been granted almost autonomy from China. My cases in point are Taiwan (who recently elected a new government), Macau and Hong Kong. China and the Dalai Lama were in talks over the future of Tibet until 1994 when he closed talks due to lack of progress. In 1999, China offered to re-open talks as long as the Dalai Lama recognised Tibet was a part of China. He declined stating cultural genocide on the Chinese behalf.

Now, as I said, I am not saying that China is good to its citizens. Indeed, if you want a full list of human rights abuses (in case you haven't really paid attention to the news recently) I would point you to http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78771.htm

For instance, the current estimate is that more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation and the religious freedoms China says are allowed in Tibet are somewhat superficial - this is a by-product of Communism whereby there is meant to be no religion whatsoever. However, China does still allow Tibetans to practice Buddhism even if it is tightly controlled and has to contain some teachings of Marxism. This is something which seems to have gone missing in the mass of people who believe due to news corporations giving their opinion on the matter rather than the facts.

You see, the major problem with this whole debacle has been the media. In order to get a 'good story' Western media has, generally, been ignoring or manipulating the news coming from China. For instance, CNN cropped a photo of Chinese protests to make it seem like the Chinese army was rounding lots of troops on a couple of innocent protestors.

http://observers.france24.com/en/content/2...nda-tibet-riots

CNN are renowned for doing this these days as they did the same in Iraq with photos of American troops and Iraqi civilians. Before us Brits say that's the sensationalist American media for you, the BBC is also at fault. When the protests started in Tibet nearly 2 months ago now, the BBC reported on the Chinese military attacking protests over Tibetan self-rule and India repressing Tibetan protestors.

There are 2 things to note here - the protests in Tibetan were violent but the violence was not stated, as suggested, by the Chinese. In fact they appear to have hesitated by putting armed-police on the streets as an intimidatory tactic instead of rolling the tanks in Tiananmen Square style. Young Tibetans started the riots - something which the Dalai Lama did not sanction, could not stop and has always campaigned against.

Indeed, this would suggest that the riots have not been about Tibetan self-rule but more racial disturbances between by Tibetans against Han Chinese and Hui Muslims. The Huis who control much of trade in the area have been the centre of attacks in scenes reminiscent of the Bradford riots in England not that long ago when the white, impoverished members of society turned upon the Asian and Muslim communities stating that they were taking all their jobs - a fallacy created as justification for their impoverished state.

It is, in part, about nationalism as, in neighbouring provinces like Gansu, Tibetans have been rioting and attacking the Hans and the Huis claiming that Gansu is part of the 'historic Tibet' the Dalai Lama proclaimed. Again, like in Bradford, these are impoverished young people who have much anger at those more successful than themselves and are blaming it on Chinese rule (which could be true yet no-one has actually looked into this closely suggesting that it isn't). The Dalai Lama called recently for more autonomy in Tibet - not complete separation as the protestors seems to want.

Yet, the media has glossed over these Tibetan riots in order to keep the image of Tibetans being a peaceful people - just like when the CIA funded Tibetan guerrilla war-fare against the Chinese in the 60s and 70s. I am not saying Tibetans are not peaceful, merely that not all of them are - as is the case with any society.

This myth has come up because of Tibet being home of Buddhism - a peaceful religion based on introspection which I admire greatly. Yet in South Korea in 1998 thousands of monks of the Chogye Buddhist order fought each other in pitched battles that went on for weeks, vying for control of the order. It is the largest in South Korea and has a massive fortune behind it. Some members of the Korean public said that no matter what side took control, “it would use worshippers’ donations for luxurious houses and expensive cars.” (Kyong-Hwa Seok, "Korean Monk Gangs Battle for Temple Turf," San Francisco Examiner, 3 December 1998).

Sadly, Buddhism is not any safer from nepotism and corruption than any other religion because of human nature to want to seize and control. This aspect of human nature is the reason why China wants to keep Tibet and Tibetans want independence. Yet, for a good news story, there always has to be a good-guy and a bad-guy and people seem to like the little-guy more than the big-guy so the underdog is invariably the good-guy.

Now I'm not saying that China is right or that Tibetans should be happy with staying in China. With China's increasing industrialisation and thus the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, from a purely economic stand-point Tibet would be better off without Chinese rule. However, we could say the same about Scotland which has some of the poorest regions in the EU but the majority of people don't want Scotland to separate from the UK.

Life is more grey than black-and-white and we must all remember this before taking sides on this or any other issue. To help in this, here are some websites to note for a balanced enquiry to make up your own mind:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200803190010

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagim008.php

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

I am not trying to make you think one way or the other - just to think for yourselves. This is why I haven't given my opinion. I want you to be able to argue your own.

that is all

Because Beatles' lyrics are primary sources.

I love how no one actually bothers to read / comment on what Ive written, even though it is factual, uses resources, states sources clearly and actually has valid information in it. I don't know why I bothered writing any of it now.

Hey mate i read your post, it was very interesting and i have taken into consideration many of your points.

I bookmarked those news-sites you listed as well, thankyou.

I didn't say anything because I agree with you. I don't have anything to debate, so I didn't bother to post.

Throw it in reverse.

China as the worst human rights violator. I believe your response was...

Do you want to know why no one boycotted the Atlanta Olympic games for slavery? Because almost every nation had slavery at one point or another, even China. That, and the US outlawed slavery, oh, almost 130 years before the Atlanta Olympics.

Now, onto proving China's human rights violations.
1. Support of a genocidal government in Sudan.
China buys oil from Sudan, and supplies the government with weapons and aircraft. The Sudanese government uses these weapons to carry out a genocide.
It is hard to slither out of that corner, as this would be comparable to a country buying Nazi German textiles, and in return, giving them military support.

2. Support of peasant oppression

China enforces a feudalistic type of working system, called Hukou, to force their laborers to stay where they are, with strict punishments for violating any of the Hukou laws.

3. Most amount of people put to death

China put 470 people to death publicly, speculation believes more privately, and China also topped Amnesty's list for death sentences handed down last year, with 1,860 sentenced. Even with the per populous figures... 470/1,325,000,000 for China = 3.5 x 10^-7, while America is 42/305,000,000 = 1.3 x 10^-7. Last time I checked, 3.5 x 10^-7 was greater than 1.3 x 10^-7.

I only have one comment, Rob, because right now I'm too lazy to type out my entire opinion.

Earlier, you stated that "just because things were better than before doesn't mean they're good." You said this in response to my defense of the suppression of Chinese Democratic process. Yet, here you are, saying that we should institute an oppressive regime. There is no difference between oppressive leaders. In the end, when you argue upon the Tibetans behalf, they have to make a choice between religion or freedom.

The reason why most nations are independent is because they fought for it. Not because they argued for cultural stakes, but rather because they were able to secede. It is just as ridiculous to ask China to let Tibet go as it is to ask the US to let the Confederate States go.

Zhou, care to take a look at my new, edited post.
I kind of forgot about it after my AP exam, but I've edited in what I want to say.
Its two posts up.

Thanks

Nice arguments, Silver. I'll give my side.



It's not entirely dismissable. With the rise of US hegemonic power in the 20th Century, and emergence of further humanitarian atrocities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, it is ridiculous for the US to try and shift the humanitarian lever. Specifically, it might've been a bad example as the Olympics don't correspond well. Just think of some other big event the US hosts.



There are many countries from which Sudan benefits from. The way you look at it is a result of lobbyist media propaganda. The US does help the Sudanese government, under catchy slogans. What happens is the US provides Sudan with "Foreign Aid." First, what often happens is that the US just pours money into the region instead of trying to end the conflict. Second, what's defined under governmental "Foreign Aid" includes military aid. Third, the US government might not "buy" oil for the same reason it "didn't go to Iraq for oil." What will happen is, once the conflict is over and a "good government" is instituted, the US will benefit from these countries by either charging them debt or good foreign relations. So I think that in this sense, China has just been more open about their intentions instead of drowning everything in euphemisms.




I know what a Hu Kou is. It's a bit unfair to label it as feudalistic. Essentially it's a passport between provinces. It not only applies for peasants, but also for the middle and upper class. If you're born in a certain province, you get that Hu Kou. That being said, you can also apply for a Hu Kou in another province. Of course, this could be difficult for peasants, but it's not an "oppressive feudalistic regime" as this you try to label it. I had a Hu Kou.



Not by a significant amount, I'm sure you're well aware.

What you're doing is pointing out humanitarian violations in order to prove China is the worst. But there's no contrast to show that. Every country has humanitarian violations. I can easily think of 3 far worse than the 3 you've just stated. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Slavery, and oh, Iraq War.

Toe, you DO realize you're promoting communism.

Its hard to say that Guantanamo Bay is a worse humanitarian violation. Every country has secret prisons.
Guantanamo Bay is just a secret public prison.

You are completely correct with your statement on Sudan. My only argument is that although the US government, through a technicality, supports the regime, it is not as though their intentions are to support a regime that commits genocide, while the Chinese government clearly does.

Feudalistic may be an overstatement, but there is one main similarity that describes both:

Feudalism requires serfs to stay on the lords' lands, unless told so by their lord.
Hukou requires peasants to stay in a certain region unless authorized by the government.

And I'm pretty sure there are scandals similar to Abu Ghraib in China, but with their censored media, it doesn't get out

But it is. It's not that China supports a genocide. Rather, China is looking out for its own economic interests. It's sophistry to pretend that the US is a humanitarian crusader. It's not so much a technicality as it is a facade.



This is a bit like a video I saw the other day. The video was drawing similarities between Caesar, Hitler and.... Barack Obama. Since all of them used the phrase, "Yes, We Can," (apparently) Obama is automatically the next Hitler.

False.

I believe the Hu Kou system was instituted as a part of the Chinese government's stubborness and unwillingness to let go of Communist doctrine. Once again, EVERYONE has a Hu Kou. In your analogy, that would include the lords.

As you would remember, the foundation of Communism was rooted in the Industrial Revolution and the use of child labor. Horrible working conditions and living conditions were used to compensate the huge influx of workers from the newly created factories. I think the Hu Kou system was created as a result of trying to prevent this, as China now is almost the exact same thing as Britain was a hundred years ago.

Of course, I could be totally historically wrong. Though I had a Hu Kou, I won't claim to know everything about it.

But it isn't.
China gives the regime weapons directly.
The US sends supplies to those in need, and are intercepted by the government.

I don't see how those are the same.

The US government doesn't fight humanitarian wars. It only fights wars on the premise of humanitarian concern. In other words, the reasons why the US really cares about whether China buys Sudan's oil are:

1. To maintain its own public image
2. Because China is taking away a potential oil source that the US had originally planned to tap into later

The US sends aid so that it can claim itself to be a part of the resolution if the conflict is resolved down the road. Then, the US can either claim debt or ask for oil for a cheaper price as a gratuity from the new government. Because China's economy is an unstoppable force, the US is afraid that the oil reserves may not hold out; they're afraid that by the time the situation has stabilized oil prices will be so high the Sudanese government wouldn't be able to offer it cheaply to the US.