March 23, 2008 10:06
A Little History....
Some interesting comments on our blog about Tibet over the last few days....and a great many others that were of the tediously nationalistic, your-coverage-is-biased, Yankee go home, China-good-America-bad type.
Anyway, one of the former came from Champson Liu, an editor at the People's Daily. Here's what he had to say (and the "mouthpiece" phrasing is his, not mine by the way):
Dear TIME Editor,
I am an editor of People's Daily, the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece and largest newspaper of China.
Mr. Simon Elegant's report "Tibetans in China: Fearing the Worst" on Mar. 18, 2008 was wrong in the basic fact that "Tibet had been an independent nation, before it was annexed by China in 1951."
Given Mr. Elegant's familiarity with Chinese history, such an error seems very, very misleading to TIME readers and risks the reputation of TIME as a reliable source of information.
To put historical facts straight, the time Tibet was formally annexed into China was in 1727, when China's Yongzheng Emperor of the last Qing Dynasty established the post of Minister for Tibetan Affairs in Lhasa for formal rule. Other historians argue the formal annexation could be traced back to 1306, when Tibet was first ruled from Beijing. Actually, either way, the name "Dalai Lama" was originally given by the Emperor through a court decree.
In 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown by the Republic of China, Tibet declared independence just like every other province of China, but neither the Chinese government in Nanking nor Washington or London recognized it. When the Communists came to power, Mao decided to reclaim Tibet and sent troops in. Simon should avoid making Western readers conclude China suddenly occupied Tibet as Israel did to Palestain, or risks misleading readers on Tibet the same way all Western media typically do.
These are all verifiable historical facts that can be crosschecked from Western sources. I would appreciate it if TIME could set the facts straight.
Thank you.
A number of other commentators made this point about the status of Tibet between 1911 and 1951 so I went back and checked. I think they are right. In future, I shall use the phrase "de facto independent nation" or "effectively independent" when referring to Tibet during that period. It is true that Tibet had its own currency, soldiers, government etc. during that period. It is also true that no one except Mongolia recognized it as an independent nation. But it was clearly functioning as an independent state governed by Tibetans and was thus quite different from other comparable, ethnically non-Han areas of China such as Xinjiang and inner Mongolia, both of which were run by Chinese warlords or the KMT or the Japanese.
The broader point here isn't just about the exact status of Tibet after the overthrow of the Qing. It's about whether or not Tibet has any claim to be an independent country at any time. The answer is of course an unequivocal "yes". Before the Mongols, Tibet had its own empire that stretched all the way to Bengal and of course included bits of China: from the Tang dynasty on, the Tibetans regularly invaded what is now China and occupied large chunks.
Yes, Tibet was made a client state by China whenever it could enforce that status. But whenever Chinese power waned, Tibet asserted its independence. It's also worth noting that the 1306 annexation Mr. Liu refers to (actually, most historians put the annexation at 1246, which happens to have also been when China was incorporated into the Mongol empire, putting things in perspective) was by Mongols, not Chinese. And of course, the invasion by the Emperor Kangxi in 1720 that installed a pro-Beijing Dalai Lama was by Manchu troops, though no doubt the bannermen were supported by Chinese. Does that mean that Manchu's can claim that in fact they should rule Tibet, note to mention China itself? Of course not. No more than Italy can ask for Britain back because it ruled there for four centuries. Or Britain can attempt to reverse the 1923 independence of Ireland on the grounds it ran the place (and pretty brutally at that) for a similar period. All the argument about dependencies and client states can't change the fact that Tibetans speak a totally different language and have completely separate culture and customs. We are supposed to be living in an age when peoples are more free to express themselves --and rule themselves--and when military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community.
Reader Comments (85)
To Simon Elegant and other tediously self-righteous, your-comment-is-biased, Chinese go home, America -good-China-bad types who use history to continue arguing that Chinese should leave Tibet because China had annexed Tibet by force
See, we can waste our precious time here in endless circles arguing about history but in the end, I may not be able to convince you just as your version of history will not convince me. Exactly when and how Tibet was annexed by China is really not important, the only thing important is that Tibet is NOW a part of China that has already been officially recognized by the UN and all countries around the world. As such, it is within China’s sovereignty right to quell riots there if necessary.
As already mentioned by Hautamaki elsewhere, arguing over history for what country has the 'right' to a given territory or people is indeed a dead end. Which big country had not been built with forced annexations? Are Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders willing to use apply the same standards to judge whether their countries’ conquest of territories and treatment of indigenous peoples are any more legal or fair than how China had treated minorities? Are they willing to relinquish territories just because they had been forcefully annexed? Have they ever felt guilty for what their genocidal ancestors have done not just to natives, but to other colonized nations of the world? When pressed, the only thing they would say is that the indigenous people are better off today economically and that foreign settlers had brought prosperity and developed the place and are therefore entitled to stay. Should white settlers leave and return the land to the indigenous people? Apparently, these people don’t think so. It’s strange that those same people here are so adamant on insisting that a double standard be applied to China.
Posted by Saul Midmay | March 24, 2008 2:18 AM
Simon,
My take is that you try to use Western concept of Nation to define an ancient political system in China and you never can put a round pig into a square hole.
Whatever relationship between Lhasa and Beijing was clearly defined: the emperor sit in his palace of Beijing and ruled over a vast expanse of continent. The acknowledge of his power was formalized by a tributary system. Under this system, the relationship between the boss (emperor) and subordinate (kings) were very clear. You cannot bring our your Western laws to judge if this system fit into your nation concept or not. One fact you will never change--every single Dalai Lama were approved by the one sits in Beijing, including the current one in the period you think Tibet was indeed independent.
That balance of system was broke down by Western powers, especially by 1904 British invasion. That caused the change of system to Western one to safeguard whatever left of Chinese Empire. Whatever took away by Western powers cannot hold, but whatever not taking by Western powers are survived as the nation of People's Republic China.
You also need to understand--de facto independent without de jure mean nida in international law. Look on the Taiwan. It is de facto independent but would be still considered be a part of China in international law. Same exact thing happened during 1950, both India and Britain in UN against a discussion of Tibet issue by recognazing Tibet is part of China. So no matter how you twist, Chinese soverignty over Tibet is unchallenged.
The second issue is your Western experts try to deny Qing and Yuan Chinese Empires by using Chinese specially for Han. You probably have NO understanding that even back few thousand years ago that China was always a multi-ethnic country. A China Empire is not must a Han Empire. Han is a life style adopted by all different ethnic, racial groups. China is a geography. After Jin, Chinese empires formed by Hun, Turk, Xianbei, Wuhuan, Di, Tuba, Khnitan, etc. It always involved those non-Han groups adopting Han life style and expend the components of Han. Only when Jurchen cames up with a revolutionary idea--we can just live and think exactly like Han but still keep our original ethnic identity. That inspired Mongol, Hui and Manchu who had very big impact on Yuan, Ming and Qing. Those are all Chinese Empires.
Posted by coolhead | March 24, 2008 2:41 AM
To anser question raised by Saul. It is not even worth argue with the blogger in logic, for which there is none.
But there is actually a much deeper answer to those self-righeous type of westerners.
The reason is that those people like Simon are fundamentally racist without even themselves realizing that.
This may sound strange at first, but read on. You will likely come to the same conclusion.
The mentra of those people has been:
-. The only Chinese who can have voices are those who agree with them.
-. The others are either brainwashed or are Chinese government agents or, do not have access to facts, thus the opinions do not matter.
-. Death of Chinese are only a concern if it fits their agenda. If a 4-month old baby is burned to death, there will be no report.
Here is what the popular terms mean to them:
Human Rights: White people's right or those the white people decide deserving.
Threat: Threat to white people. If the threat is againt someone else, it is justified.
Rogue Nations: nations of non-white people but dare not to pay attention to those white people.
Self-determination: Determination in the way white people like.
Democracy: Choose leaders white people want.
You can apply those definitions to anywhere in the world and see for youself how consistently the mouthpiece of the white people behave. YOu can apply it to East Asian, Middle East, Africa, etc.
It is beyond bias in media. It is essentially a fundation value in the US/European culture. The foundation value is the belief that the white people has right to determine for others. It started in 15th/16th century, is continuing today.
As an ordinary Chinese citizen, I am saddened by the arrogance of those institutions and the people behind them. The un-intended effects of those actions are that the Chinese themselves are far more solitary than in 80s and 90s.Even the young generation knows that what the white people are hoping is that the only non-white power (China) disintegrate, and they will do everything within their power to try that.
That effor will fail. The un-intended effect of those bigotry is that it has unified the Chinese. I was one of the students in 6/4/89 student movements myself. I have come to such a painful conclusion on the intention of those wetsern journalists under the guise of humanity. It is such a long journey, not just for me, but also for the entire generation of Chinese. When 1.3 billion people awaken, nothing will stand in its way.
In the next decade, the world will witness the first non-white world-class power with world-class people. There is nothing those racism-inclined journalists can do about that.
Posted by An ordinary Chinese | March 24, 2008 2:50 AM
the non-elegant Simon Elegant and those who hope that china is split and chinese people are oppressed just as the situation 60 years ago, go out of china right now. you are chinese-blood-philic bugs.
Posted by stnob | March 24, 2008 3:18 AM
And now a little history for Westerners...
Chinese civilization goes back a very long time. Current estimates say anywhere from 5000 to 7000 BC, but those are probably wrong. Some certified by the ministry of culture would say that the Chinese race of people has been around or before pre-historic man himself, thanks to advanced carbon dating techniques, developed at Tsinghua University.
During this illustrious history of technical, scientific, cultural and humanitarian achievements, the People's Republic of China, has always had sovereignty of Tibet. It is through this sovereignty that Tibet has changed from a place of tribal chaos rife with cannibalism and incest to a modern Autonomous Province with non-potable drinking water and a high altitude train. Where the average Tibetan could only dream of one day tending a herd of yak, he is now afforded wonderful career paths such as being a waiter at a hotpot restaurant or serving the PLA to improve their accuracy.
For Western people, or any non-Chinese, it is impossible to understand this matter, because quite frankly, Western people simple cannot understand China and its culture in any way shape or form. This is unfortunate, because someday, the 1,347,308,398 people that inhabit the glorious People's Republic of China will wake up and.....and go on a rampage and eat all the Westerners, because agriculture will no longer be sustainable due to excessive mercury levels in the mainland soil.
Posted by turnright | March 24, 2008 3:28 AM
Dear Sir:
After reading your post above, I have been feeling very upset with your knowledge about China, and Chinese people.
Don't try to confuse people. You said: "And of course, the invasion by the Emperor Kangxi in 1720 that installed a pro-Beijing Dalai Lama was by Manchu troops, though no doubt the bannermen were supported by Chinese. Does that mean that Manchu's can claim that in fact they should rule Tibet, note to mention China itself?" There are 56 nationalites in China, including Han,Korean,Hui(Muslim),Tai,Miao,Zhuang,Zang(Tibetan),Mongol,Manzu(Manchu),etc. and they are all Chinese, are they not? All the nationalites have different cultures,traditions and even languages from one another, but the fact that they are different from one another does not justify your statement that they can not be Chinese, or can not be part of one country. In the USA, there are black people, Hispanics, Chinese, Indian, and all of them are Americans. We are just as multicultural as you are. If you say Tibet is not part of China just because Tibetans speak a different language and have different customs, then why should Black people,or native Indians be Americans? Yes, you were right when you said Manchu troop led the invasion into Tibet, but Manchu is also Chinese, and there is not a country in the world that is called Manchu. I am sorry, but maybe my English is too lame to understand you. It will be better if you can explain it to us.
In its long history, China's territory did not look the same at all in different times. For some time, Xinjiang was not part of China, but now it is. Vietnam and the Korean Peninsula were part of China, but they are not now. Thousands of years ago, China was just a small piece of land. How do you think it is a country of large size now? Not by Force? I don't think so.
No matter if you like it or not, Tibet now is part of China, though it's different from other regions. So why don't you just learn to be fine with it? If you think China should get out of Tibet, then is it okay for Australians to leave Australia, Americans leave America, or Canadians leave Canada?
Posted by Xinqiang | March 24, 2008 3:31 AM
I have many friends in America, but now I have come to one conclusion, which is, no matter how saddened and disappointed I am: The only people that can understand China and Chinese people is Chinese,by which I mean all 56 nationalities living on this land.
Some westerners pretend to be China-experts after reading just a few books about China, researching a little on Chinese history, or living in China for a few years, and that is ridiculous. How could you know China and Chinese well when I, as a Han Chinese, am still learning about it. Do you guys know how vastly different Nortern China is from Southern China, Western China from Eastern China, in terms of food, culture, dialect, etc. Everytime I go to another place for business, I eat different cuisines, hear different dialects, see different cultures and different people in different dresses even among the Han Chinese, not to mention all the 56 nationalities.
So in one word, you may talk about our government, but do not, do not you dare talk about China, or Chinese people, and make a fool of yourself when you said Manchu or Tibetans is not Chinese.
Posted by Xinqiang | March 24, 2008 3:56 AM
This is utter garbage from this author. No need to talk anymore but from now on China should actively give back the same medicine they serve us around the world & make more poor Nato/US/British soldiers die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Kosovo etc due to Chinese weapons.Let's support Osama b Laden, Hezbollah, Islamic jihadis, Hamas, Hugo Chavez/Castro/Moreles, Nations of Islam, Maoris groups, Australian Aborigines, Hawaiian Independent groups, Quebec Independence, IRA etc & make them wreck havoc & engulf in sactarian flame!
Boycott London 2012, Smash US/UK/Isreal/Australia/New Zealand! Banish all the white settlers from Australia & New Zealand no matter how long it takes!
Posted by Mainlander | March 24, 2008 4:22 AM
Thank you very much Simon Elegant for giving me this opportunity to educate you and other you-types about what "China" means and what a "country" means.
The word that means the world's most populous country, China, is not what you think it means.
First, "China", a name YOU and other ALIENS use to call us, does not equal to our country Zhongguo. In this sense, your use of Manchus, Tibetan, and Mongols against "Chinese" is flawed in the first place. Lets' do a calculation first: as defined by modern laws today, the people of Zhongguo (what you wrongly call China)=Han+Manchus+Tibetan+Mongols+Korean+Uiguirs(?)...... So, you made a mistake of using Zhongguo proper to refer to the entire country and cut the China part out and pitch it against the rest of the country. For your information, only, “China” is actually the name of Zhongguo's first united feudal empire Qin established 211 BC. We the people of Zhongguo do not mistake England for the UK though we do call that country Yingguo (the state of England). But you made this mistake in your defending post.
Second, what is a COUNTRY? The modern sense of it, as we all know, was an idea created out of the West's industrial, national and politcal revolutions. This idea was picked up by Zhongguo when the Qing Dynasty on its land was replaced by the Republic of China (still physically existing on Taiwan). Please note that even at this stage, the word "China" used to refer to our country did not exist, at least officially. At that time, we called our country the Republic of Zhunghwa (correct my spelling if i'm mistaken). Before the West and Japan taught us we were actually a "country" that was different from the invaders, we struggled and created a country and a state called the Republic of Zhunghwa along the "modern" (you the West and Japan taught us and we accepted) legal, government, international law line.
Got the idea of what i'm talking about? Before ROZ, we did not have a "modern" sense of what a republic was though everywhere in the West and Japan Country, State, Government, International Laws in their modern sense were well accepted, established, and practiced. Before ROZ, we only had Dynasties, but no States at least officially.
By checking a map of the Republic of China (for your convienence, i again use this word), you will find that this country has Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang as part of its territory. (Maybe you would say this is stupid because it was historical and in the past. But since you inspired my comment with your history talk. I now want to complete what i have to say. ) Now listen up: for the first time in the modern time, the China in its modern sense was created when the Republic of China was declared in 1912. That year, the Qing dynasty was transformed into a modern, Asia's first republic ROC and, as some sort of heritage arguments (more input were requested from experts) applied, ROC inherited the Qing legally and territorially.
So, if you are confusing territorial changes before and after the creation of ROC in Zhongguo, you are intentinally or unwittingly misleading your unsuspecting readers.
Because Xinjiang and Tibet were part of the Qing when it was reinvented as ROC which was later replaced by PRC, China or Zhongguo has rightful territorial soverighty over them all. This is the modern, legal, and international law source of Zhongguo's soverignty over Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan. (Mongolia and Taiwan need further information inputs that are quite another topic, so i chose to leave the two off here).
Zhongguo does not make territorial claims on land because of dynastic posseions in the past. e.g. Viet Nam (this name given by a Chinese emporor), Korea.
The West and Japan set the rule of the game (state, government, country, international laws, etc etc), we play by it. what's wrong with us? i can see nothing wrong.
Posted by changgua | March 24, 2008 4:45 AM
totally agree. His and other westerners' definition of China is totally wrong.
China is defined by chinese and not by those who know nothing about China. They came to China and saw everybody look like Han and consider only Han people to be Chinese, ignoring the very basic fact that a small but considerable ethnic minority groups exist THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
Manchu is not Han. Manchu rule and Mongol (Yuan) rule DO NOT make China any less China. Just go check the Treaty of Nanking where the Emperor explicitly call himself Emperor of China.
Posted by Danny | March 24, 2008 6:20 AM
i simply believe how ignorant Simon you are. Manchu consider themselves Chinese and we Han unanimously also recognize them as Chinese. How come any westerner have a say in this? your argument is like no less ridiculous than The U.S during a black american president rule is not U.S.
Besides even during this "de facto" independence you are talking about, The Tibetan government explicitly states in official announcement that they will resume "the old relation and will not be separated from China". They sent representatives to National Assembly to draft Chinese constitution and attend sessions of Legislative Yuan (Parliament). You need a history class.
Posted by Danny | March 24, 2008 6:36 AM
As someone you've quoted recently (allow me to delude myself into believing that makes my post have more merit), I'd like to submit the opinion that the reason your previous post attracted so many "your-coverage-is-biased, Yankee go home"-type comments is because, in large part, your post was biased.
What occurred in Tibet was nothing more and nothing less than anti-Han mob riots, and it was broken up by force, as all riots are. This is the 'official' CCP line, but it is also what all anecdotal evidence points to as well, from the burned markets, to the first-hand eyewitness reports of foreign tourists, as well as the few (only one I believe?) foreign journalists in Tibet.
Yes, you do mention violence, but as an after-thought; you describe 'some' of the demonstrations as 'violent', when what occurred in Lhasa was nothing short of full fledged mob violence. If what happened in Tibet had happened anywhere else in the world; if the 'protesters' (a word with a generally positive connotation) hadn't been Tibetan, would foreign/your coverage of them have been so sympathetic? Would you whitewash the torching of (according to reports) hundreds of shops and homes and indiscriminate beating of Han Chinese, some resulting in deaths, as merely 'protesting', then dismissively ask if the riot-breakers were going to be fighting with "Monks armed with prayer wheels?"?
The China Blog has discussed, in depth, the reasons behind the riots, and also discussed in depth the government response to the riots; in both cases, in ways not particularly flattering towards the CCP. But what The China Blog hasn't discussed is what exactly the riot is; it has treated the murders, the beatings, the torchings, and the Tibetan-initiated violence as an after-thought which it has barely covered. What is this, if not bias?
I recognize that there are significant issues in Tibet which have led to the current outburst of violence and anger against Han Chinese. I will be the first to say that historically (and currently), both the Han people as well as the CCP government has not always (perhaps not even often) done right by Tibet. And, of course, there are major correlations between that and the riots which have risen up. However, conflating the -morality- of the two, so that in both cases, the story is 'China bad, Tibet good' is either lazy journalism, or biased/dishonest journalism. A riot is a riot is a riot, and minimizing and/or whitewashing that is true disservice to this blog and its readers.
Zhangsan
Posted by Zhangsan | March 24, 2008 7:07 AM
Dear Simon, as an educated journalist, I am disappointed with you. Though you reluctantly admitted that you had made mistake, you repeated your fault statement again in the last sentence. Obviously, you don’t really understand the word de facto.
According your logic, anyone with different culture in a country can claim independent. How about your birthplace, Hong Kong, with definitely different language, customs and culture? Is it a country beside China? Give myself as an example, my culture is surely different to my Kiwi neighbors (I live in New Zealand). What’ll happen if I claimed my house an independent country from NZ and refused to pay any tax? If you want I can have a referendum which I will win in no doubt. New Zealand government definitely will sue me, not under international law but NZ domestic act. Will you condemn NZ government for its invasion?
Furthermore, I would like to raise another topic may interest you. Every local culture in the world face “cultural genocide” which is led by developed countries, especially USA, we give it a name GLOBALIZATION.
Cheers
Posted by chorasmian | March 24, 2008 7:10 AM
Simon, one more example in this very post.
"We are supposed to be living in an age when peoples are more free to express themselves --and rule themselves--and when military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community."
1) There is not a government in the world which recognizes Tibet. Even Taiwan has a few African buddies who recognize it; there isn't a single one which recognizes Tibet. Not one. So how clear is this 'total separation'?
2) I'm not sure if this is your intention, but once again, it certainly seems as though you are whitewashing the deadly, destructive riots as simply Tibetans 'expressing themselves', and the government's actions to restore calm as 'military occupation'. Again, I must ask; what is this, if not bias?
Zhangsan
Posted by Zhangsan | March 24, 2008 7:27 AM
Who are the best friends of the Chinese Communist Party?
They are Western media such as CNN and Western politicians such as Ms. Pelosi.
The negative, one sided, and often Penthouse style "hard porn" sort of reports about China in the West easily offends a Chinese person. These reports make an average Chinese believe what Beijing told him or her that the West means harm to China just like the West has been in the past several hundred years. The strong nationalist feeling of many Chinese "inspired" and 'strengthened" by the clumsy new coverage of Western media helps Beijing to rule this huge nation more effectively and more easily. Alas, outstanding editors, writers, and reporters with Harvard and Stanford degrees working at CCN, Time, and Washington Post! You all deserve a big medal of "outstanding communist party sympathizers" reward directly from the political bureau in Beijing!
To be fair to the media, it might be a learning that has not happened. The media may have not learned how to deal with a highly interconnected world of worldwide TV coverage and omnipresent internet presence. Their content and delivery are both intended for a local audience. The worldwide impact may well be a side effect. Before the media learns how to behave in a global media marketplace, they have to focus on their primary local market where the primary income comes from.
Western politicians also help Beijing to gain popular support in major ways. When Ms. Pelosi spoke out about violence in Tibet, did she express sadness and sympathy to the families that suffered tragic loss of lives and properties? Did she ever think about not to be offensive to 1.3 billion Chinese people while expressing her concerns over the Chinese government? Of course not, this was because her audience was those who elect her in the USA, not the Chinese people whose feeling was not really her concern. She may have a political need to show how tough she was too. However, It is too easy to say something aggressive about human rights and Tibet. It is a cheap shot and anybody can do it. Instead, it is extremely difficult to express strong concerns over human rights AND to make it clear that the USA wants to grow a constructive relationship with China and the USA respects and cares for the Chinese people. Compare her performance to what Mr. McCain said about the tragedy in Tibet and you will immediately notice the skillful balance and the political experience that Mr. McCain enjoys.
It seems that some Western politicians would rather embrace extreme approaches. They either kiss up in Beijing or make dumb remarks or dumb moves that are deeply irritating to an ordinary Chinese citizen and help to drive him or her to the tune of Beijing. For example, Ms. Pelosi's talk about "international investigation" may be insulting to many ordinary Chinese citizens and help them believe what they read in the official Chinese paper about US hostility. Every time, a US aircraft carrier "sailed through Taiwan Strait to avoid bad weather", millions of young Chinese people become more supportive to Beijing's plan of military buildup.
As long as we have these super clever but very unwise politicians and strategists in DC, the Chinese Communist Party can lead the political and economic life in China forever, because our elected officials and "smart" media people are helping the Chinese Communist Party to achieve "national convergence with the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, especially when China is surrounded by hostile Western forces.” Maybe the CCP Central Committee is preparing a grand gala for some Western politicians and strategists as well as media gurus to thank them for their powerful and highly effective support of CCP leadership.
Why the American or Western politicians and the media do this? They are not dumb actually. The politicians do cheap shots against China to win popular support at home. The media’s goal is to say whatever people in the West want to hear to make money. They all know clearly this is bad for the people whom they are trying to serve, but they do not really care. Well, maybe they do, but serving the people would be their secondary if not tertiary priority. Power and money must be the primary objectives.
Democracy comes with a steep price. Myopic strategy and irresponsible political and military act to win popular support so as to hang on to power is one of the down-sides of representative political systems. While nothing in the world is perfect, these intrinsic flaws of Western style democracy have been proven to be costly, especially for a strong country that has a tendency of excessive reliance on military solutions
Posted by eaglet | March 24, 2008 7:56 AM
Who are the best friends of the Chinese Communist Party?
They are Western media such as CNN and Western politicians such as Ms. Pelosi.
The negative, one sided, and often Penthouse style "hard porn" sort of reports about China in the West easily offends a Chinese person. These reports make an average Chinese believe what Beijing told him or her that the West means harm to China just like the West has been in the past several hundred years. The strong nationalist feeling of many Chinese "inspired" and 'strengthened" by the clumsy new coverage of Western media helps Beijing to rule this huge nation more effectively and more easily. Alas, outstanding editors, writers, and reporters with Harvard and Stanford degrees working at CCN, Time, and Washington Post! You all deserve a big medal of "outstanding communist party sympathizers" reward directly from the political bureau in Beijing!
To be fair to the media, it might be a learning that has not happened. The media may have not learned how to deal with a highly interconnected world of worldwide TV coverage and omnipresent internet presence. Their content and delivery are both intended for a local audience. The worldwide impact may well be a side effect. Before the media learns how to behave in a global media marketplace, they have to focus on their primary local market where the primary income comes from.
Western politicians also help Beijing to gain popular support in major ways. When Ms. Pelosi spoke out about violence in Tibet, did she express sadness and sympathy to the families that suffered tragic loss of lives and properties? Did she ever think about not to be offensive to 1.3 billion Chinese people while expressing her concerns over the Chinese government? Of course not, this was because her audience was those who elect her in the USA, not the Chinese people whose feeling was not really her concern. She may have a political need to show how tough she was too. However, It is too easy to say something aggressive about human rights and Tibet. It is a cheap shot and anybody can do it. Instead, it is extremely difficult to express strong concerns over human rights AND to make it clear that the USA wants to grow a constructive relationship with China and the USA respects and cares for the Chinese people. Compare her performance to what Mr. McCain said about the tragedy in Tibet and you will immediately notice the skillful balance and the political experience that Mr. McCain enjoys.
It seems that some Western politicians would rather embrace extreme approaches. They either kiss up in Beijing or make dumb remarks or dumb moves that are deeply irritating to an ordinary Chinese citizen and help to drive him or her to the tune of Beijing. For example, Ms. Pelosi's talk about "international investigation" may be insulting to many ordinary Chinese citizens and help them believe what they read in the official Chinese paper about US hostility. Every time, a US aircraft carrier "sailed through Taiwan Strait to avoid bad weather", millions of young Chinese people become more supportive to Beijing's plan of military buildup.
As long as we have these super clever but very unwise politicians and strategists in DC, the Chinese Communist Party can lead the political and economic life in China forever, because our elected officials and "smart" media people are helping the Chinese Communist Party to achieve "national convergence with the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, especially when China is surrounded by hostile Western forces.” Maybe the CCP Central Committee is preparing a grand gala for some Western politicians and strategists as well as media gurus to thank them for their powerful and highly effective support of CCP leadership.
Why the American or Western politicians and the media do this? They are not dumb actually. The politicians do cheap shots against China to win popular support at home. The media’s goal is to say whatever people in the West want to hear to make money. They all know clearly this is bad for the people whom they are trying to serve, but they do not really care. Well, maybe they do, but serving the people would be their secondary if not tertiary priority. Power and money must be the primary objectives.
Democracy comes with a steep price. Myopic strategy and irresponsible political and military act to win popular support so as to hang on to power is one of the down-sides of representative political systems. While nothing in the world is perfect, these intrinsic flaws of Western style democracy have been proven to be costly, especially for a strong country that has a tendency of excessive reliance on military solutions
Posted by eaglet | March 24, 2008 7:59 AM
Who are the best friends of the Chinese Communist Party?
They are Western media such as CNN and Western politicians such as Ms. Pelosi.
The negative, one sided, and often Penthouse style "hard porn" sort of reports about China in the West easily offends a Chinese person. These reports make an average Chinese believe what Beijing told him or her that the West means harm to China just like the West has been in the past several hundred years. The strong nationalist feeling of many Chinese "inspired" and 'strengthened" by the clumsy news coverage of Western media helps Beijing to rule this huge nation more effectively and more easily. Alas, outstanding editors, writers, and reporters with Harvard and Stanford degrees working at CCN, Time, and Washington Post! You all deserve a big medal of "outstanding communist party sympathizers" reward directly from the political bureau in Beijing!
To be fair to the media, it might be a learning that has not happened. The media may have not learned how to deal with a highly interconnected world of worldwide TV coverage and omnipresent internet presence. Their content and delivery are both intended for a local audience. The worldwide impact may well be a side effect. Before the media learns how to behave in a global media marketplace, they have to focus on their primary local market where the primary income comes from.
Western politicians also help Beijing to gain popular support in major ways. When Ms. Pelosi spoke out about violence in Tibet, did she express sadness and sympathy to the families that suffered tragic loss of lives and properties? Did she ever think about not to be offensive to 1.3 billion Chinese people while expressing her concerns over the Chinese government? Of course not, this was because her audience was those who elect her in the USA, not the Chinese people whose feeling was not really her concern. She may have a political need to show how tough she was too. However, It is too easy to say something aggressive about human rights and Tibet. It is a cheap shot and anybody can do it. Instead, it is extremely difficult to express strong concerns over human rights AND to make it clear that the USA wants to grow a constructive relationship with China and the USA respects and cares for the Chinese people. Compare her performance to what Mr. McCain said about the tragedy in Tibet and you will immediately notice the skillful balance and the political experience that Mr. McCain enjoys.
It seems that some Western politicians would rather embrace extreme approaches. They either kiss up in Beijing or make dumb remarks or dumb moves that are deeply irritating to an ordinary Chinese citizen and help to drive him or her to the tune of Beijing. For example, Ms. Pelosi's talk about "international investigation" may be insulting to many ordinary Chinese citizens and help them believe what they read in the official Chinese paper about US hostility. Every time, a US aircraft carrier "sailed through Taiwan Strait to avoid bad weather", millions of young Chinese people become more supportive to Beijing's plan of military buildup.
As long as we have these super clever but very unwise politicians and strategists in DC, the Chinese Communist Party can lead the political and economic life in China forever, because our elected officials and "smart" media people are helping the Chinese Communist Party to achieve "national convergence with the central leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, especially when China is surrounded by hostile Western forces.” Maybe the CCP Central Committee is preparing a grand gala for some Western politicians and strategists as well as media gurus to thank them for their powerful and highly effective support of CCP leadership.
Why the American or Western politicians and the media do this? They are not dumb actually. The politicians do cheap shots against China to win popular support at home. The media’s goal is to say whatever people in the West want to hear to make money. They all know clearly this is bad for the people whom they are trying to serve, but they do not really care. Well, maybe they do, but serving the people would be their secondary if not tertiary priority. Power and money must be the primary objectives.
Democracy comes with a steep price. Myopic strategy and irresponsible political and military act to win popular support so as to hang on to power is one of the down-sides of representative political systems. While nothing in the world is perfect, these intrinsic flaws of Western style democracy have been proven to be costly, especially for a strong country that has a tendency of excessive reliance on military solutions
Posted by eaglet | March 24, 2008 8:00 AM
OK. i'll set some simple facts straight:
1 TIME is one of foreign media, which is suffering different levels of cersorship in China by our government.
2 China Daily belongs to the goverment.
3 I trust China Daily more.
Will Mr. Daily Editor tell me which one above is false? Thanks for your english-teaching job.
Posted by dongdong | March 24, 2008 8:25 AM
@ eaglet
You have the point, though it's the topic Simon never want to discuss, neither CNN nor TIME.
Posted by chorasmian | March 24, 2008 8:34 AM
hehe,
To American, it is called Patriotic. But, to Chinese, it is called "Tediously Nationalistic".
Simon, you will never be a righteous person when you keep sticking your prejudiced head into the sands.
Posted by ablogger | March 24, 2008 8:41 AM
The truth：
http://news.qq.com/a/20080321/000213.htm
I love my country
Posted by audibm | March 24, 2008 8:43 AM
Foreigners witness riots in Lhasa
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/23/content_7842872.htm
Posted by audibm | March 24, 2008 8:55 AM
5 girls burned to death in Lhasa riot
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/20/content_7826369.htm
Posted by audibm | March 24, 2008 8:58 AM
I feel that the US media and politicians for their short-term gain are compromsing the future for their children.
The window to effectively contain China has gone. It is time to learn how to live with China and strivce for partnership.
Also, it is extremely inappropriate to get 1.3 billion Chinese on the wrong side. The USA already has a huge intensive hostile population to deal with where a number of deadly terrorists are popping up every five minutes.
The USA needs China and China depends on the US. It is a world of interdependency and interconnectivity. Those who do not get what globalization mean will be abandoned by history.
Posted by eaglet | March 24, 2008 9:03 AM
I feel that the US media and politicians for their short-term gain are compromising the future for their children.
The window to effectively contain China has gone. It is time to learn how to live with China and strive for partnership.
Also, it is extremely inappropriate to get 1.3 billion Chinese on the wrong side. The USA already has a huge intensively hostile population to deal with where a number of deadly terrorists are popping up every five minutes.
The USA needs China and China depends on the USA. It is a world of interdependency and interconnectivity. Those who do not get what globalization means will be abandoned by history
Posted by eaglet | March 24, 2008 9:05 AM
What a ridiculous history lesson. I will never choose your course if you are really a teacher. Let's simplify your absurd logic with few words:
You guys of the author of this blog are now living in Hong Kong. You have a house which you have bought it by yourself. There are other houses beside you, and a resturant is located there. You of cause speak English in your house and even in the resturant because I don't believe you can speak Chinese as well as me. The resturant is selling US foods. You live your life with the customs just like you are living in the US. Someday you made a call in the resturant to your friend saying that you were declaring independence.
Can these facts justify that this resturant and your house can be an "independent country" not governed by the Hong Kong government? Can these facts justify your conduct of killing others who is speaking Chinese in this resturant?
I was to take the above example with an Indian family or a black family in the US. But I did not because I don't wanna make myself like an extreme nationalist, and I don't wanna offend you because I understand you guys are not bad men. How about you?
Posted by Donnie | March 24, 2008 10:04 AM
i am a indian. dear editor. i donot understand why my own rich land now became a country named America? although we have cacique, soldiers, government ...but all were killed...
Posted by alan2001 | March 24, 2008 10:46 AM
Wow, I am so overwhelmed (and not in a good way) by the level of self-delusion in some of the comments. There is a difference between "patriotic" and blindly coming down on any commentary that's not perfectly pro-China.
What kind of garbage has the Chinese educational system put into you people's heads?? China's not going to be a world-class nation in a decade because free speech and cultural values are so blindingly absent, and without it the sleeping dragon will never wake from its sleep and shake the world. We are pretty far away from the cultural revolution, but obviously your verbiage is still colored by that dark time.
There's nothing wrong in loving your country, but it is a huge problem to not be able to deal with a different point of view. It is bad for China. You people have no right to call Simon racist, if you really want to open up a discussion and let the world know China, first you need to get on his level. I'd stop reading this blog if his view is ever in harmony with yours.
These comments are SO embarrassing to me as a Chinese-American. Talk about brainwashed, I gotta hand it to the CCP, they are master-class. It's called a discussion, hypocrites, learn it. And don't go running to McDonald's/Starbucks, and don't go lusting after luxury brands like Louis Vuitton and Prada, then we'll talk about how globalization pains you so and how it's destroying the "glorious" PRC.
Posted by karin | March 24, 2008 10:54 AM
Thank you Simon, I do appreciate your courage to acknowledge the facts and put forward a revised version in future writings in response to my posting to you.
As to the "mouthpiece" term (or the not-so-derogative 喉舌 in Chinese), it is a somewhat sad but accepted reality of all official news media staffs in China at the current stage of journalistic development. However, like most of my colleagues, I firmly believe the future environment for journalism in China will only head for the better, as is evident if you compare today's People's Daily with 15 years ago. Here, we are just being more realistic and patient than our Western counterparts :-)
Posted by Champson Liu | March 24, 2008 11:01 AM
the fact is not only the mainland chinese are piss off by the western media bias review. pretty much all the oversea chinese are piss off too. every chinese student i talk to in the university here in US was angry due to western medias bias view.
Posted by s002wjhwjh | March 24, 2008 11:04 AM
another fact is no country in the world recognize tibet as an independent state. and china is not gonna allow tibet separate from china. so you are basically wasting time try to said tibet should be free etc. its not gonna happen.
Posted by s002wjhwjh | March 24, 2008 11:07 AM
Simon,
I'm a Chinese-American, born and bred here in the States. In a way, you may actually be more Chinese than I am. My contact with Chinese culture tends to be limited to my phone calls with my parents.
I have to confess I haven't really know much or thought much about Tibet, so your history lesson and the subsequent commentary on it was not wasted on me.
My question is this - and I'm hoping I will get a reply from you, as I am curious to see how you view it, but it seems hypocritical to argue Tibet's case from a historical context.
We as a country were built from a patchwork of annexed Native American nations. Manifest Destiny and "sea-to-sea" came at the price of broken treaties, broken cultures and at the end of the day, broken people. There were few willing people back then to turn the plight of the Native Americans into a cause celebre. If the end result - the expansion of territory at the expense of another culture and country - is the same, then how is this different from our history?
And before the Chinese nationalists up top jump on this: I don't think China should be in Tibet. As an American, I believe very strongly in the concepts of democracy and self-determination. I think that ethnically seperate people should be independent and free to decide their own course in history. In a peace time scenario, no one country has the right to force themselves on another country, unless there is a clear act of war. However, I'm given to understand that we like to that by invading other countries for no clear reason. Regardless of who does it. It is wrong. We may accept it, but it is wrong.
Posted by Yes we can? | March 24, 2008 11:12 AM
Karin and all westerner readers,
I am sorry for letting you read so much Chinese people who get so called poor education writing in English.
How about you? Can you even read a Chinese sentence without dictionary? Have you had ever take a Chinese language test? What's your score?
At least, we can express ourselves in poor ENGLISH. How about you? Have your elegant education given you any Chinese historic knowledge in details?
Mr. Simon Elegant may stand on a very very very high level and he is writing blogs for you westerners. But now he is speaking Chinese issue. His logic in this post is wrong. He is cheating you westerners but not us. You should blame him because anyone with patient will find the mistakes in his logic.
We are not fool. No one will be more desirous than ourselves wanna China turning to a modern country with freedom and civilization. Don't ever always think you are right only because you can speak English ... IF YOU ARE REALLY A WELL-EDUCATED MAN.
Posted by Donnie | March 24, 2008 11:26 AM
hey,Yankee!,how about your Hawaii island?how about your Alaska?In the HISTROY they both are't your? why don't your own it ?well,you may say,we bought them from others,so they r ours.but we know that,it's just a trade.But don't you know tibet is always a part of china,they didn't bought from anybody.i know in your brain are all money,like your americans treat Indian,you encroached their place,you splited them,you think their lands are yours ,just beacuse they didn't bought it which they had lived for many many years from anyone!how dirty of you!
Do you know histroy?do you know china?
go back your home and read some histroy before you want say some thing about CHINA and TIBET
Posted by keanutcy | March 24, 2008 11:36 AM
I do have concerns about the "double standards" created by the international human-rights groups. If Nancy Pelosi is the official representative of human-rights groups, the human-rights groups have made the majority of Chinese peoples disappointed. The Chinese are also human beings. The Chinese people have rights to enjoy peaceful and prosperous life in Lhasa and elsewhere. The ordinary Chinese people have rights to enjoy protections from a strong government.
Nancy Pelosi has failed to respect the basic human desires of the majority of ordinary Chinese people. It will not help improve the human-rights standard of China by insulting the Chinese government with something like an “international independent investigation”. Do you mean that China was so incapable that it could not handle its internal affair?
Posted by Mimi | March 24, 2008 11:52 AM
RE karin:
Interesting post. You'll forgive me for saying so, but it seems to be 'garbage', to borrow your own phrase, guised as 'honest criticism' from one of the 'good Chinese' (ie, a Chinese American). A bit of a self-righteous garbage rant at that, filled with a great deal of hostile and negative stream-of-thought assertions.
For example, what precisely is this supposed to mean? "We are pretty far away from the cultural revolution, but obviously your verbiage is still colored by that dark time." The language of the cultural revolution was a language of class struggle against 'backwards elements' in the party, a language exhorting the praises of Chairman Mao, a language of the angry youth which, in fact, tore up and tore down the established party governance. So...what posts are colored by those things? I'm unable to see any, but feel free to elucidate.
Alternately, how about this comment? "There's nothing wrong in loving your country, but it is a huge problem to not be able to deal with a different point of view. It is bad for China [...] Talk about brainwashed." Do you have such a hostile, self-righteously indignant stance against the many, MANY Americans who are blindly (and proudly) patriotic, and who will brook no criticism of the United States, no matter how deserved? It seems like you are asserting that in order to be highly patriotic towards one's country, one must be brainwashed...if in fact that country is China.
"And don't go running to McDonald's/Starbucks, and don't go lusting after luxury brands like Louis Vuitton and Prada, then we'll talk about how globalization pains you so and how it's destroying the "glorious" PRC." Heck, I'm not even sure where the hell this one comes from; the only place globalization was mentioned in these comments was in a previous post where globalization was equated with the 'cultural genocide' which the Dalai Lama claims is going on in Tibet. It wasn't a particularly complanative comment, it was a comparative comment. Is that comment inaccurate? It seems pretty spot on to me, referencing how globalization is destroying local foods and customs (golden arches, whee!), supplanting local languages (with English), increasing conversions to different religions, etc. etc., all of which is happening in Tibet as well, and has the Dalai Lama (whom I respected tremendously) quite distressed.
I could go on, but I'll stop.
If you'll forgive me for saying so, your post embodies much of that is bad about people with hostile views of China. Those who disagree with you or have strongly held beliefs, inaccurate as they may be, must be 'brainwashed'. You infantilize those who disagree with you, deriding their education while ignoring the fact that they are able to articulate their thoughts and opinions in another language far more coherently than (most likely) you could even dream of. And under your delusion of self-righteousness, you dismiss the beliefs of others as inconsequential, simply because you disagree with them.
Hmm. Actually, I take that back. Your post isn't emblematic of people with hostile views of China. It's emblematic of your standard self-important hack who appear on the sidelines of any political discussion.
Cheers!
Zhangsan
PS: I'm also Chinese American, US raised. Does that 'strengthen' my post, as you seem to feel it 'strengthened' yours? Let me know, I'll tell people about it more often. Cheers!
Posted by Zhangsan | March 24, 2008 12:02 PM
Thanks, Simon.
First sorry for my poor english.
Also, sorry for those tediously nationalistic like you said.
I'm a Han Chinese, by the way. And I've lived in Tibet for 1 year.
Let's put history away. I believe both Beijing and Dharamsala can give a lot of documents about the historical relation of Tibet and China. Arguments about this can be endless and won't help to solve the problem.
I know, based on morality, if most tibetans want so desperately to be independent, neither history and current rule can say no.
But, it is just based on morality. Saddly, that's not how the world is running today.
Cross a line from east-south to weast-north end and from west-south to east-north end of China, you'll find the geographic center of China is at the Tianshui, Gansu province. if Tibet is independent, the border of China and Tibet is only 100km from today's center. And two biggest city in West China, Chengdu and Chongqing, are only 300-500km from the border.
Dalai Lama's "Great Tibet" is one quater of China's land today. And now there are also many many other ethnic people living there. But what Dalai wants is to build a pure Tibetan nation.
It's hard to say he is wrong, but it will be very very difficult and bring a lot of other problems. It's sad but true.
Believe it or not, if China now has a elected goverment, the majority of nationalistic can make it even harder to solve it. Maybe it'll still take decades for the public be willing to considering the possibility of letting Tibet independent ( only considering the possibility :( ).
The Tibet issue is really really complex. Like i say, morally there should not be any problem about the tibet issue. But we all live in real world, Where many western people are over weight and poor kids in Africa are facing starvation. Will 13 billion people give 1/4 of their land to another 3 million people at this age when resource is so valuable?
I'm not defending them or criticizing them. Just wanna to tell my feeling. At this point, i fell sad for both the Chinese and Tibetan.
Tibetan want their freedom, which can't be wrong. But can you just blame the Chinese? If have to blame 13 billion people for sth, we may really need to blame the huminity and how the world is becoming today??
Also, CCP is of coz stupid at handing the riots. but even the CCP goverment is gone, there is still no abvious solution to the tibet issue. Forget the "Genuine Autonomy", Everybody knows it's just one step to the final independence. CCP will also not to consider that, not like Hongkong, 1/4 of land to be democratic while the rest is under centralized government can be totally disaster for CCP.
That's the real sadness.
Posted by rogerlee | March 24, 2008 12:12 PM
I wanted to rant about my perception of the bias against China in Western media. But before I ever got to do that, it occurred to me that it's really worth appreciating the opportunity this space provided that allowed this discussion to happen. I hope everyone can learn something from the comments, even the ones you consider "garbage".
Posted by Zhihua | March 24, 2008 12:13 PM
I wanted to rant about my perception of the bias against China in Western media. But before I ever got to do that, it occurred to me that it's really worth appreciating the opportunity this space provided that allowed this discussion to happen. I hope everyone can learn something from the comments, even the ones you consider "garbage".
Posted by Zhihua | March 24, 2008 12:13 PM
To the IT staff, this comment system sometimes displays an error message to the user posting a comment even though the comment has been successfully posted. Hence the double/triple postings.
Posted by Zhihua | March 24, 2008 12:18 PM
Logic please. May I explain it to you? No matter you like or not, the fact is that Tibet has being part of china 300 years ago, and international community recognizes it.
so!!!
Quote: when military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community
------------------which one are your dissatisfied? Happened --- Ad 1720 or Ad 1951????
Do you want to ba la ba la some tedious democracy save china or disagreement what happen in 1720?
It is very sad for human being that country always found via a lot of violence.
However, Tibet has being part of china 300 years ago, and international community recognizes it.
So you can not criticize that china government send military power to Tibet for control situation in 1951. It is a domestic affair.
Quote: the fact that Tibetans speak a totally different language and have completely separate culture and customs.
------------------ I do not think that this is the reason why a country should be separate. Think about the slaughter in Kosovo. Further more, when we talk about centre government crackdown Tibet, please consider the fact: Tibet was slavery society until 1951.
Posted by zheng_tang | March 24, 2008 12:21 PM
Logic please. May I explain it to you? No matter you like or not, the fact is that Tibet has being part of china 300 years ago, and international community recognizes it.
so:!!!
Quote: when military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community
------------------which one are your dissatisfied? Happened --- Ad 1720 or Ad 1951?
Do you want to ba la ba la some tedious democracy save china or disagreement what happen in 1720?
It is very sad for human being that country always found via a lot of violence.
However, Tibet has being part of china 300 years ago, and international community recognizes it.
So you can not criticize that china government send military power to Tibet for control situation in 1951. It is a domestic affair.
Quote: the fact that Tibetans speak a totally different language and have completely separate culture and customs.
------------------ I do not think that this is the reason why a country should be separate. Think about the slaughter in Kosovo. Further more, when we talk about centre government crackdown Tibet, please consider the fact: Tibet was slavery society until 1951.
Posted by zheng_tang | March 24, 2008 12:22 PM
This is a wonderful source of data for analyzing how today's Chinese think and collect information and what they understand as the real world and various other concepts like patriotism, country, nation, race, racism, biasness, etc. Wonder, wonderful. Thanks to all participants.
Posted by John Smith | March 24, 2008 12:28 PM
I am doing law and i am writing a paper on Tibet. I run through all the arguments of both sides and apparently the Chinese side is better supported. There are formal agreement, historical evidence, Tibetan government official statement, and the fact that they participated the drafting of Chinese constitution, etc, etc while the actual time of annexation might be disputed. It is too clear Tibet has been part of China.
However, from the today's international law perspective, China's claim is indeed somewhat flawed in light of the the principle of self-determination. That's where people challenge the legitimacy of Chinese rule. Is there anyone who can establish a counter argument?
Posted by Danny | March 24, 2008 12:51 PM
RE Danny:
The term I believe you are looking for is 'fait accompli'.
Self determinism does not trump British rule over North Ireland; self determinism does not trump Russian rule over Chechnya; self determination self determinism does not trump American rule over Hawaii. And, historically, self determinism did not allow the Confederate states to secede from the Union. Self determinism is a nebulous, hard-to-define principle which is even harder to apply; for all practical purposes though, it is only really applicable in situations where the will and/or ability of the region to secede is greater than the will and/or ability of the controlling nation to prevent it from doing so. Certainly, that is not the case in Tibet!
There is a reason why there isn't a single government in the world that supports Tibet independence, even though many urge China (and rightly so) to be more lax in its stewardship of Tibet.
Posted by Zhangsan | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM
We don't live in a perfect world. Double standards are everywhere. Only the strong inherit the earth. Amazon Indians can't demand a homeland from Brazil, Australian aboriginies can't agitate for a nation state, gypsies in Eastern Europe can't have a kingdom, etc etc. Tibet can't have independence because China is just too strong for her.
The thing that bothers me the most is the moral tone of Western commentators on Tibet: they think they are so morally superior than others. They conveniently forget their own history, which is full of atrocities against people of other races. Just listen to Nancy Pelosi, replete with phrases like "freedom loving" , "moral right" etc, etc. Its so bloody condescending! And, Simon Elegant's words: "military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community." Hey, why is America in Iraq? Double standards everywhere.
Posted by zestndo | March 24, 2008 1:29 PM
Karin:
It's fun to read your post, which is of course embarrassing for me as a Chinese man.
It's not that we, the Chinese people, are stupidly and blindly angry with all westerners who are non pro-China, but only those who take a biased stance without thinking with their brains. If you critisize our government, and what you say is objectively right, then there is no way we Chinese will, like you put it, blindly come down on any commentary. Different views are welcomed by the Chinese people, but not ruthless groundless slanders.
As you said, China will never be a world-class nation because free speech doesn't exist. Actually history proves you were wrong. Think about the old great empires and you know the answer.
Talking about Brainwashing, I am speechless. If that becomes your excuse for not being able to explain ordinary Chinese people's indignation over some biased western media, then I am afriad I would rather be brainwashed. I read Economists, New York Times, Time, etc. all the time, and seldom touch newspapers here. Yet I am still brainwashed in your eyes. The question is: has it to be our problem? or has it even ever occurred to you that YOU might be getting incorrect information rather than us? Or have you ever thought if what your media keeps telling you is not accurate all the time? I guess not. You say we are brainwashed just simply because we don't agree with you.
I don't know why you mention Starbucks, Prada or LV. None of them seems to be irrelevant to what we are talking about. But one thing I am sure of is that the Chinese growing purchasing capacity is supporting all these enterprises, and it won't hurt us not go to Macdonalds/Starbucks, or buy luxuries, as we always have Made-in-China to replace them. To be fair, most Chinese go to Chinese restaurants if we want to eat real food. Take the example of me, I only go to Macdonalds when I am too hungry to wait and need something in my stomache immediately. And we love drinking tea.
If you call us hopycrities, then what will that make you? just to be fair.
Posted by Xinqiang | March 24, 2008 1:36 PM
A little history too, by western historian. Enjoy.
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Posted by Xi
|
March 24, 2008 1:47 PM
I will give you more lies about Tibet in Western academic and media:
1. Dalai Lama's relationship between him and the Central Government is a priest-patron relationship.
Bullcrap. Westerners tried to use the relationship between Pope and Kings of Cathonic countries as an exampe. The fact was that in ancient China, the secular ruler is always above any religion leaders and any religions are part of society that ruled by secular rulers. When Altan Khan gave Sonam Gytzo the title of Dalai Lama, himself was a khan titled by Ming Emperor after his attempt to restore "Northern Yuan" back to Beijing and unifying various Mongol tribes failed. Also Dalai means ocean in Mongolian, and the Mongolian word for the highest rule called Chiggis (Heaven). That pretty much said who is the boss there.
The fact was that the 4th Dalai Lama was a Mongolian and after 5th Dalai Lama Tibet was ruled by Mongol Khan as a subordinate of Qing empeirors were well based facts.
2. Chinese central government has no right to approve the title for Dalai Lama.
Crazy. EVERY single Dalai Lama need approval from Central Government. Including the current 14th Dalai Lama.
3. China divided Great Tibet into today's Tibet after 1950.
Westerners tried to brainwash their own people. Great Tibet existed wayback at 876. After peace loving Lamas assasinated the last king of Tibet, there is no such thing called Great Tibet anymore.
4. China murdered 1.2 millions of Tibet during 1956-1959 rebellions.
Probaby the biggest lie ever in West. Until Patrick French cannot go against his heart, he pointed out it is a big lie.
Posted by coolhead | March 24, 2008 2:31 PM
RE coolhead: To be fair, 0.5m isn't that much better than 1.2m....
Posted by Zhangsan | March 24, 2008 2:59 PM
Recall the Rodney King riots in LA. Remember how the whites were attacked by blacks in predominantly black neighborhoods. Remember how resentment over the years of the Koreans taking over a previously mixed neighborhood along Western Avenue in LA. How these angry, frustrated black people even burned down their own neighborhoods in addition to destroying all the Korean merchant shops.
This world needs OBAMA - the primary cause is not Tibet being an independent nation historically. It is simply the influx of too many Han Chinese, and the more serene and primitive culture of the Tibetans cannot compete against this "invasion". This is the same as the American Indians being decimated, killed and destroyed by the White man and aborigines in Australia.
Many of the previous posts are correct. Telling another country like China to have an independent Tibet and NOT tell yourselves in America, Australia, NZ, etc. etc. to have independent BLACK separatist nations, etc. is LOGIC at its worse. Simon, that is what frustrates the Chinese. Your logic and your holier than thou actitude clearly shows the mentality of having eaten your own piece of cake now wants another persons.
OBAMA is a leader of great vision and understanding. Let us hope that America will elect him president so that we can truly move to the 21st century and get away from telling other countries what to do when we don't understand what has happened.
It is simply a case to too many Han Chinese in Tibet and the Tibetans could not compete against a technologically and commercially more superior (not better as humans) group just as the Blacks at this time cannot compete against the Whites, except in sports and music.
The Chinese government has failed to some degree of protecting the Tibetans from the onslaughts of the Han Chinese. That is where they failed!!
Posted by rabbitgirl | March 24, 2008 3:32 PM
"putting things in perspective) was by Mongols, not Chinese"It's also worth noting that the 1306 annexation Mr. Liu refers to (actually, most historians put the annexation at 1246, which happens to have also been when China was incorporated into the Mongol empire, putting things in perspective) was by Mongols, not Chinese.
I don't know much about Tibet. But as a Chinese, I know your opinion about "by Mongols ,not Chinese" is wrong. The culture combination of Mongols and Chinese took place after the Qing dynasty was established. It's one the most famous and successful culture combination in Chinese history.
Minority cultures are crucial to the country's development. The founder of Tang Dynasty was also a half-breed. And Tang Dynasty was famous for it's generous to all kind of cultures. That's why it developed so quickly.
I'm sure nobody can write a Chinese history by telling Mongols are not Chinese. Today Mongols are Chinese(I mean those offsprings of the conquerers hundreds years ago).
Sorry for my poor English.
Posted by Lily_Yao | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM
History AND Little History(from CNN's report)
:http://weizhoushiwang.blogbus.com/files/12061058930.jpg
Posted by Lily_Yao | March 24, 2008 4:58 PM
the local Tibetans were also attacked and hurt or even badly injured in the "protest".
how to explain that if the things happened in these days are just about the so said "a fight for independence"? it is not about the freedom of speech and the freedom to do things; it is a totally extremely violence, and a lot of innocent people if suffering that!
so, please, don't play those games on words such a history and states, it is worthless, really.
why don't you spend some time to call for peace instead of that "useless free to express"?
Posted by DiamRem | March 24, 2008 5:53 PM
Dear Readers,
Glad to see you all have come out to voice your dissatisfaction with Simon Elegant's biased views against China.
Hope you will continue to appear in all US/UK media to correct their mistakes.
I have decided to start a "China Blog" so we can weigh in on issues concerning Chinese.
http://chinablog.typepad.com
The Chinese through its course of history have developed a great deal of wisdom. The world will be more peaceful if it gets to hear what China has to offer.
Many people in the West do things to hurt China, but mostly they are for short-term gains in things often not related to China at all.
I would like to dampen the feelings of hostility. I would also like to assure you that China is on the correct trajectory in its integration with the world.
Posted by huaren
|
March 24, 2008 6:07 PM
Dear Simon:
I am a casual China Blog reader. You little history on Tibet makes me feel sad. By the way, I am a Han Chinese and had lived in Florida the past 10 years. I happen to be a Time Inc. employee. Draw whatever conclusion you can from that. I can not do anything if you call me just another brainwashed Chinese nationalist.
I found it is ignorant and insulting in your logic to equal Chinese to only Han people. That alone may show just how little the west truly knows about China. What the logic is by bring up the different language and culture between Tibetan and Han Chinese? Along that line, there should not be a Taiwan issue for China now as both sides speak the same language and share the same culture. I wish the world is that simple.
Before you talk about Tibet history, I’d recommend some essays and books for you to read, if you had not done so. They are from some renowned western Tibet experts. They are not exactly singing praises for the Chinese government. At least, they build their research works on historical facts:
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth by Michael Parenti
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
The Snow Lion and the Dragon by Melvyn C. Goldstein
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft2199n7f4/
Here is an excerpt from Melvyn C. Goldstein’s book:
"While issues such as cultural survival and population transfer will be discussed, this book does not focus specifically on violations of individual human rights in Tibet, such as abusing prisoners or arresting monks for peaceful political demonstrations. These rights violations exist and are deplorable, but they are not at the heart of the problem. The Tibet Question existed long before there was a People's Republic of China, and it also predates the recent Western interest in universal human rights. In fact, if there were no human rights violations in Tibet and if Tibetans could, for example, practice peaceful political dissent, the Tibet Question would be every bit as contentious as it now is. The Tibet Question is about control of a territory—about who rules it, who lives there, and who decides what goes on there."
I had read many comments from various sources (BBC, ABCNews, CNN, Fox….). One thing is perfectly clear. Many western media had already made up their mind and tune when report the Tibet riot (or most any other thing China related). The logic is pretty much what happened in the western history (Native Indian, Aboriginal…etc.) is a long time ago. We can do it. You can not. We have free press so that automatically make us informed and thinking person. All the Chinese are brainwashed by the propaganda. In US, when one loves his/her country, it is patriotism. For Chinese, it is always nationalism. For Tibetan violent protest, it is called fight for freedom. For those innocent people lost their lives, who cares their human rights. All Chinese are pretty much guilty of having not overthrown the government…You are a smart person. It’s not hard to see the pattern here. The audience love to hear how bad China is and how miserable the people are. The media just serve what is in popular demand. The real question is: who are ignorant and being brainwashed now?
Posted by xchaos360 | March 24, 2008 6:24 PM
Simon writes "We are supposed to be living in an age when peoples are more free to express themselves --and rule themselves--and when military occupation of what is clearly a totally separate country is not acceptable to the international community."
Simon not only does not have a good grasp of China, but he also does not have a good grasp of democracy.
First, China is not a military state. Western press like to characterize China as a military empire set on ruling over a terrorized citizen.
A few years ago, I even read the Western press rant about Tibet being in persistent state of virtual military lock down.
Well, China is not a military state. Not only was the military nowhere to be seen, the police was also woefully under prepared for riots. Now that security forces are sent in (wouldn't any responsible do similarly?), I gather reporters like Simon is going to characterize China as a military state again...
Simon assumes that the 5-6 million Tibetan Chinese would all like to be independent. Such is assumed by the Western press all the time.
I suppose if the Dali Lama hints at that, it must be true. Alternatively, a few people throwing rocks protesting about their socioeconomic conditions must otherwise make it true...
Second regarding people's right to "rule themselves" - Simon seems to have a child-like understanding of democracy.
Democracy does not guarantee people's right to "rule themselves" at all. Unless there is democracy at the individual level (in the preposterous proposition of one person, one state), there will always be a minority that live under the "tyranny" of a majority.
If democracy truly guarantees "self rule," why were the black nationalists of the early to mid 20th century in America not granted their own homeland and country? Why did the U.S. fight the civil war? Why were native Americans not granted independence? Why should Israel be continued to oppress Arabs in the Arab's homeland? Why can Spain be allowed to fight Basque separatism?
I can go on and on and on...
Posted by Allen Yu | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM
@Zhangsan,
Even 0.5M is way overblown. The sure number probably was 87000. We all know Tibetans are little prone to exagerate things.
Posted by coolhead | March 24, 2008 8:43 PM
Simon:
You guy have a marble-brain.It's too hard to disccuse everything on history with you. You are washed your brain by the western media and also hopelessness. you are wrong,definitely.You know nothing on Chinese history at all. Shame on you.
Posted by Chinaren | March 24, 2008 8:47 PM
The following is something I posted on a politics forum. I copied it here.
-----------------------------------------------
Ok, let me make something clear first. Nobody here seems really clear about either Chinese history or Tibet history.
1. China never invaded Tibet. Tibet once was a country before 822, but after that year, it has remained as a part of China no matter the change of central Chinese government and which ethnic group leader lead the government. I gave some intermarriage information between Han and Tibet only to show that the integration of Tibet into China is a natural process. By the way, at that time the buddism in Tibet is quite different from now and the religious sect Dalai and Panchen Lama belong to didn't even exist. The interchange of Tibet and Han began even many years before Jesus was born. Tibet and Han are have very close relationship before the integration.
In 641, the King of Tibet married a famous Han princess and Potala Palace in Lhasa was established for her. Because she believed buddism, this religion began to thrive in Tibet. If not for this Han princess, Dalai and Panchen Lama won't even exist. For the next over 200 years, every King of Tibet married a princess from Tang and every king admitted officially he was the son-in-law of Han emperor.
In 821, king of Tibet sent people to the capital of Tang Dynasty and asked to be a part of China.
In 822 and 823, the ambassador from Tang met King of Tibet at Lhasa and agreed that "China and Tibet should be one part". They signed an agreement of integration. This document is well kept in National Library of China.
In 1032, the emperor of Song dynasty had begun to appoint and authorize Tibetan Nobles as the leader of part of Tibet.
In 1271, Tibet became a province of Yuan dynasty. And since then, it has remains as such.
The change of the dynasties of Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing and Public of China and People's Republic of China is just the change of governments controlling this country of China.
2. Yuan was founded by Mongolian, Kubla Khan, not Han. In 1271, he claimed the title of "Shi Emperor of China". He called himself Chinese. Mogolia and Han are different ethinic groups, but they are all Chinese. The long-lasting rebellions during Yuan dynasty is between Han and Mogolian, not between 2 countries. Yuan dynasty is part of Chinese history.
3. I give a full map of Ming dynasy here:
http://www.sinomaps.com/luntan/non-cgi/usr/39/39_121.jpg
During Ming, the prince of Tibet had to be approved and authorized by the emperor of Ming dynasty to be a king of Tibet. Otherwise nobody would admit his position in Tibet. Some of the local officials had to be appointed by the emperor.
4. Qing dynasty was founded by Manchus, another Chinese ethnic group, and continued the administration of Tibet.
In 1652, Dalai Lama went to Beijing to meet the emperor.
In 1653, the title of Dalai Lama was approved and authorized by the emperor.
In 1713, the title of Panchen Lama was approved and authorized by the emperor.
In 1727, the emperor appointed the Governor of Tibet to represent the central government in Beijing.
In 1750, the Governor of Tibet and Dalai Lama governed Tibet together.
5. In 1913, the Governor of Tibet was killed and Dalai Lama claimed he had the power to rule over the whole Tibet with the support from Britain. The British and Dalai Lama regulated Mc Mahon Line to divide the control over Tibet, but the Chinese central government refused to sign the agreement and never recogized the autonomy of Tibet.
Don't tell me British went there for "free trade". Then Tibetan people didn't even understand what "free trade" means. Ye, "Free trade" first, then turned Tibet into 2nd India, just like what they did to India. The british there fighted with the Russians for control over Tibet. They were the invaders to Tibet.
6. For almost 50 years, Chinese from different parties and the westerns from Britain, U.S., France, German, Russia, Japan, Italy, Austria, etc. had been fighting for the control over China after Qing dynasty. At that time, China almost became half colony of the westerns. The most crucial problem during that time was the existence of Chinese, everybody is busy in wars and nobody have time to consider an isolated province like Tibet. As a matter of fact, then China was falling apart, almost every general and every province in China claimed to be independent and fighted for larger territory and cotrol over the whole China.
In 1949, Communists won and founded the People's Republic of China. The new government decided to liberate Tibet peacefully and there was no armed conflicts happened in Tibet.
In 1951, Tibet local government agreed to continue to be a province of China and slaves were liberated. Before 1951, more than 95% of Tibetans were slaves belonged to aristocrats and Lamas. Dalai Lama was the biggest slave owner. He signed the liberation agreement himself.
During that time, Dalai Lama's political position is kind of in the middle because Beijing gave the word to ensure his spiritual position and his personal assets. The only problem was that he wouldn't have the slaves and wouldn't have the right to kill people as his will, but surely he could have servants. But U.S. and Dalai Lama's Nazi private tutor kept on persuading him to leave China. He hesitated for 10 years and finally chose to believe his teacher and left China in 1959.
7. Everybody said if Most Tebetan wanted to be independent, then they had the right to be independent. But where do you get the idea of most Tibetans wanted to be independent? Most Tibetans are still living in Tibet. Do you really believe the opinions of former slave owners are the opinions of most Tibetans? Tibet rioters are not protestants, they are terrorists. Most of them are monks and the decendents of former slave owners.
8. Britain never really gained control over Tibet in history, but it never stopped trying. Tibet is bordered with India and back then India had become the colony of Britain. What do you think the purpose of Britain to do everything to back up Lamas and slave owners in Tibet? For "free trade"? Ye, befriended with slave owners while most Tibetans didn't even understand the meaning of "free". How do you think how the empire on which the sun never sets was founded? Through armed invasion and "free trade". The Britain had wars with Russia to fight for the control over Tibet.
9. Under the 15 dalai lamas less tibetans died due to suppression than in the 50 years of Chinese rule. Slavery and torture still exist in China today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ya it's true less tibetans died due to suppression than in the 50 years of Chinese rule, because most Tibetans back then died due to slavery! They were killed by poverty, by heavy labour, by disease and by monks for the religious purpose. And many times they were killed simply for fun or because their masters were in a bad mood. Slavery does not exist in China today, if you don't believe it, come here and see it by yourself. One interesting thing is that I often heard some news that some American teenagers were kept as slaves by some modern American people. In 2007, an investigation report of U.S. teenage sex slaves were submitted to UN by China.
What you watched on TV is only what the government wants you to see, wherever it's in China or in U.S., there's no complete speech freedom in this world. Just yesterday, I was forbidden to log on to another U.S. political forum simply because I posted only 2 videos which were publicized on Youtube. I didn't even post a word. And there are lots of websites about Tibet were blocked since yesterday. I have to say it's some other countries' trick because my friends in China still could log onto those websites. How do you explain this speech freedom here? Why can't these people stand the different voice? Have you ever wondered why so many Chinese, abroad or in China, fight for this unanimously while Chinese government appeared in your media usually did evil things? How could a government with almost no positive appearance in the western media be supported by so many Chinese?
10. In 03/1951, Loy Henderson, the U.S. Ambassador in India, reported to the Director of the Office of South Asian Affairs that he was tring to make U.S. a part of Tibet affairs. He met Heinrich Harrier, a Nazi and private teacher of Dalai Lama, and drafted the letter to encourage Dalai to go abroad. In the letter, he suggested Dalai to transfer money to SriLanka and if he cannot stay there, he was welcomed to U.S. This whole operations are called "Loy Project" and supported by Washington.
Acheson，Dean，then United States Deputy Secretary of State, agreed to provide financial support to Dalai, his supporters and their families. And this financial support from CIA continues today.
11. China spent loads of money in Tibet to make it a better place to live for the local Tibetans.
As for supporting immigration of Han into Tibet, because there's nobody in China, except Tibetans, realy wanted to live in Tibet. It's a poor place with beautiful views, and not everybody can live a life on anoxic plateaux at 3000 to 5000 m. There are lots of works need to be done and trained workers are highly demanded, this is why government encourages people to work there, whatever these people are Han are from other 55 ethnic groups.
And where do you get the idea of local Tibetans being discriminated? As a Chinese living in China for so many years, I have to say Tibetans have lots of priveliges in education, economics, health care, social welfare, etc., which Han would never have. Did you know Tibetans can have as many children as they want while Han can only have one child? Did you know the university entrance line for Tibetans is more than 60% lower than the entrance line for Han students? These are just 2 of many privileges Tibetans have in China.
Besides, many Tibetans hold the high positions in both local and central government and I don't see any Natives hold the similar high positions in any other coutries' government in the world.
As for the nature, development means destroy in some degree, wherever it's in the West or in the East. It happened everyday around the earth. Tibet is a unique place and also a very hard place to live even for the local Tibetans. By the way, most of Tibetans want to stay in Tibet and don't want to move anywhere even though they could achieve a better living elsewhere in China. If I have to choose between poor living with nature well protected and a much better living with slightly-damaged environment, I would go with the latter. After all, people have to live first, then have time and money to worry about other things. That's what the Chinese government is doing.
Besides, there is no employment discrimination to Tibetans exist in China. If you want to do a job, you have to qualify the requirements, right? If you are not qualified, the company has the right to employ somebody else. And it's your responsibility to study or work elsewhere to make yourself skilled and qualified. There are numerous all kinds of colleges, training schools and certificates training courses provided to every people. It's up to youself to learn and nobody can force you.
Talking about environment, everybody knows the western countries like U.S. are doing most of the damages to the environment of the whole earth. There are numerous facts supporting that. You can search by yourself. Please solve these most crucial environmental problems first.
Local tourism is administered by local government. The profit earned from local tourism is used for improving local's living. To limit the number of local guides and collect the entrance fee are to limit the number of foreign and Chinese tourists, which are damaging the local natural and cultural environments, and protect and repair the local cultural sites.
12. If somebody here have really studied the political system in Tibet and in China, (I mean real，independent study, not just read some articles written by some slaveowner-sponsored authors and visit some slaveowner-sponsored websites), you will see Tibet have already been a hightly self-government province. Tibetans have the freedom of religion, expression and voting rights, etc. just like what every Chinese have.
As far as I know, most of the high positions in Tibet provincial governm