A Little Understanding, Please

The problem between Han Chinese and ethnic minority is segregation. We have separate schools, separate holidays, separate dwellings and so on.
I can still recall from my childhood memory clips that Han Chinese wouldn't even want to be a next door neighbor to a Uyghur family in the same apartment building.
They only thing in common is perhaps the fact that we coexisted in the same city. We speak completely different languages and no single Han Chinese would learn a single Tibetan or Uyghur word. Our watches are set in accordance with Beijing time and theirs are set to Urumqi time. So in Xinjiang you have to ask what time zone you subscribe to in a conversation about time. Large businesses, public or private sector, are virtually monopolized by Han Chinese as they have the know-how and expertise. As economy grows, ethnic minority groups are invariably left behind. They rely largely on the small scale traditional businesses. And language barrier means they are doomed to fail in in job hunting.
But this dilemma can hardly be solved. Lack of qualified Chinese teachers in minority areas would hamper government's efforts for integration. Cancelation of minority schools will draw floods of accusation almost for sure. And this would also be interpreted as "cultural genocide". So what can be possibly done about this?

WHY ANGERED?

I never oppose understanding, so be it clear to him who reads this. Since many may be wondering why all of a sudden the Chinese became angry with western media, in this message I attempt to offer a clue. I can only speak for myself -- why I was angered.

I am a faithful audience of western media for nearly twenty years, and I am very much used to criticism on China, quite often with agreement and sometimes even amusement.

However, this time it felt very different. This time, the reports appeared not only biased, but also PROVOCATIVE. That's why I suddenly felt disillusioned with western media despite twenty years' enjoyment of them, and angered.

Such provocativeness may or may not be intentional (as Simon Elegant wrote in his blogs, he believes Tibet should be independent). In any case, isn't anger a very natural response to provocation?

Suppose I had a problem with my family: I would appreciate my neighbor giving me advice, but how could I stay calm at my neighbor trying to tear my household apart?

please note: the riot in tibet was made by mobs who belong to dalai,not by tibetan.tibetan are chinese too,and have been good relation with ethnic han.and have good life after government support.you western media try to fool innocent people that separating tibetan from chinese.if you don't know any thing ,then shut up,don't try to fool innocent people again. going back your contry and enriching your chinese history knowledge,then come again!

> Suppose I had a problem with my family: I would
> appreciate my neighbor giving me advice, but how
> could I stay calm at my neighbor trying to tear
> my household apart?

A more accurate analogy...

Suppose instead that you broke into your neighbor's house, kept the family that lived there hostage in that house's basement. You called your cousins over and had them begin loading the valuable items from the home into the back of your car so that your they could be taken to a pawn shop and sold.

Your wife and children are waiting at your own house. When they call you on your mobile to ask where you are or what you're up to, you tell them that your neighbor is giving you his house or that you discovered that he had somehow stolen it from your great, great, great, great grandfather.

When your cousins get back from their first trip to the store, you inform them that the house is now theirs to live in and that they're responsible for keeping the original owners of the house in line.

The captive family, if they behave well, may be permitted to venture out of the basement to cook and clean for your cousins. It's also in their best interest to imitate the speech and mannerisms of your cousins so as to make the cousins feel at ease (less chance of beatings or of your cousins deciding to deny them food or water). If the hostages attempt to to eject your cousins or signal neighbors for help, they'll be severely punished, possibly murdered.

When other families in the neighborhood ask what's going on in the house that you've taken over, you begin screaming at them about how the house belonged to your ancestors and how your own family is very poor and your cousins had no place else to live, etc. You repeatedly remind one of the people questioning you that their own great great great grandfather was a convicted murderer and tell them that they thus have no right to criticize what you yourself are doing right now.

Further inquiries and expressions of concern for the hostage family are met with threats of violence and you wave a tire iron in their faces and snarl at them.

I appreciate Austin Ramzy's calling for understanding. It's sad to see so many dog-fights around, just another prove for my pessimistic view.

Can westerner and Chinese understand each other well enough? No, I don't think so. Between Tibetan and Han Chinese? No. Between Tibetan and Westerner? No.

In this case, the only exemption is between CCP and Dalai lama, they understand each other far too perfectly.

It's an unbreakable deadlock.

Too Austin Ramzy:

"In fact, there are surprisingly few Tibetan voices being heard"

So far as I know, almost every Western media is speaking on Tibetan' behalf and support Dalai lama.

Western Media's biasd reports are undeniable when it comes to Tibet,can anyone name an outlet that show sympathy toward the innocent Han Chinese killed in the riots?

It is the Chinese voices that have been unheard!

Lucas O'Gara:

I suggest you to do some research before making that "more accurate analogy"

> So far as I know, almost every Western media is
> speaking on Tibetan' behalf and support Dalai
> lama.

The Dalai Lama is in exile in India, a liberal democracy in which reporters are free to conduct interviews and investigations without either government permission or government minders. He and other exiles are on TV a lot because the media have access to them.

On the other side, China ejected foreign reporters from Tibet and just today tried to take a small, handpicked crew of reporters on a carefully stage-managed tour of Lhasa that blew up in their face when a large group of monks broke free of the plainclothes security personnel inside a temple and tearfully spoke to the media about the repression going on, denied that the Dalai Lama is orchestrating the protests, informed the journalists that all of the worshipers at the temple that day had been chosen by government officials and bussed in, etc.

If the facts were in China's favor, they would have no reservations about allowing Western journalists to move freely within Tibet and interact with the locals without any supervision.

But they're not.

The PRC govt. is hiding the facts and attempting to deceive the rest of the world. That much is obvious.

2008mark, what I've written is quite accurate.

I suggest that you educate yourself a bit more and try to set aside the ingrained, reflexive nationalism that is obscuring your perception of the situation.

The Chinese communists have a long memory. It was the Dalai Lama who spurned them and threw in his lot with the CIA and the West. So, don't expect compassion from China's leaders now, especially so when China is getting even more powerful. Tibet is part of China now and nothing can change that, nothing! Having said that, I think it is time for the Chinese government to tweak its affirmative policies towards the Tibetans. Make Tibetans proud to be Chinese, proud to be part of the Chinese nation. And make those exiled Tibetans feel they are missing out!

> Tibet is part of China now and nothing can
> change that, nothing!

The Soviet leadership and Russians that had been resettled in the Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus, the states in the Caucasus region and the 'Stans in Central Asia would have said the same back in the 1980's if you'd asked them.

Time will tell.

Yes indeed Lucas O'Gara, you analogy is a very accurate description of what the European did and are doing in Austrlia, Canada, US.

If you are waiting for China to disintegrate, then you got hope in hell.

From the Chinese point of view, i think the solution is, instead of tolerance of their identity, try to assimilate the minority cultures into the mainstream. Chinese language is our national language and we should stop funding a second education system. Only those ethnic minority groups who do not adopt chinese language show signs of resistance to Chinese rule. Where Chinese language is introduced and the minority language is replaced, regardless the size of the population, there is no such resistance.

Lucas O'Gara and other folks,

Why don't you just be frank and honest, and say what you want to say, like John Smith's "Shameless Chinese" or Simon's "Little Scrappy Singapore"?

In that way, you feel good about yourself and we waste no time to know what you are trying to say.

I guess to most of westerns, Chinese people are a bunch of crooked, brainwashed, hopeless people, who deserve those burning, beatings and killing. Who need to care about what Chinese get and how Chinese feel? Their voices are meaningless comparing to those Tibetan killers. There is no need to say anything about those killed and burned because of they deserve it. The freedom of killing and murdering of Tibetans apparently are much more important that freedom of expressions and survival of common Chinese. Why should CNN, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post or the French official, Canadian official, Nancy Pelosi or etc. bother to say anything to condone those killed and burned. Simply, those Chinese deserve it.

I still remember when so many Chinese were strangled and suffering after a major storm disaster in a large part of China, no western officials or celebrity say any word to comfort China. But, I do remember many Asian neighbors gave China many many helps and supplies. Funnily, USA Government gave $100,000 check to China. Exactly the same amount, what USA government gave to China after a major flood in China killing hundreds of Chinese around 90's.

I guess, Chinese are so cheap to those westerners. Yes, they are. Their lives are too cheap to be mentioned.

> Yes indeed Lucas O'Gara, you analogy is a very
> accurate description of what the European did
> and are doing in Australia, Canada, US.

In Australia, the new prime minister just publicly apologized to aboriginal peoples for the Stolen Generation.

Canada is granting autonomy to its surviving aboriginal communities - Google for Nunavut (already autonomous), Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut.

In the US, the native peoples have been mostly wiped out through disease, murder, and forced assimilation. The worst violence against Native Americans occurred 100+ years ago.

Will China follow the 100-year-old US example and continue its policy of cultural genocide or take a hint from, say, Canada?

True autonomy would give Tibetans control of their own affairs and resources and the PRC government seems unlikely to make that sort of sacrifice willingly.

Now Lucas, let's be reasonable here, let's all set aside our little different views on history and consider the following:

1. In which country does indigenous/ethnic minorities still lived in their traditional land and have a sizable population.

2. In which country does ethnic minorities are legally allow to carry their traditional weapons where others will get arrested

3. In which country does murders/criminals get away leniently because the cops are overly sensitive to doesn’t want to ignite ethnic tensions

4. In which country does ethnic minorities can get absolutely free education and a place in Uni with substainly lower marks than the rest of the population. And after graduation, they will get a government job in their traditional land become the government have a set quota for them.

5. In which country where the government in an attempt to preserve the indigenous culture, subsidies/hand out to an unproportional large population of religious clergies and then having them turned against you.

Anyone who is seriously interested in what has been going on ( instead of just having a windge) should have a good read of an essay by Melvyn C. Goldstein, Tibet, China and the United States: Reflections on the Tibet Question. (http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/article/art4.html). Even though I disagree with some of his views on history but it is fairly balanced, it detailed the on-going negotiations between the central government and the Tibetan exiles. And here is an extract:

“…the exile government was deeply committed to the recreation of a "Greater" Tibet, that is to say a Tibet that included traditional political Tibet and ethnographic Tibet. This had been a goal of previous Tibetan governments (e.g., at the Simla talks in 1913-1914) and was deeply felt, but it was especially important in exile because of the presence of large numbers of Tibetan refugees from those ethnic areas. The Dalai Lama had worked hard since 1959 to meld the disparate refugees into a unified community by including these Tibetans in the exile government as equals, and by setting as a fundamental political objective the inclusion of their areas in a future "free" Tibet. However, the goal of a Greater Tibet was not politically realistic. Tibet had not ruled most of these areas for a century or more, and it is difficult to see how China could have handed over large areas in Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan, many of which included Chinese and Chinese Muslim populations that had migrated there well before the communists came to power in 1949.”

One side wants to control 6 million people and 1/4 of the area of PRC and the other side doesn’t want to relinquish.

This is not about the suffering of the poor people, it is all about land, power and control.

Anyone who believed anything otherwise either have their own agendas or just plainly naïve.

Lucas O'Gara

U.S. and Canada have no say in this. Tibet was annexed by China hundreds of years ago if not one thousand. The Chinese rulers simply never interfered Tibetan affairs except for granting titles to Tibetan local officials. In fact they were given too much autonomy.

What did the European settlers did in North America? let's look back, They virtually wiped out the entire Indian population. Can an apology save those lives suffered as a result of of the White invasion.? you practically invaded the whole world.

It is Chinese who should teach you the lesson of autonomy.

Is there a single university with complete Inuit language curriculum in Canada?

to Danny

read such a post as one of the reasons for this riots made me laugh when i recalled Dali Lama's accusation of beijing 's cultral genocide inflicted on Tibet

he must be either an unrescuable romantic or a hypocritic politician....

given the "pragmatic and realistic" attitude he's assumed since this event, i guess he being a hypocritic politician is a greater chance...

i couldn't imagine the complexity and the realistic chance of an out-of-date culture being both preserved as intact as it was decades ago and intergrated into another mainstream culture....

what are we supposed for to do? leave the tibet culture alone for the "preserverance" reason , then tibents are stuck in their segeragation and backwards environment, the gap between Tibetens and Han chinese are just being wider and wider.....surely not good for social stability and welfare of ordinary Tibetents

nah...when government try to intergrated those tibetens into our culture and help them with their ecomonies, there comes the so-called cultural genocide theory..

Dila Lama never articulate the "cultural genocide" issue in terms of legitimacy and solution ,while so many his followers and lazy minded people who just couldn't take a second for a thought right jump on it...

another issue, Dali Lama simply alleagated that they had no intentions of humiliating beijing before the Olympics and not wanting indepence...the side note is he has nothing to do with all these media mess. and should not be held accountable ...what? are you a leader? if so, just act up and be responsbile for whatever your followers have done!!!! ! even if it's not your intention(which i doubt) , you have to take it on you simply for the reason that you are count on as a leader by so many people! strategically, it's also an irresponsible leader when things are totally out of your control and your original plan....either way, i don't see a accountable leader in Dali Lama.....too bad so many "naive" tibetents being masterminded by the so-called spirit leader....you are miles away from GOD...albeit, more of a hypocritical politician than a noble religion leader...

combined the fact that he orchestracted the 1956 uprising in the assist of CIA against China for the independence of Tibet, no wonder you are not trusted by CCP...and thousands of millions of chinese people like me...

@chinese stooge: Let's address these questions using Canada as a example:

> 1. In which country does indigenous/ethnic minorities still lived in their traditional
> land and have a sizable population.

Canada - again, Google for Nunavut (already autonomous), Nunavik, and Nunatsiavut. Nunavik and Nunatsiavut are in the process of becoming autonomous. Nunavut is almost twice the size of the "Tibet Autonomous Region" Nunavik will be about 1/3 as large as the TAR and Nunatsiavut is significantly smaller. Population densities are low because the land, though exceedingly rich in natural resources, is somewhat inhospitable and has been for millenia.

> 2. In which country does ethnic minorities are legally allow to carry their traditional
> weapons where others will get arrested

Canada. The Inuit never practiced large-scale warfare afaik, but did hunt whales, seals, and polar bears. The whales are probably gone or protected b/c they're on the verge of extinction, but they still hunt seals and polar bears. For polar bears, they used to use special bear harpoons but high-caliber rifles are used these days.

Are Tibetans permitted to own large firearms? Any firearms?

> 3. In which country does murders/criminals get away leniently because the cops are
> overly sensitive to doesn’t want to ignite ethnic tensions

Who is asking anyone to free murderers?

The expectation is that Tibetans will be allowed to determine their own future, without interference from China, not that murderers be allowed to go free.

> 4. In which country does ethnic minorities can get absolutely free education and a
> place in Uni with substainly lower marks than the rest of the population. And after
> graduation, they will get a government job in their traditional land become the
> government have a set quota for them.

In most Western countries, everyone (including ethnic minorities of every stripe) gets free primary and secondary school. Whether University is free or not varies from place to place.

In Canada, there are organizations that provide scholarships and other types of assistance to Inuit and other First Nations students to help with university costs.

> 5. In which country where the government in an attempt to preserve the indigenous
> culture, subsidies/hand out to an unproportional large population of religious
> clergies and then having them turned against you.

Support or control? The Chinese government is trying to control Buddhism in Tibet (after trying to stamp it out in the past) because their religion has helped them to retain a distinct cultural identity and resist assimilation into the PRC. That's not much help.

In the case of Canada, the Inuit practice a type of shamanism and there aren't centralized places of worship on par with Tibet's breathtaking monasteries.

More specifically, the Canadian federal government does furnish the overwhelming majority of Nunavut's C$700 million annual budget, no strings attached, but how much of the budget the democratically elected Nunavut government devotes to religious affairs, if any, I don't know.

> what are we supposed for to do? leave the tibet
> culture alone for the "preserverance" reason ,
> then tibents are stuck in their segeragation and
> backwards environment, the gap between Tibetens
> and Han chinese are just being wider and
> wider.....surely not good for social stability
> and welfare of ordinary Tibetents

No, the PRC is expected to allow Tibetans to control their own destiny and make their own choices. If they choose development, fine. If they choose some other path (unlikely), also fine.

Hold referendums, stop pushing Han settlers into Tibet, cease "patriotic"/brainwashing education, etc.

The grounds that you give for allowing the PRC to run Tibet (they're backward) was exactly the justification used by the criminal WWII-era Japanese government for attacking its neighbors, including China.

if there are any group of people who are neglected and whose human rights are violated, they're the murdered han and muslim Chinese and the loud voice of ordinary Chinese people's condemnation of western media and Dali Lama's supporters THAT they are selectively deaf to

Tracy Hong, are you also mourning the deaths of the Japanese soldiers and settlers in Manchuria and parts of eastern China who were killed by Chinese people before and during World War II?

if there are any groups who are neglected and even ignored by the internaional community,they're the murdered han and muslim Chinese and the loud voice of ordinary Chinese people's condemnation of western media and Dali Lama's supporters THAT they are selectively deaf to

lol...

should i mention nanjing masscare?

i have nothing to argue with somebody who think tibet should be independent...if unfortunately you are falling into the class, please leave me alone...thanks, my time is too valuable to waste

Lucas O'Gara

you are being ridiculous by drawing the analogy. those killed are completely innocent people who may actually contributed a lot to the improvement of the lives of tibetan people. is your analogy is anything right. Then it's perfectly fine for the Indians to burn caucasian settlers to death and loot all of your property.

> you are being ridiculous by drawing the analogy.
> those killed are completely innocent people who
> may actually contributed a lot to the
> improvement of the lives of tibetan people

Again, the Japanese government made the *same* argument and found plenty of Chinese people who were happy to collaborate with them when they conquered parts of China (same in Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, and elsewhere). Fortunately, they were eventually driven out (with the help of Western nations, including the United States, Canada, and Australia).

Japanese officials claimed that, by conquering Asia, they were helping the people in the region to shake off Western colonial powers' control (just as the Chinese government claims that they were helping Tibetans to get rid of the evil Dalai Lama). They also pointed out that they were the most industrialized nation in Asia and were best able to help other Asian cultures improve their standard of living.

They even made a big show of reconstituting a faux Manchurian kingdom (as a puppet state) and putting the last Qing emperor on the throne there. We can hear echoes of that with current PRC attempts to elevate the status of the curent pro-PRC Panchen Lama (the last Panchen Lama died under mysterious circumstances in 1989 after criticizing Chinese rule).

> Then it's perfectly fine for the Indians to
> burn caucasian settlers to death and loot all
> of your property.

Fine? No. It's a tragedy - but it's a predictable tragedy.

Foreign settlers who intrude into another culture and settle in conquered territory can't claim to be shocked when violence breaks out within the restive local population. Of course they'll be the targets.

The government that encouraged them to move there or outright resettled them there bears a great degree of responsibility for any harm they suffer at the hands of the locals.

US settlers being killed by Native Americans was a tragedy - but the Native Americans were defending their culture. Native Americans being killed by US settlers and soldiers was even worse. The destruction of Native American cultures that used to exist within the borders of the USA is an immeasurable tragedy.

Why repeat it?

Native American societies, even as they were wiped out, were changing and modernizing in response to contact with Western civilization. If the colonization had stopped short of complete annihilating the natives, they wouldn't have stuck to exactly the way of life they'd been living at that moment, any more than Americans still ride in steam ships. They'd have modernized of their own accord.

The Inuit in Canada are embracing modern technology and higher standards of living. They've just achieved broadband access (satellite) in dozens of communities throughout Nunavut, for example.

Given a choice, Tibetans would probably do the same.

Using Tibetans backwardness as an excuse for colonization is ridiculous on its face.

When Lucas says "modernization in response to contact with Western civilization", he meant the following:

1. You either subordinate to the white people, or you die. After you are wiped out, we will enjoy the benefit while convincing ourselves we are the savior of the world.

2. If there is another group of white people occupying non-white people's land, we will wait them to be successful before we "speak" out against that so that we can still have "brotherly solidarity" while padding each other on the back on a job well done.

3. All those non-white people in my land, whom I control their livelihood, are really as happy as clams. You know why? Because my race and my civilization is simply suprior. Those people just think us as gods. They thank us for bringing them modernization though we do not quite know why they are also disppearing. But that is just life.

4. If there is a conflict between two groups of non-white people, that is a great opportunity for us. We can play the role of I-am-holier-than-you so that I can really convince myself of moral supriority. Never mind we know nothing about what is the cause and remedy. we do not really care though we pretend so. At the end of day, what we really care is that none of those non-white people get large enough territory or become powerful enough.

@Lucas@
Get real! Tibet is recognised as part of China by every nation on this planet, including India. And 1000 million Chinese is highly unlikely to be receptive to the seccession of Tibet as a separate state. The only way poor Tibet can get out is when China becomes disunited. And no sane Chinese will ever want that to happen during their lifetime. The Chinese people will always be united against an independent Tibet. I bet my last cent on that.

My Email to James Miles, the Economists reporter in Lhasa when the riot happened:

===

Dear Mr. James:

I had just read the transcript of your interview with CNN. As a Chinese living in the US, I’m thankful for your honest recount of what you witnessed in Tibet.

I can not say I could represent all the oversea Chinese. However, the anger and mistrust toward many of the western media among Chinese are genuine. There is no government propaganda or support behind the effort to fight the bias. We have access to all sorts of information in Chinese, English, German…and we draw our own conclusions.

I have to say the officials in charge of “Propaganda” in the Chinese government had dropped the ball this time. (and not their first time either) Ironically, many Chinese inside or outside China are used to such dumb move and we know how to go out our ways to get information. We’re capable of thinking on our own. On the other hand, I can not say the same for what is being reported and discussed in the US/UK media. One does not need to go to extra length to see the prejudice and ignorant in the news report. In this case, I don’t think free press means responsible journalism.

One surprising positive of all these for the Chinese government is that there will be unprecedented unity among all Chinese people. What preached by the government in the fast had become harsh reality. It is arrogant to just call such unity “government organized nationalism”. We Chinese people are capable of loving our mother land too. Personally I don’t think even the Olympic Games would be able to achieve this.

I hope you would be able to go to Tibet again in the near future and complete your planned journey. Keep safe out there.

Best wishes,

JL

> Get real! Tibet is recognised as part of China
> by every nation on this planet, including India

Again, the same could be said for all of the now-independent former republics of the Soviet Union, Kosovo, and East Timor.

Did you know that Pakistan and Bangladesh were once one nation?

Etc. etc. etc.

Demands for autonomy and self-governance, if they represent the aspirations of a majority of a people, generally can't be brushed aside easily ... and certainly not by pointing out that the rest of the world recognizes some other state's control of your territory at the moment.

For more than twenty years after the end of the Chinese Civil War, for example, most of the world recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan as the rightful government of both Taiwan and what is currently the PRC.

Were they right then, in that instance?

> The Chinese people will always be united
> against an independent Tibet. I bet my last
> cent on that.

This may be true. All sorts of insane and evil beliefs have been widely held at some point or other in history.

Currently, public opinion in China is being manipulated by government-orchestrated propaganda. If and when the propaganda goes away, public opinion may change.

At this point, no one knows what a majority of Tibetans really want because the PRC government won't allow a referendum to be held.

I don't know why Chinese hates the West while they are the main reason why their country has finally able to rise and gave a more decent life to them. What if the West did not start investing and importing from China? I don't know why they did it, they should have just let these ungrateful Chinese to be stuck in the mud they used to call life.

I would agree entirely with your colleague's post with regards to a call for more understanding, but I must confess that I find it rather interesting the degree to which evidently she (and so many others) have misunderstood Chinese anger at 'biased western reporting'.

She claims that 'few Tibetan voices have been heard'. Unless she refers to Chinese media, I would argue the exact opposite; in Western media, ONLY Tibetan voices have been heard! Dalai Lama says this, poor rioting monk says that, monks in Sichuan say this, monks in America say that. Can anyone point to me the articles which honestly and actively have included in the feelings of the Chinese people in Tibet and their voices, the way Tibetan voices have been included? And by the way, quoting Xinhua doesn't count!

It is exactly this near-complete refusal of the Western media which has the Chinese blogosphere and internet denizens in such an uproar! The fundamental problem is that Western media is intended for Western consumption by Western citizens, and Western citizens are already used to a simple narrative: "China bad, Tibet good. China soldiers kill and repress, Tibetan monks pray and suffer." Whether or not there is historical accuracy to this (and there is) is irrelevant; what matters is that in this case, there is far more nuance to the situation, but Western media seems content to repeating that same old narrative!

Please take into consideration one last thing. Over the past week or two, I have seen many comments to the effect of "these internet pro-China posters are either Party members or brainwashed by the Party." Nothing can be further from the truth! As anyone who has actively watched the growth of the Chinese blogosphere and internet users can tell you, the Chinese bloggers and posters have often generally been amongst the most openly and publically skeptical and cynical towards Party propaganda and dogma.

When Hu Jintao unveiled his catch phrase, 'harmonious society', Chinese bloggers sardonically adopted it to refer to the banning of websites and the moderating of posts; if a post was moderated or deleted, it had been 'harmonized'! When President Bush badly flubbed the welcome ceremony for President Hu at the White House reception, there was a great deal of criticism...directed towards the Chinese media who had refused to show the embarassing highlights! And the Chinese blogosphere has become one of the greatest 'activist' forces in allowing people to voice their discontent as well as anger against corrupt Party officials. The Chinese blogosphere is certainly not in bed with the Party!

So given all that, why do you think that the Chinese reaction towards Western media's coverage of Tibet has been so furious, and so remarkably united in anger? Bear in mind, the posters here and elsewhere speak English at a fluent enough level to make their arguments; arguably, they are amongst the more highly educated of a well-educated and traditionally independent sector of the Chinese populace. Is it really because they have been 'brainwashed' by Chinese media and the Chinese government? Or is it possibly because maybe - just maybe - they have an actual point?

I have heard and read many posts and essays by members of the Western media criticising the Chinese reaction. I have yet to read a single post critiquing the Chinese outrage with regards to if their arguments have merit. I wonder why this is the case?

Unlike many posters, I do not believe that CNN or other Western media have gone out of their way to 'make China look bad'; as I stated earlier, I believe, rather, that Western media is prone to telling simple black-and-white narratives, and that this one was already tailor made; as I said, 'China bad, Tibet good'. As a former student of UC Berkeley with a degree in Political Science, I know all too well the lack of nuance which often occurs in modern media! But nonetheless, members of the Western media must understand that these days, their articles, posts, and essays, while directed towards a Western audience, is also going to be viewed and consumed by other audiences as well.

If they understand this but do not care, I can accept that. But they/you also need to accept something; that when the lack of nuance which is all too common in Western media impinges on Chinese interest and Chinese face, that the Chinese people will certainly object to it. And they/you also need to accept that their 'brand value' will be badly, badly damaged each time they choose to sacrifice journalistic detachment and nuance to the alter of the 'easy narrative for public consumption'.

Zhangsan

> Can anyone point to me the articles which
> honestly and actively have included in the
> feelings of the Chinese people in Tibet and
> their voices, the way Tibetan voices have
> been included?

> It is exactly this near-complete refusal of the
> Western media

It's not a refusal. Foreign news media were ejected from the Tibet Autonomous Region by the PRC government once soldiers had been brought into position to quell the disturbances.

How can foreign reporters interview Han settlers in Tibet when they've been expelled from the region?

The carefully stage-managed tour conducted by PRC handlers that took a group of journalists into Tibet yesterday included (along with the stop at the monastery where a group of monks being held incommunicado by plainclothes policemen burst out and told their stories to the assembled reporters) a stop at a memorial service for some/all of the Chinese colonists killed in the disturbances and I saw their interviews on the TV news.

@Lucas O'Gara

1. Understanding the Chinese reaction

Lets say you are a Brit and US supports the separation between parts of UK. What would that do to the view of the Brits?

All of Brit would come out in defense of its government and denounce the splitists.

2. Argument for Tibetan independence

Simon attempted at that and in my view, he had to run away with his tail between his legs. Were you reading the logic laid out by various readers in the comment section?

3. I think this is where civilization clashes. On both sides of the aisle, people loose patience. In my mind, you are stubborn as some Chinese readers are.

HOWEVER, I am hopeful, because governments are generally more pragmatic. For example, UK government wouldn't dare sending British troops into China - AND - UK people are not moral enough to risk their neck for anybody. UK would go killing in Iraq for oil because it knows Iraqi's are defenseless.

4. Conclusion

For a very long time, Chinese people built the Great Wall because they thought they were the greatest in the world. The situation is completely reversed.

Chinese speaks English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, and any other language you can name. They are learning. You are limited to your English.

Finally, try to read more moderate materials such as this one:

""About China" - a fair view by a Spanish"
http://chinablog.typepad.com/china_blog/2008/03/about-china---a.html

The problem between Han Chinese and ethnic minority is segregation. We have separate schools, separate holidays, separate dwellings and so on.
I can still recall from my childhood memory clips that Han Chinese wouldn't even want to be a next door neighbor to a Uyghur family in the same apartment building.
They only thing in common is perhaps the fact that we coexisted in the same city. We speak completely different languages and no single Han Chinese would learn a single Tibetan or Uyghur word. Our watches are set in accordance with Beijing time and theirs are set to Urumqi time. So in Xinjiang you have to ask what time zone you subscribe to in a conversation about time. Large businesses, public or private sector, are virtually monopolized by Han Chinese as they have the know-how and expertise. As economy grows, ethnic minority groups are invariably left behind. They rely largely on the small scale traditional businesses. And language barrier means they are doomed to fail in in job hunting.
But this dilemma can hardly be solved. Lack of qualified Chinese teachers in minority areas would hamper government's efforts for integration. Cancelation of minority schools will draw floods of accusation almost for sure. And this would also be interpreted as "cultural genocide". So what can be possibly done about this?

Posted by Danny | March 27, 2008 3:48 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you wanna everyone Han people to learn Uyghur language, to use Uyghur time.

Come on

Different race can have different ways of life, but it will not be difficult to live together with respect to each other.

Actually under the globalization even the Han's culture/tradition is facing genocide, who should we accuse for?

In most westerner's understanding, 1.4 billion Chinese people have only three faces:

1. Party leaders' face, as well as that of Xinhua and People's Daily.

2. Nothing but just earning mony face, like those office ladies / bussiness man in CBD of Beijing that TIME had reported.

3. Brainwashed Face, anyone who dose not follow the western-single-line mind of ignorant ideas would be regarded as this.

Funny, simple, childish and boring.

btw, Lucas,

From your responsions above, I'd confess you may be a good man, but at least you don't know what is China, you don't know What are the real life of Chinese people.

If you really want know these, and if you wanna understand the points on the issues of Chinese culture, politics and life, you'd better study Chinese firstly, and read books about Chinese history not written by westerners, as well as make some Chinese friends from 30 to 40 year old.

Before that, I suggest you restraint your visionary pity to Tibetan and "brainwashed Chinese". You and other similar guys are actually pushing China and this world to an opposite direction contrary to your virtuous wishes.

BTW, when I say "UK people", I mean that the country as a whole. There are many Americans who oppose the Iraqi invasion, but the net of Americans is to invade Iraq.

That "many" has become a majority now in the US, because 4000 Americans have now died and things are not as "rosy" on the American side anymore.

"It's not a refusal. Foreign news media were ejected from the Tibet Autonomous Region by the PRC government once soldiers had been brought into position to quell the disturbances.

How can foreign reporters interview Han settlers in Tibet when they've been expelled from the region?

The carefully stage-managed tour conducted by PRC handlers that took a group of journalists into Tibet yesterday included (along with the stop at the monastery where a group of monks being held incommunicado by plainclothes policemen burst out and told their stories to the assembled reporters) a stop at a memorial service for some/all of the Chinese colonists killed in the disturbances and I saw their interviews on the TV news."

It certainly is a refusal. I can immediately point you to several links of Han people in Tibet who have given interviews or blogged about the situation. This is the 21st century; even if you can't enter Tibet proper, you can get access if you really tried. The Western media has made no such attempt, and shown a complete disinterest. And the stage-managed tour? As you yourself suggested, that wasn't anything planned by the media; that was something planned by the Party.

> Lets say you are a Brit and US supports the separation between parts of UK.
> What would that do to the view of the Brits?
>
> All of Brit would come out in defense of its government and denounce the splitists.

Actually, no. Scotland is slowly separating from the rest of the UK. It's not yet fully independent, but, after nearly 300 years, it's got its own parliament again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

> 2. Argument for Tibetan independence
> Simon attempted at that and in my view, he had to run away with his tail
> between his legs. Were you reading the logic laid out by various readers
> in the comment section?

You and the other pro-PRC posters here in the comments threads trolled him here and on your own blogs. He's ignored you so far. That hardly constitutes running away.

I've read the historical arguments of proponents of PRC control of Tibet. They also apply to other regions - in some cases, to places like Vietnam and Korea. Other arguments could be twisted to imply that Taiwan is part of the PRC too. Or that Mongolia should control what is currently the PRC.

Obviously, I disagree.

Above all else, though, the will of Tibetans has to be the deciding factor. A referendum needs to be held. If Tibetans were to vote to remain within China, then it would provide some legitimacy to Chinese control of the region. I suspect that no such referendum will ever be allowed to be held by the PRC so long as they can prevent it, however.

> 3. I think this is where civilization clashes. On both sides of the aisle,
> people loose patience. In my mind, you are stubborn as some Chinese readers are.

I am stubbornly on the side of self-determination. Indonesia's government allowed the people of East Timor to hold a referendum on indepeendence and the Indonesian government had the wisdom to honor their wishes when they voted for independence. East Timor and Indonesia are still neighbors and are still economically intertwined and Indonesia hasn't collapsed into little statelets yet.

A lot of Western people expect the PRC government to be at least as fair and just as the Indonesian government and can't understand why the PRC insists on doing to Tibet, slowly, what Japan attempted to do to China quickly. How can a nation that has suffered so much from colonization turn around and, while still condemning their former colonizers, do something not very different to a neighboring people?

It's truly sad and baffling and arouses the anger of reasonable people throughout the world, just as the US occupation of Iraq tends to anger sensible people.

> HOWEVER, I am hopeful, because governments are generally more pragmatic.
> For example, UK government wouldn't dare sending British troops into China
> - AND - UK people are not moral enough to risk their neck for anybody. UK
> would go killing in Iraq for oil because it knows Iraqi's are defenseless.

Instead of talking about what's right, you're talking about what China can *get away with*, like a fat thief loudly boasting that no one would dare to interrupt him while he is breaking into someone's house - because he's really tough.

You honestly don't understand how offensive that sort of talk is to most people living outside the PRC? How your attitude, if it remains the cornerstone of PRC policy, is nearly guaranteed to draw the wrath of the rest of the world down onto China?

Japan, for example, behaved in the same fashion, defeating Russia (a world power at that time) and China in wars and then going on to conquer large amounts of territory throughout Asia. Eventually, though, it was defeated and occupied and its constitution rewritten by foreigners to ensure peace and stability and in the region and promote democratic values.

In most westerner's understanding, 1.4 billion Chinese people gets only 3 kinds of faces:

1. Communist party leader's face, as well as that of Xinhua and China Daily's. Only propaganda.

2. New-rich Business man / office ladies' face, only money and luxury shopping.

3. Brainwashed face, if anyone say something different to western main-stream media, then whatever they said, they are brainwashed.

Funny, childish, ridiculus, and boring.

BTW, Lucas,

Based on what you said above, you are supposed to be a good man. I like you. However, also based on what you said above and what's your reponsion on the questions, I find you don't understand China. You don't know the Chinese culture and the life in China, and you don't know what the Tibetan issue is and where will the western cheap, simple pities leads the situation to.

I personally suggest you study Chinese, and read academic books on the Chinese politics and history written by CHINESE scholars, as well as make some Chinese friends from 30 to 40 year old.

Then (huuu, that might need 10 years if you start now), you may find how your over-simplified pities on the Tibetan issue and your view on Chinese society will not push China and this world to what you want, but just the contrary.

Unless, you wanna China falling into the chaos and violence. Then, the world will follow the suit.

In most westerner's understanding, 1.4 billion Chinese people gets only 3 kinds of faces:

1. Communist party leader's face, as well as that of Xinhua and China Daily's. Only propaganda.

2. New-rich Business man / office ladies' face, only money and luxury shopping.

3. Brainwashed face, if anyone say something different to western main-stream media, then whatever they said, they are brainwashed.

Funny, childish, ridiculus, and boring.

BTW, Lucas,

Based on what you said above, you are supposed to be a good man. I like you. However, also based on what you said above and what's your reponsion on the questions, I find you don't understand China. You don't know the Chinese culture and the life in China, and you don't know what the Tibetan issue is and where will the western cheap, simple pities leads the situation to.

I personally suggest you study Chinese, and read academic books on the Chinese politics and history written by CHINESE scholars, as well as make some Chinese friends from 30 to 40 year old.

Then (huuu, that might need 10 years if you start now), you may find how your over-simplified pities on the Tibetan issue and your view on Chinese society will not push China and this world to what you want, but just the contrary.

Unless, you wanna China falling into the chaos and violence. Then, the world will follow the suit.

> you may find how your over-simplified pities on
> the Tibetan issue and your view on Chinese
> society will not push China and this world to
> what you want, but just the contrary.

No one has yet explained why a referendum cannot be held, with international monitors to ensure that it is conducted honestly, and the Tibetan people themselves allowed to decide the course that they want to take.

> Unless, you wanna China falling into the chaos
> and violence. Then, the world will follow the
> suit.

No one wants chaos and violence in China, but it's wrong to hold the Tibetan people hostage to some nightmare scenario of the breakup of China.

If permitting Tibet to vote on whether it wants to be part of China or strike out on its own would trigger some sort of breakup of China, then China's teetering on the edge anyway, and the various regions that would break away ought to be allowed to seek independence now.

I keep hearing the example of the US Civil War (which ended a little less than 150 years ago) being given, but no one is mentioning that the Southern half, which broke away, practiced slavery on a mass scale (much, much worse than that recently exposed in the Shanxi brick kilns). The war ended up being as much about ending slavery as much as anything else. There's no indication that slavery/serfdom would resume in Tibet if the PRC removed its colonists and left.

Also, the arguments that people are using to rule out greater Tibetan autonomy could have been used in the late 1940's to justify a greater role for the US and British in siding more strongly with the Kuomintang in the Chinese Civil War.

Chinese speaks English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, and any other language you can name. They are learning. You are limited to your English.

- This is so pathetic

Quoting "Clown_in_you_face":

"I don't know why Chinese hates the West while they are the main reason why their country has finally able to rise and gave a more decent life to them. What if the West did not start investing and importing from China? I don't know why they did it, they should have just let these ungrateful Chinese to be stuck in the mud they used to call life."

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

Why not take all the treasures in the Louvre, The British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

Who has invaded Tibet in the history? Only British. Twice.

Did the British gentlemen bring the democracy and freedom to the Tibetan? No.

What did the British and other western gentlmen do at that time? Selling opium to China, and get more than 10 million taels of silver per year!!

Leave it aside. I don't wanna be too extreme. But I suggest you stop saying those crap. Or you will get f words on your face.

"Above all else, though, the will of Tibetans has to be the deciding factor. A referendum needs to be held. If Tibetans were to vote to remain within China, then it would provide some legitimacy to Chinese control of the region. I suspect that no such referendum will ever be allowed to be held by the PRC so long as they can prevent it, however."

And what about the will of 1.2 billion Han, Uighur, Manchu, and other Chinese? Wait, let's scratch that. What about the will of the hundreds of thousands of other Chinese who live in Tibet? What about their will?

"A lot of Western people expect the PRC government to be at least as fair and just as the Indonesian government and can't understand why the PRC insists on doing to Tibet, slowly, what Japan attempted to do to China quickly. How can a nation that has suffered so much from colonization turn around and, while still condemning their former colonizers, do something not very different to a neighboring people?"

Because, per what Chinese people honestly believe, and what every single government in the entire world accepts, is that they aren't a neighboring people. They are Chinese; Tibetan Chinese. Japan and China have always been entirely separate entities; there are no nebulous lines such as with the Tibet/China situation. Your argument is specious.

"Instead of talking about what's right, you're talking about what China can *get away with*, like a fat thief loudly boasting that no one would dare to interrupt him while he is breaking into someone's house - because he's really tough."

There is rarely such a thing as 'right' or 'wrong' in territorial politics; right and wrong are determined by the victors. That is why the Union was 'right', and the Confederacy was 'wrong' in trying to exercise THEIR self-determination. Even when 'right' and 'wrong' are determined, it is determined so only when it no longer matters. For example, I'm sure you would all agree that it was 'wrong' for America to destroy the Indian civilizations, but I don't see any hurry to give them back their land (and no, those tiny friggin' preservations don't count).

"You honestly don't understand how offensive that sort of talk is to most people living outside the PRC? How your attitude, if it remains the cornerstone of PRC policy, is nearly guaranteed to draw the wrath of the rest of the world down onto China?

Japan, for example, behaved in the same fashion, defeating Russia (a world power at that time) and China in wars and then going on to conquer large amounts of territory throughout Asia. Eventually, though, it was defeated and occupied and its constitution rewritten by foreigners to ensure peace and stability and in the region and promote democratic values."

Aside from the fact that the 'wrath of the rest of the world' is a laughable notion, considering that there isn't a single government in the world which supports the idea of Tibetan independence...do you honestly not understand how offensive comments like this are to the Chinese?

Quick history lesson for you. As you may or may not know, there is something which is known as the 'Hundred Years of Shame' which is drilled into the heads of every Chinese person. It refers to the period of time where Qing-era China was weak, and where foreign powers could impose their will upon China as they pleased. This is something everyone Chinese person knows, and although for you it may only be an academic concept, it is deeply engrained into the Chinese psyche.

Also, again speaking from a historical perspective, any time any Chinese government has given away or let slip away pieces of land which belonged to China, be it the Nationalists or even further back to the Song dynasty, they have become objects of condemnation and universal hatred. A former Song-era minister named Qin Hui is perhaps the most reviled person in all of Chinese history because he ordered the execution of a patriotic general named Yue Fei, and acceded to the Jin's de-facto absorption of then-Song territory. This is, again, something the Chinese government is certainly aware of.

Any and all threats of foreign 'wrath' or 'repercussions' serve to do only one thing; strengthen and harden the views of the Chinese people, all 1.2 billion of them, against what foreigners are proposing, even if what they propose is right in principle. Literally 1.2 billion Chinese people are unquestionably united on this subject. Do you think a few thousand protestors here and there around the world honestly have an effect on the decisions of the Party, compared to those 1.2 billion Chinese?

China will never be browbeaten by foreign powers into doing what the foreign powers think is 'right'...especially on something which they themselves feel, deeply, to the contrary.

Zhangsan

Danny:

I happened to live the first 18 years of my life in Urumqi, Xinjiang. I left there after going to college in Beijing and then the US. What you described is somewhat true. (However, I don’t think the time zone thing is a good example. People in US have EST and PST and life goes on.)

Living in a minority autonomous region is a delicate situation. We were definitely “brainwashed” to respect the Uyghur’s religion and culture. There are certain words or food we should never say or eat in front of our Muslim classmates. They also go preferential treatment (maybe similar to Affirmative Action here in US) when it is time for college. On TV, there is “One Uyghur Word A Day” program to teach the mass how to speak basic Uyghur language. I hate some of the Uyghur bullies in school and I also enjoyed playing soccer with many Uyghur friends. Surprise! Things in China for common folks like me may not be that different from the people in US.

I have no doubt the minority policies need to be reviewed and improved. However, “culture genocide” is such a sensational claim and huge shoe to fill. I have Uyghur classmate that is fluent in Uyghur language, Mandarin and English. She went to the best university in China and US and is now working in Wall Street firms. Does this mean she is a culture genocide victim just because she can speak language of different culture and is not living the lifestyle of her parents or ancestors?

When many in the west keep living in their imagination of modern day China and over simplify complicated social and culture issue and quickly bringing on the big guns of democracy and human rights...does it ever cross one’s mind than the world is changing fast and it might be you that are not thinking in a rational way?

@Donnie

I am talking about the current situation and what the Chinese government is doing in Tibet not your 200 years of history. Just like what every other bloggers here has been asking, why are you guys justifying the wrong actions of your government by pointing out what the other nations have done in the past? It's completely absurd! And if you think your little threat of f word bashing will scare me from voicing out my opinion, you are wrong bro. I'll just curse you right back.

Lucas,

International Mornitor? Did the British Magna Carta be monitored internationally? Will Clinton and Obama agree to an internaional mornitoring to their run? Do you understand Tibetan language? Monitor? Can Ms Pelosi understand Chinese? Don't be cheated by your way of thinking.

I live in a province where has many many minority ethnical peoples. They have different culture, language, life style and religions. But they don't have bitterness with each other.

The freedom of religion, the freedom of culture and etc are not necessary to the issue of independence. Chinese national policy can be improved, but the basic principles are very good: to leave the differences in the spirital arena, to release the stress in the daily life.

There is the basic difference of philosophy between China and the west. In the history, European sovereignty borders are based on the nationalities and religion distinctions. When one religion is powerful to rule another, the other would suffer difficult life.

China is different to the west. Buddhism is different to Christian. Buddhist, by their nature of the religion, can not be a legal source of sovereignty. Chinese politic sovereignty and borders had never based on the nationalities and the religions. Chinese That's why I suggest you study Chinese hisrtory and politics with CHINESE academic books.

Chinese political sovereignties were not stand on any specific religions (Confucianism is far far away from a religion). Even when China was splited before, the borders among local powers are not based on ethnical nationalities. Chinese imperial powers always keep themselves away from religion and leave religion in the arena of spirit (except Yuan, and it was substituted soon). In this regard, the west shall study from China but not the contrary.

Each country has its own problem. The scoial problem in Tibet happens in all around China. But that problem is not what you think. It is not the national discrimination. It is not the contradiction between Han and Tibetan. Han people are not Colonist their. This is the very basic misunderstanding most of western guys has.

And follow this mistake, everything will be chaos. Contrary to your estimation.

First of all, stop using "Tibetans and Chinese". Tibetans and Hans.

Clown_in_you_face,

Let's stop curse each other for a while.

Why do you always stand for your own fantasy without any rational thinking? When you defence the riots, you cite (but wrongfully) history just like Simon had done. When you accuse contempoary China, you move yourself to the current situation.

However, again, you wrongfully know the fact of current China.

Yes, China gots "foreign" investment from the west, but those invests are mostly Chinese own which pretended as foreign invests to obtain tax-free policy. You will know this if you have Chinese business friends.

You think China earns money from the west? If you know economics, you must know money is nothing but papers. The goods are manufactured by Chinese labours, and are sold to you. USD comes to China, but that's just paper, and now not paper, but just numbers in the account. Then the USD devaluated, then even the numbers in Chinese account shrink.

you know what? I am not justifying Chinese gov. I am just standing on my honest heart. You really don't know China. You make your judgement with your own social experience. That's why Whatever you say, you wrong. That's why Chinese guys here always opposite westerners here. Many Chinese guys here are not stay in China, and most of them are not as simple as you imagine.

Btw Lucas, your argument about the Civil War and slavery is deceptive. Here are Lincoln's own words:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

Zhangsan, I honestly appreciate the dialogue we're having. We disagree, but we're not cursing each other...

> Because, per what Chinese people honestly believe,
> and what every single government in the entire world
> accepts, is that they aren't a neighboring people.
> They are Chinese; Tibetan Chinese. Japan and China
> have always been entirely separate entities; there
> are no nebulous lines such as with the Tibet/China
> situation. Your argument is specious.

The rational criterion for self-determination isn't whether two areas have always been separate states or part of separate states. In the 1930's, there were less than a hundred independent nations in the world and there are now more than 190 internationally-recognized states. Boundaries change.

You're using what's formally internationally recognized at the moment as some sort of yardstick here when that really doesn't mean very much if you look forward or backwards in history very far. Manchukuo, for example, received formal recognition from about 1/4 of the world back in the 1930's.

> There is rarely such a thing as 'right' or 'wrong'
> in territorial politics; right and wrong are determined
> by the victors.

Your argument seems to boil down to "might makes right". Yup, we're not going to agree here.

@ Donnie:

> Han people are not Colonist their.

If there were exceedingly few Han people in Tibet pre-conquest (and there were very, very few Han in Tibet at that time) and the PRC government is moving people into Tibet or providing incentives for them to resettle in Tibet (and they are), then most of the current Han population in Tibet is comprised of colonists.

xchaos360

This scenario you described is not new to me. I'm not saying there isn't a single outstanding Uyghur who managed to come through all those barriers. Apparently there are plenty. But the thing is if you look at the broader picture, where are they, and what do they do? Also i completely disagree with the "cultural genocide" argument, but that's exactly what the "right" groups would accuse of if the government push for integration. It's obviously a long term strategy but it is doomed to result in resistance from minority groups. You are right about the world changing fast but what applicable in Xinjiang is not necessarily workable in Tibet, where the demographic makeup and religious affiliation are obviously more unfavorable for the path towards integration.

Lucas,

Those Han people are settlers.

You brainwashed racist.

btw, Clown_in_you_face, tell you a little history.

British invaded China not 200 years before, but just in 1904 (it was still exporting opium both to Tibet and other Chinese land at that time. what an elegant country!). They killed many Tibetans as well as Hans in Tibet, and occupied Lhasa. Then compel the loser sign a treaty, ceded 90,000 square KM to British India. Tibetan local gov surrended, BUT CHINESE REPRESENTIVE DID NOT SIGN and BOYCOTTED the treaty.

That's why China and India had a war in 1966. Guys died in the war are mostly Han people. The problem of that fake border (McMahon Line) still exist now.

That's the only thing the west gentlemen had given to Tibetan. no freedom, but war, gall and opium.

How can one got this record qualified to "monitor" and "boycott" anything in China?

@Lucas: We've already talked about "might is right" in previous blogs. I personally do not agree with it. Unfortunately, China, as a country, had learned plenty of in her modern history since 1840, thanks to the western power and their gunship in the name of “free trade”.

The Iraqis and Serbs are learning it now.

When you have time, please check out some history books on China and Tibet.

as an asian american live in US, i was anger by the fact so many western media has such bias against china. the fact was this protest was a riot, building was burnt, people were killed. I ask many chinese include chinese ethnic minority, and all of them are angered by some of the western media bias reports.

also "Locas"

"free tibet" its not gonna happen. no country recognize it as independent state, not even dali lama, and 1billion chinese won't allow it. its not gonna happen unless some dramatic change in government or WW3

Donnie: Tibetan casualties from the British attack on Lhasa rand from 500-1300, but what about the tens of thousands of Tibetans murdered in Lhasa by PRC forces when the Tibetans rose up against the PRC in 1959?

@Lucas: Please check out who started the 1959 uprising, who backed them and why it failed so quickly. There are many excellent Tibet research in the west had detailed it. It is not as simple as brave Tibetan fight for freedom as many *choose* to believe.

The Tibet issue is not a number game. Who killed more, who is the bully….check out its history and its interaction with various forces. Check out historical documents, who signed it, who did not sign it? Who is on CIA payroll?? Which countries had the then Tibetan ruler asked for help when the Chinese “invader” were coming? What did those countries do and why?

The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama
Goldstein, Melvyn
(http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft2199n7f4)

@Lucas
"Tibetan casualties from the British attack on Lhasa rand from 500-1300, but what about the tens of thousands of Tibetans murdered in Lhasa by PRC forces when the Tibetans rose up against the PRC in 1959?"

you could said the same thing when thousands innocent chinese was murdered during the uprising. just like riot we saw last week, tibetans looting, beating innocent people, and burn the shops. not just Han chinese but Muslim as well.

xchaos360, I am aware that the 1959 uprising was CIA-backed. The people who fought and died, however, were not CIA operatives or mercenaries imported into Tibet. They were Tibetans.

The people killed by the PRC in the 1989 disturbances were also Tibetans.

The monks who broke free of their plainclothes PRC police captors in the monastery in Lhasa yesterday and denounced what the PRC is doing in China right now were also Tibetans.

Yeah, China is so messed up, Hans and Huis colonizing Tibet, Tibetans, Huis, Uyghurs, Mongols, Cantonese, Thais, Manchurians colonizing Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong(Canton), Hongkong.... If only everybody just stayed pissing in their own village outhouses.

> you could said the same thing when thousands
> innocent chinese was murdered during the
> uprising. just like riot we saw last week,
> tibetans looting, beating innocent people, and
> burn the shops. not just Han chinese but Muslim
> as well.

Every death of a human being is a tragedy, but I have to ask you whether you think that 80,000 Han colonists in Tibet were killed in the recent riots? That's an estimate of how many Tibetans were killed in the 1959 uprising alone.

see: http://www.un.org/pubs/cyberschoolbus/globalatlas/14sp.htm

Lucas,

Let me tell you the population in Tibet. If you can read Chinese, you may find it easily in the Internet.

In 1900s, because China was in chaos, Tibetan gov declared indepence but no one (except Mongolia, who declared together with Tibet) recognized it. The population in Tibet at that time was 1.8 million.

In 1951, before Chinese central gov controls Tibet again, there are 1.15 million people (you see Decrease), and the mortality rate was extremely high: 28/1000, the orphan mortality rate was even terrible: 450/1000.

In 2003, there are 2.5 million tibetan in Tibet (not include the so called "great Tibet"), and the mortality rate was 6.3/1000, the Tibetan birthrate was 17.4/1000, so the natrual increase rate was around 11/1000.

At the same time, the Chinese overall natrual increase rate was 6/1000. That means the Tibetan increase faster than Han. Why? Because Tibetan do not have to follow the family planning policy.

In 2003, there are no more than 0.2 million Han in Tibet. The increase of population are mostly tibetan.

Now the Han may be more. but still stands a very low persentage. And most importantly, every Han public employee in Tibet are not feeding Tibetan Tax, the are paid by central gov. Did the west colonist in India and in China got money from their motherland?

If you read more, you will get more understanding.

"Zhangsan, I honestly appreciate the dialogue we're having. We disagree, but we're not cursing each other..."

Likewise. I'm speaking as a Chinese-American who was born in China but raised in the US, so perhaps my feelings on this subject aren't quite as 'hardened' as the 'Chinese' Chinese people.

"The rational criterion for self-determination isn't whether two areas have always been separate states or part of separate states. In the 1930's, there were less than a hundred independent nations in the world and there are now more than 190 internationally-recognized states. Boundaries change.

You're using what's formally internationally recognized at the moment as some sort of yardstick here when that really doesn't mean very much if you look forward or backwards in history very far. Manchukuo, for example, received formal recognition from about 1/4 of the world back in the 1930's."

That's your idea of rational criterion. The problem with that is, self-determination itself is a nebulous concept that has hardly gained worldwide traction, much less have a 'standard' accepted idea for it. Again, even excluding the American Civil War (an excellent example of the limits of self-determination), or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I asked you this question: What about the rights of the hundreds of thousands of non-Tibetan Chinese who live in Tibet? Do they get a vote in your self-determinism? If not, what is the proposal? That they be forcibly relocated? Good luck getting that to happen! And what about the rights of the 1.2 billion other Chinese citizens who believe that Tibet is part of China? If your argument is that they do not get a vote, because they 'moved' to Tibet, well, give them a few decades, and by then, their children, born in Tibet, will be old enough to vote!

Self-determination is an extremely nebulous and difficult-to-quantify concept for precisely the reasons I enumerated above, amongst others. Even a perfectly logical and reasonable argument would be difficult to convince the Chinese government and people into believing that Tibet should be given up, much less a flawed on.

"Your argument seems to boil down to "might makes right". Yup, we're not going to agree here."

Not precisely; I believe that in the long run, might is conflated with right, both because victors write history, and because the passage of time destroys perceptions of injustice. Take, for example, the American conquest of Texas and California (should we give them back to Mexico? I'm pretty sure if we asked the Mexicans, they'd like them back!), the British occupation of Northern Ireland (snowball's chance in hell of independence), the Spanish rule over the Basque region, the American conquest of...well...America, etc. etc. etc.

Even if they were not 'right' to begin with, the passage of time dulls and destroys such things. The term is 'fait accompli'. You might not agree with it, but I believe that history is on my side.

Lucas,

1.2 Million, hah, that means all Tibetan were died. How can you count on this explicit funny number.

Donnie, you can argue that the Tibetans should be grateful that the PRC didn't force them to follow their one-child policy after conquering them or that they don't have to bear the cost of paying the salaries for the soldiers and officials administering the Tibetan Autonomous region, but it sounds crazy to even make that sort of statement.

The US-backed Iraqi puppet government, for example, isn't paying the salaries of the soldiers occupying their country either. US taxpayers are footing the bill.

US companies and other multinational corps are benefiting handsomely from the invasion and occupation, however - as will Chinese companies looking to extract lead, zinc, iron, copper, etc. in Tibet.

@Lucas: So the logic is “Tibetans” are untouchable?

In 1959, it was the old serf masters and their followers that started the revolt out side Tibet area where their land and old way of life were being stripped away. They had to work to make a living now. (even that was not what the central government wanted to do. Some local officials tried to be more “revolutionary”.) Without too much mass support, the revolt was over in a hurry and thus the exile.

I personally wanted to believe Dalai Lama himself was not behind this riot. However, he denounced violence and at the same time said his follower had the right and freedom to express their anger. How two faced can one be? What a true leader. Basically since it is Dalai Lama and his followers, “the cause justifies the means”?

As for the monks, I believe they are genuine. How could they not be? Can you image they say anything bad about Dalai Lama? I respect their religion but I do not see a need to reason with such religious people.

As for the reporters, I’m curious to find out more. They see the destruction and killings (videos that never broadcasted) and they say the crying monks. Let’s find