Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
Now that I have the time, I will refute some more points of the OP: OP, much of the statements you presented in your original post are highly inaccurate and exaggerated.
And your apologetics read like entries from a People's Liberation External Security Force pamphlet entitled
How To Talk To Revisionist Foreignah Who No Rike Chiner.
Seriously, you're reading out of the same playbook as every heavily debriefed PRC graduate student I've ever tried to talk to about the situation in China, to say nothing of Tibet.
How very nice of you to resort to personal attacks and blatant racism after someone has stated his perfectly valid point of view and reasoning. Well done.
Which part of that was racist? The implication that the PRC debriefs students studying abroad when they return and that it coaches them on how to respond to criticisms of the PRC while abroad or that some Chinese speak English in a fashion quite similar to what I said in jest? Both are true; neither was a "personal attack." Furthermore, I know tons of full-blooded Han who speak English flawlessly, so that has NOTHING to do with race or racism.
You had just basically said that I was lying and had no idea what I was talking about. The Han are an ethnicity; the PRC is a country. Again you sound like the heavily coached grad students I come in contact with: any criticism of the PRC means you're "racist." As for personal attacks, I think telling someone they're racist falls neatly into that category.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
More importantly, I also noticed you didn't even touch the third paragraph of my OP, which was a thorough if brief refutation of Chinese claims on Tibet, a claim which is laughable at best and cynical and evil at worst.
Tibet was a part of China in the Yuan dynasty, and since then has been alternating between being a part of China and being independent, all the while maintaining close ties with China. So yes, the Chinese government do have some historical basis for occupying Tibet.
So what you're saying is that because Tibet was part of China during a time when China wasn't even ruled by Chinese, 800 years ago, after both had been conquered by the Mongols, it should now have no right to independence. Wow! Now there's some logic for ya!
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
North Korea is fifty-five years old, and was in large part created by, you guessed it, China, so thanks for helping me make my argument by offering me something else to pin on China.
North Korea was in large part created by the USSR. They were backed strongly by the PRC in the Korean War, but weren’t “created” by them.
And did I mention in my posts that I was proud of everything the PRC has done? No. Supporting North Korea was understandable back in 1950 when it simply appeared to be a state that showed similar ideologies, had historical ties with China and was at the time more powerful than its US-supported Southern brother. However, I won’t deny the fact that North Korea is the single most oppressive and fucked up nation in the world today, and that I am ashamed that the PRC backed and continues to back it (although Chinese support has been diminishing in recent years).
The PRC were the only thing that kept UN forces from completely overrunning North Korea and smashing the Communists. USSR may have given money, the PRC sent the PLA. You were trying to say that North Korea is worse than the PRC; I pointed out that not only wasn't it, but that it was a satellite of of the PRC, and thus largely the responsibility of the PRC.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Charitably speaking, Mao probably killed off between 30 and 50 million of his own people.
Mao caused the deaths of those people with a poorly formulated, extreme, and ultimately disastrous social and economic plan that caused widespread famine and economic collapse. I do not consider this deliberate genocide as it was a plan formulated with intentions of moving China forward, but the stupidity and unrealism of the planning led to its failure. It is a blemish on China’s history and like all people I am ashamed of it. However I am pointing out that the majority of those deaths were not caused by executions by government authorities but by poor planning. I understand that there were bound to be many people executed in the social aspect of the Great Leap Forward, however the discrimination and number of people executed aren’t extraordinary when compared to the USSR, Nazi Germany and others.
So what you're saying is that given that Mao managed to kill about 50,000,000 of his own people through sheer stupidity, we should be grateful that he only managed to kill off a million or two Tibetans? Pardon my ingratitude.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
In ancient times it wasn't particularly oppressive or aggressive in any way either, perhaps even less than the level of oppression and corruption shown by Western civilizations in those times. China never went on conquests across the world brutally murdering and enslaving other civilizations like the Romans, Mongolians, British and French did either.
They never needed to. There were millions of people to kill right at home.
Other civilizations also have slaughtered millions of their own people. China may have killed off more (though the only significant mass killings prior to the 20th century occurred in the Qing dynasty) but considering China’s much larger population, uprisings and rebellions are also made up of larger numbers of people and therefore, more people are punished. That’s just how it is.
I think I just said that, but if you want to take the position that having more people to kill
makes it OK to kill more people, that's your business.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
China itself suffered and was humiliated by a coalition of greedy Western nations following the Opium Wars in the 19th century. Western powers and Imperial Japan took advantage of the military weakness of China at that point and oppressed it economically, so China can hardly be described as a brutal, oppressive regime when it was at the mercy of the UK, France and Japan.
The "brutality" of British and French colonialism in China is over-stated. As for the humilation of the Opium Wars, I'll grant you it wasn't terribly nice, but compared to what the Chinese have done in Tibet, well, there simply isn't any comparison. As for brutality and the Opium Wars/Boxer Rebellion, take another look at the endgame, particularly the China Inland Mission incident in which every European man, woman, child, and baby was slaughtered in their mission after being promised safe passage out of China.
I’ll admit that I hadn’t heard details about the China Inland Mission incident prior to this, and that it was indeed very horrible. I guess the anger of the Chinese at the Westerners over boiled and drove them to such inhumane acts of violence.
So when Chinese do it to Westerners, you can chalk it up to righteous anger, but when Tibetans do it to Chinese, they need to have the PLA unleashed on them to indiscriminately fire into crowds? Seems like a double standard.
Balth wrote:
]
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
Totalitarian? Virtually ALL civilizations were totalitarian prior to the 17th century or so.
So China has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 1600s. How proud they must be.
There was a typo there, I meant 18th century, as that was when the US, and a full democracy, came into existence. And I don’t know what you’re talking about as I was simply pointing out that your “totalitarian” accusation is invalid if all countries were totalitarian.
Except that all civilizations WEREN'T totalitarian throughout history. Greece had a democracy for a couple of centuries, Rome was a republic with a Senate for a few centuries, and even had a Senate during the Empire. England was a constitutional monarchy since the Magna Carta, and has had a parliament since the Renaissance. So how was my assertion that China has been totalitarian since 3000 BCE (that we know of) rendered invalid again?
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
The figure of 2 million Tibetans killed in the Chinese invasion is quite absurd and exaggerated.
Wow--it's not Holocaust Denial if you do it to Tibetans! If you want to see mass graves, look for the monasteries shelled into the ground with their residents still inside. Two million may be a misremembered figure, but in any case it was a HUGE percentage of the overall population. I personally know people whose whole families were slaughtered.
I am not denying that many Tibetans were killed in the invasion. I was stating that such figures are an exaggeration.
I will point out, however, that the monasteries weren’t simply shelled for no reason – at that time there were various groups of guerrillas fighting the PLA, who took refuge in the monasteries. The PLA shelled those monasteries to eliminate the rebels. Very heavy-handed, yes, and I am not saying the destroying of monasteries and monks was justified, only explaining the PLA’s reasoning for doing it.
So given that the Tibetans dared to try to defend their country from an illegal invasion by the PLA, during which you yourself have admitted many Tibetans were slaughtered, that gave the PLA the right to commit whatever war crimes they wanted to punish those who dared to resist their war crimes? That's not an explanation, that's a revolting excuse. Furthermore, expert on Tibet that you surely must be, you would know that there are vast tracts of Tibetan countryside that had NO structures at all
but monasteries, and that particularly in the winter, the temperature is often -40 degrees C? Pray tell me, where were the
freedom fighters to go other than a monastery?
Balth wrote:
Maybe you need to take all things into consideration (which international news sources most often don’t), such as the fact that China, being a developing nation with a fifth of the world’s population, needs to keep up power and resource supplies for themselves with relatively cheap methods. Suddenly switching to expensive, environmentally friendly factories and plants would cost a massive amount of money, as well as not producing enough for the population and large land area. Telling China to switch to green-friendly in a short amount of time is an unrealistic demand that can’t be fulfilled (without negatively affecting all other economic aspects of China) until China becomes a developed nation at least. China is making efforts, however, which can be seen in its building of Asia’s largest wind power plant and conducting extensive research into renewable energy sources.
Before criticizing China’s pollution, one must also take the huge population into account. Developed Western countries produce much, much more pollution per head than China does. You simply cannot expect a country with over four times the population of the US to produce less pollution than the US, especially when it’s a developing country. In the words of Mr Yang Jiechi: “It’s like there is one person who eats three slices of bread for breakfast, and there are three of them who eat only one slice. Who should be on a diet?”
So you're saying that because the PRC out breeds the rest of the world, that gives it the right to eat species into extinction, conquer however much territory it wants, and choke the rest of the world with its industrial waste? I'm sorry, but you have offered nothing but apologetics and excuses.
As for what the PRC should have done during its rapid spurt in development over the last two decades, many clean energy technologies had been developed and implemented in the West before China began its growth. The PRC CHOSE not to use them out of arrogance, out of lack of concern for environmental regulations (of which there were none in the PRC), and and the fact that the PRC cares for nothing but what the CPC bosses want.
As for quoting some cynical asshole from the CPC to justify the PRC's abysmal record on the environment, why not consider that the only reason why the PRC's "pollution footprint, if you will, is spread amongst so many people is because there ARE so many people, most of whom live in squalor. You can't use the argument that it's OK to kill lots of people because there are so many people and then use the argument that the PRC is more environmentally responsible because there are so many people to blame the environmental devastation on.
Balth wrote:
Like I said before, China is already investing huge amounts of money into trying to reduce the effects of pollution of the environment, but at this current stage in China’s development, as I mentioned above, it is impossible to reverse the effects, unless the government ignore every other responsibility in running China and focus all their effort and budget into saving the environment.
Then that's what they should do, instead of mucking up and environmentally raping Tibet (along with itself, the world's atmosphere, the Pacific Ocean, shall I go on?). Just imagine what the PRC could do to impress the rest of the world if instead of wasting billions on the Olympics and suppressing dissent, it cleaned up its own house.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
While I believe that China should allow more religious freedom in Tibet and loosen up there, I do not support Tibetan independence as I don't see the necessity of it today, especially after if China decides to grant more freedom to Tibet.
Not shooting people in the head on a regular basis for being Tibetan Buddhists and "more religious freedom" are hardly one and the same. As for your "freedom," have a look at this.
First of all, Tibetan Buddhists are not shot “in the head on a regular basis” for being Buddhists. In case you haven’t noticed Buddhism is a popular and historical religion in all of China and many Buddhists exist in other parts of China, who aren’t shot for their religion.
I don’t see how you could have possibly assumed what my standards of freedom are after I stated in good will that Tibet truly deserves more freedom. By more freedom I honestly mean that they should be treated equal to the rest of China. Please, don’t insult my morals like that.
Morals? Don't insult people's intelligence. My point, as you can read (but ignored), was that just because the days when people were shot in the head on a regular basis for their faith (and those days were very, very real) are largely past--though I saw some photos today that make me think that may no longer be the case--doesn't mean there's any sort of meaningful religious freedom for Tibetan Buddhists, who have their leaders selected for them by the PRC, and who are constantly under scrutiny lest they do something "counter-revolutionary," among many, many other complaints.
And did you totally ignore the video of the teenage girls being SHOT IN THE BACK?
Any idiot knows there are a lot of Buddhists in the PRC--no thanks to the Great Hero Mao who tried to eradicate them during the Cultural Revolution--but it takes a special kind to ignore the fact that Tibetan Buddhism is quite different, and has largely been under attack precisely because of its essential role in Tibet's identity as a nation, precisely because Tibet is a traditional theocracy run by the Lamas, and that is precisely this reason why it has continued to be targeted by the PRC, long after they decided that Chinese Buddhism, so thoroughly shot through with Confucianism and its blind respect for "Authority," is actually a great implement of subjugation when properly controlled by the CPC.
In prolepsis, while Tibet is a theocracy, which is also a form of unelected government, the fact that the Tibetan people WANT IT THAT WAY makes its implementation an expression of democracy.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
As for the current riots:
- Unless the situation escalates even further into absolute anarchy and carnage, it is highly doubtful that Chinese forces will “brutally suppress” the Tibetans, when it has become such a focal point for global media, so close to the Olympics.
Riddle me this, Batman: Unless the PLA were really planning to take the gloves off in Lhasa, why would they want to be rid of all of the tourists, except to make sure that nobody can take footage out to the BBC (or whomever)? The Tibetans have absolutely not targeted tourists in the current unrest, nor have they done so at any time in living memory. Whatever scant information escapes Tibet in the next few days, likely at the cost of Tibetan lives, will tell the tale.
Tourists are not getting totally cleared out of Lhasa. There are still many tourists there, though the security has become much tighter with troops and police patrolling the streets to prevent more violence. Also, Chinese authorities have issued a wanted list of 12 offenders… that’s it. If you were expecting a brutal clampdown, looks like you’ve been disappointed so far.
Tourists not cleared from Lhasa? EVERY SINGLE international news agency I have seen begs to differ. As for the "twelve offenders," why have hundreds been arrested and driven away to god knows where on trucks? Why are there NO young men on the streets of Lhasa?
Balth wrote:
Anyway we shall see in the next few days what happens. However I maintain my prediction that the Chinese forces won’t do anything outrageously violent and stupid. Whether you want to accept it or not, China is modernizing and as a result is improving its human rights record.
I like your choice of words. Its human rights
record, as opposed to its human rights
situation. I totally agree. It's amazing how much you can get away with if you so tightly control the media and foreign press that no one can record what you're doing. If the PRC put half the budget into cleaning its environment that it puts into sanitizing its image, it'd be the cleanest place on Earth.
Balth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Balth wrote:
So there you go, my point of view. I suggest you look deeper into the issue you're arguing about before you make exaggerated assumptions derived from Western propaganda, OP.
And I suggest you be sure and print out your brave defense of Communist China the next time you're debriefed by External Security upon entry into the PRC. Maybe they'll give you a presentation copy of the
Little Red Book.
I find it interesting you’d say such a thing, in addition to the racial slurs at the beginning of your post, considering my views haven’t been very extremist at all, unlike yours. Do you consider anyone who doesn’t share your view and takes a softer stance on China a brainwashed Communist? Throughout your post you maintained that I was a one-eyed Communist, despite the fact that I was only diminishing your exaggerated and often offensive claims and not denying them nor aggressively glorifying the Chinese government in any way.
I never once called you a Communist (and I certainly never implied you were a Cyclops), nor did I ever once use a racial slur, even though you told me I was exaggerating and deluded by Western propaganda, the first of which is untrue and the latter of which is pretty inflammatory in and of itself.
Balth wrote:
You cannot expect to write something degrading China and not prompt a defensive reply from an offended person of Chinese background.
Ah, the race card! What does being Han have to do with supporting the PRC? I have good friends from Singapore, the U.S., Taiwan, and Canada, all of whom are Han in origin, all of whom totally despise the People's Republic of China, for no reason moreso than that it dares to try to define for others what it means to be Chinese, and thereby generates loathing against the Han diaspora. I do not make that mistake; do not call me a racist, even by implication, sir!
Balth wrote:
I cannot tolerate it when people who take an over-extremist, negative and one-eyed view of other countries (or organizations, or individuals, for that matter) to the point that they’re actually ignoring any positives of that country.
It sounds like you're mainly concerned about the PRC. As for positives about it, I eagerly await it demonstrating, in any way (be it trade practices, human rights, positive influence abroad, respect for minority populations, environmental responsibility, hell, I'm not picky) some positive action or aspect (other than film, which is good, largely in spite of CPC censorship and a repressive climate toward the arts). I do not anticipate having my wish granted any time soon, however.
Balth wrote:
However your intent seemed to be to mislead neutrals into viewing China with an extremely negative image it does not deserve.
You don't need to worry about that; I was simply pointing out the negative image it
does deserve. No-one with a speck of conscience should be neutral about that.
Balth wrote:
There are many positives of the government which you chose to ignore, such as how it has created the fastest-growing economy in the world (on which most countries rely heavily on), maintained relatively low domestic crime rates, brought down poverty rates from 53% in 1981 to 8% in 2001, created very high youth literacy rates, maintained an exceptionally thriving cultural scene (after the Cultural Revolution, anyway, another policy I opposed), improved life expectancy by 32 years in the time of just over half a century, and basically turned China from a third-world country into a modern, prominent international competitor and an emerging superpower predicted to rival the US in a few decades.
I didn't "choose to ignore" anything. This wasn't a thread about how the PRC has been able to create one of the world's fastest growing economies by brutally raping the environment and cynically ignoring the human rights of many of its workers, nor yet how its economists have managed to juggle some statistics to make it appear as if the utterly failed Communist system (pardon me if Ive misread Marx, but how does a system that is supposed to create economic equality for all manage to produce a system in which over half of the people live in poverty?), nor its life expectancy, nor the fact that its managed to create of itself an upstart economy based on shoddy goods and wholesale theft of intellectual property. This was and is a thread about how a communist dictatorship has spent the last fifty to sixty years obliterating its own beautiful culture and has defaced, defiled, and demolished the unique, beautiful, irreplaceable culture of one of its neighbors along with it.
Balth wrote:
I found your derogatory breakdown of China in your OP offensive, and misleading to people neutral or less knowledgeable on China. China is certainly not as bad as you imply
No, I have neither time nor energy to make implications equal to the PRC's malevolence and disregard for human dignity, nor would I even try to do so.
Balth wrote:
, and is rapidly improving on its old tarnishes on its reputation. If everyone was like you and wanted to boycott everything to do with the PRC, it wouldn’t even have the chance to move forward, to right its old wrongs, and would ultimately lead to a worse, more oppressed China than the one you complain about.
So if the world doesn't shut up and let the PRC do whatever it wants to its own people, to the environment, to the Uighurs, and to Tibet, it'll just do something worse?
Balth wrote:
I understand your anger at the PRC for the oppression of Tibet, and I also disapprove of the conditions there, but it is really quite unfair to pile such degrading insults and exhibit such one-eyed views on a great country, even if it does have its dark side that nobody is proud of.
I don't think you have any idea how angry I am, but I do sincerely apologize if you find the truth degrading. That's something you share in common with the PRC.
Balth wrote:
Well, I’m over my initial anger now and I won’t hold anything against you for having a different political view, and I hope you won’t hold it against me (unless you really consider a soft opinion on China to be brainwashed Communism and want to hold a grudge against me even regarding matters outside of politics
). I just disapprove of what I consider an over-reaction and failure to consider all factors in your argument.
I'll get over my initial anger when the last PLA soldier leaves Tibet and takes his railroad with him. I absolutely have nothing against you except that I see a cynical apologism unworthy of your obvious intelligence. I'm sure you're a great person when you're not defending that which by its very nature is indefensible. I do find it a little ridiculous, though, that you assume that simply because someone reaches a different conclusion from your own that they failed to consider all factors in their argument.
Balth wrote:
We can let this debate/discussion on China continue, by all means, but I hope in a more reasonable, considerate manner that is less offensive and one-eyed.
I'm glad we have your permission.
I apologize if you found my reaction to your post offensive; I was offended by your implication that I had no idea what I was talking about. Others can be the judge that of that one way or another.