Olympic activism

[Sand]

I don't buy Chinese made products as much as possible. They tend to be inferior in most cases.

[Tigranes]

The problem is, it's actually pretty easy to avoid products made in China (except for clothing, maybe), but not products made with components possibly from China. Sand may have to get rid of random bits and pieces from his computer he's posting from if he decided to be really draconian with his boycott. In clothing, electronics, toys (if you're a parent you're screwed), food you eat in the restaurant or buy take-out, possibly - it's quite difficult to entirely avoid China. Which is why if America simply stopped all trade with China, they would be royally screwed.

 

Still, it does seem to be the only way to get any country's attention, nowadays.

[Sand]

That is why I put in "as much as possible" in my statement.

[thepixiesrock]

Yeah, you're the one rolling your eyes at us

 

Maybe on opposite day.

[Humodour]

Here is an example of how a Chinese person in Australia feels about the Tibet, the West, etc:

 

I'll have to word this carefully.

 

The world is being misguided by the traitors of China.

 

Once you're under somebody's rule, you have to listen to them. They want nothing bad for you. It's called having a united front, you work together, you advance together.

 

China had not been "brutal" to Tibet, initially. Anyone from the mainland will know what I'm talking about. They're the autonomous ones, alright. Deal. No probs. The government used to help them, sending goods over etc. when they needed them, all's peaceful. Now, once they're stronger, they're like the snakes of winter.

 

Coming back alive and biting like a monster.

 

Then comes the aggression from the government.

 

Like all immature bitches and bastards, the traitors of China protest: "WE WANT INDEPENDENCE". Blah blah...no human rights, blah blah.

 

What the West cannot understand is "pre-quence"...and I dare say that because people may see China as "new money", many resent the country and want it divided up. Moreover, they like to see civil unrest to have a boost themselves. Every country is different. China has survived so many f*cking years than Australia and is booming.

 

Stop being envious and start growing some backbones yourselves.

 

China has so many values...values of the family, education...just to name a few. I'm really saddened to see that the rest of the world cannot see that. We are really warm people. Really united. We're only angered when there're traitors within us in the first place.

 

I'd hate to see it before she worded it carefully.

 

Say what you want, do what you will, I'm not arguing about this anymore. I wouldn't care if no one goes to the Olympics this year.

 

The bottom line is, China has killed nobody. It's all hype. Believe it or not. China's innocent.

 

..and who says we don't have human rights? Who says we don't have freedom of speech? Who says that we don't have respect? Where did that come from? If you point them out to me, I'll show you that they're all hype. We've been mistaken again and again. Where do we get the knowledge from? From the media, from the Australian media, from the Tibetans, but not from China herself.

 

The government doesn't need to stand out to say anything.

 

IF YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG, IF YOU'VE WALKED STRAIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR SHADOWS STRAYING. One day you'll all realize that you've been blind. Mark my words. This century belongs to China and no one'll be able to snatch that away.

 

Don't be too naive about it all, even if you're good hearted. There're no human rights issues in China.

 

(Later in another post)

 

Once the Games are over. Tibetans will shut up and we'll slap their arses. Then the truth will come out.

[random n00b]

So how's Power Armor development going?

[Humodour]

Hahahahahaha. That actually made me laugh. The Sierra Army Depot was one of the best locations.

 

To answer your question: surprisingly well. Much of the system has been completed in prototypes. The next step is ironing out all the bugs and rolling it out to all combat units. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior

 

Considering all the individual elements sound feasible, and the same people developing this developed things like the Internet and GPS, I think it will succeed.

 

Edit: Not to mention that America's military R&D spending amounts to something crazy like the whole world's combined.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

I have to say that the business of Tibet becomes more murky the deeper one digs. I haven't time to go to the library over this, and Wikipedia is even more outrageous than usual. I have read one book on the subject, written by an American colonel in the mid fifties. In it he alleges that the PLA had been halted a combination of ibetan forces and the terrain, and had been about to give up on a bad job. But suddenly the Dalai Lama signed the 17 point treaty basically saying that Tibet ought realy to be part of China.

 

I confess that the notion of the Tibetans beating hardened communists at the time seemed fantastical. However

 

1) If Tibetans are anything like Ghurkas then I think we can regard them as superb fighters.

 

2) Chinese communist logistics were simplistic at best. Far from home I can well believe that they'd be hard pressed to sustain an operational force.

 

If this was the case then frankly I have a hard tim sympathising with the Tibetans. That's the price you pay for being bloody wet.

[Walsingham]

Extract from Stratfor:

 

"The torch relay in San Francisco proved a mixed bag of anti-China and pro-China demonstrators, as well as spectators simply hoping for a glimpse of the symbol of the Olympic Games. Pro-Tibet and other demonstrators altered their tactics in San Francisco following clashes surrounding the torch run in London and Paris

[Nick_i_am]

If this was the case then frankly I have a hard tim sympathising with the Tibetans. That's the price you pay for being bloody wet.

 

I mirror this sentiment, and find that a lot of the people who sympathise with with the 'Free Tibet' plight actually know very little about either Tibet itself or the history that lead up to the current situation.

[walkerguy]

...

Edited April 17, 2008 by walkerguy

[Gorgon]

That doesn't make any sense, even if they surrendered mistakenly based on the actual military realities, the Dalia Lama is just one man, you can't sum up a people's identity and claim to cultural uniqueness in one.

 

Not that I think the pre invasion Tibet was some kind of utopia of peaceful monks, it was more akin to religious autocracy, even if it lacked the extreme repressive measures we usually associate with the term.

[samm]

If this was the case then frankly I have a hard tim sympathising with the Tibetans. That's the price you pay for being bloody wet.

 

I mirror this sentiment, and find that a lot of the people who sympathise with with the 'Free Tibet' plight actually know very little about either Tibet itself or the history that lead up to the current situation.

I do know enough about Tibet itself (in its current state, not so much about the history) thanks to an ex girlfriend, who is a tibetian in exile and who spent half a year in lhasa (and dharamsala) during the time we were together. And I completely to sympathize with the plight to free tibet. Essence: No argument there I do not in all cases sympathize with any violence coming from the demonstrators, but again as person who has been to demonstration I know it's a) not the people demonstrating for the cause who are violent or b) the police used inadequat force first.

 

Instrumentizing the media attention on china because of the olympic game is ok, just as someone stated above: Why not using it for something relevant, when companies use it for advertising?

[Humodour]

That doesn't make any sense, even if they surrendered mistakenly based on the actual military realities, the Dalia Lama is just one man, you can't sum up a people's identity and claim to cultural uniqueness in one.

 

Not that I think the pre invasion Tibet was some kind of utopia of peaceful monks, it was more akin to religious autocracy, even if it lacked the extreme repressive measures we usually associate with the term.

 

Indeed. Nick and Walsingham's stances seem akin to "You had poor military leadership at an arbitrary time in history; you don't deserve freedom". I could be wrong.

[Nick_i_am]

No, it's not that I don't think that Tibetans 'deserve freedom' if that's what they want, it's simply that I don't have a huge degree of sympathy for the situation the country has gotten itself into. I'll admit though that this is effected both by my lack of love for the Tibetan regime pre-china and my lack of love for single-issue hippies who pick up foreign causes without actually knowing anything about them.

 

I would perfer that Tibet wasn't occupied by China however, it's simply a question of my own degree of actual caring in light of events.

 

Fun fact! The PC game 'Hearts of Iron 2' a sort of global scale simulation of the WW2 period was banned in China because it showed Tibet as an independant country (despite the fact that this is historically accurate).

[Guard Dog]

and my lack of love for single-issue hippies who pick up foreign causes without actually knowing anything about them.

 

Thats it. Nick wins this thread!

[Humodour]

Oh? Interestingly, most of the people criticising China seem to have well-researched opinions. I know supporters of the Chinese government like to dismiss criticism by invoking the "but problems exist elsewhere and you are ignoring them!" argument, but as far as I know, there are just as many (more) people who are also championing those causes.

 

What would you have Xard, that people spread themselves impossibly thin trying to improve all problems in the world at once? Personally I'd prefer if one group tried to bring attention to the problems in China, another to those in Lesotha and the rest of Africa, another to those in America, another to those in regional Australia, etc.

 

The world isn't perfect, but as far as China goes, there's a lot that needs fixing, and I really don't think you can sweep that under the carpet by claiming hypocrisy or that two wrongs make a right.

[Azarkon]

That doesn't make any sense, even if they surrendered mistakenly based on the actual military realities, the Dalia Lama is just one man, you can't sum up a people's identity and claim to cultural uniqueness in one.

 

Not that I think the pre invasion Tibet was some kind of utopia of peaceful monks, it was more akin to religious autocracy, even if it lacked the extreme repressive measures we usually associate with the term.

 

People have to balance the quest for freedom, which is legitimate, with geo-political realities.

 

It is incorrect to say that the Chinese government has never supported Tibetan cultural and religious autonomy. They did in the 1970s. The result was the 1989 Lhasa uprising. The Tibetan government-in-exile (comprised mostly of the former religious aristocracy that fled during the 1959 uprising) is vehemently anti-China and has never demonstrated that they want anything less than full independence. It is this organization that essentially prevents the Chinese government from softening its stance on Tibet - any move to do so inevitably moves the province to formal independence.

 

The problem with that is that the PRC cannot afford the formal independence of Tibet. It would lose the security of its southwestern border to a hostile regime that would, in all likelihood, become a US/Indian protectorate and subsequently clamor for a Greater Tibet consisting of territory in the current Chinese heartland (the recognition of which, in case you didn't know, is one of the defining issues for the Tibetan government-in-exile). It'd trigger several other independence movements in Xinjiang (East Turkistan), Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Outer Manchuria, etc. The PRC would not last, especially as it becomes clear that the government cannot defend the state's territorial integrity. Some argue that this is a good thing, but it obviously isn't from the perspective of anyone who actually belongs to the Chinese nation. Nobody wants their own country to break up and the ensuring chaos that would result.

 

It's also unclear that a break-up of China will lead to a more stable East Asia. If anything, the newly independent ethnic states will instantly become embroiled in border conflicts, requiring the presence of foreign peace-keeping forces. The US would, naturally, love such a setup - it'd get more bases in East Asia to strengthen its regional hegemony. But if it's true freedom you're after, I doubt you'll see alot of it. Alot of this has to do with the current political environment - East Asia has become the focal point of several great powers, and in the event of a Chinese break-up, these great powers will scramble to fill the vacuum. Landlocked provinces like Tibet and Xinjiang, which lack market access but have plenty of natural resources, will be drawn into supplier relationships; they'll become the equivalent of East Asian Saudi Arabias - trading resources for legitimacy.

 

At the end of the day, it'll simply be the triumph of one political class over another, because in reality the truel agitation is and has always been coming from the former Tibetan political elite (ie this is not a grassroots movement). Now, I have no doubt that the Tibetan government in exile can do a good job of running Tibet. But I also have no doubt that the PRC is capable of doing the same, if it wasn't under permanent secessionist pressure by the Tibetan government in exile. At the end of the day, how you view Tibet depends on what you think the basic unit of statehood should be. If you think that a people's freedom can only be aptly represented by ethnic-national entities, then you obviously have to say that Tibet should be Tibetan. If, on the other hand, you believe that federalism is the way to go, and that arching, multi-cultural political entities like China are better for regional security, stability, and self-determination (in the sense of resisting outside powers in the current political climate), then you necessarily have to argue for China.

 

To me, there is no "right" answer to this question, even if you knew all the facts. Taking anything more than a casual "they should compromise and work something out" stance requires adopting a certain bias.

[Humodour]

As long as China doesn't suddenly move for Taiwan I doubt the **** will hit the fan any time soon.

[Azarkon]

Oh? Interestingly, most of the people criticising China seem to have well-researched opinions.

 

That would depend on what you mean by criticizing China. People who pretend that there aren't any problems in China are obviously lunatics, but there's a huge range of opinions between "China is perfect! It's all a Western conspiracy!" and "FREE TIBET!" My research has led me to believe that most well-informed people (ie Goldstein) take a middle-of-the-road approach and argue for a strategic settlement that would preserve Chinese political power in Tibet while granting Tibetans sufficient autonomy to self-govern. They argue for a curbing of both the PRC's and the Tibetan government in exile's rhetoric.

 

On the other hand, websites like tibetjustice, savetibet, etc. may appear to be well-informed, when in actuality they basically ignore arguments from the other side. If you dig deeper, you'll realize that many of the claims made by such websites can be challenged; this is not surprising, because the Free Tibet movement is a quite influential in determining Western perceptions on the issue, and as such if you stick to English language, non-academic sources, most of the material will have been influenced or produced with such a bias. Consequently, browsing pro-Tibet websites and Western media sources does not make you well-informed with regards to the Tibetan question. You have to go alot further than that.

[Humodour]

I was not talking about websites (I haven't actually read any of the ones you mention, yet). I was talking about people on this forum and another forum I frequent.

 

Although it's interesting you mention Western media and websites are "uninformed" - the person I quoted earlier, the one claiming there are no human rights abuses in China, also claimed that Western media is all hype.

 

I wonder how such a claim has validity considering China has the worst freedom of press rating in the world, whilst simultaneously trying to restrict and prevent Western press and similar access to the country and any information regarding human rights abuses.

 

I have a choice: China and Chinese nationalist press which states there's nothing to see here, China is fine, move along... or I can check humanitarian organisations, and read news sources from various places such as Al Jazeera, Russia, Scandinavia, and then the usual suspects like America and Britain, which often wildly contradict the Chinese news sources. Hummmm.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Krezack

[Azarkon]

I'd stick to academic sources, if I were you. Neither Western media nor the Chinese media can be trusted on this issue.

[Gorgon]

There is a rather strange dynamic going on in this if you think about it. The Chinese reaction to western criticism reinforces its sense of national identity, while for the west the example of a totalitarian regime reinforces our conception of the value of democracy. Both are defined by their opposites and everybody wins.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Gorgon

[Azarkon]

Well, I'm not sure it reinforces Chinese national identity as much as it challenges. Modern China thinks of itself as a multi-ethnic state; the alternative that various separatist groups are pushing has to do with ethnic separatism - they assert that China is the country of the "Han" ethnicity and that they, being of a different ethnicity, have the right to separate. This is a fundamental challenge to the Chinese identity because full submission to it means that "Chinese" has to become a "Han" identity as opposed to a national one. But if that was the assumption, China's history would have been very different. For one thing, China would not have pursued its policy of trying to placate minorities and winning hearts & minds; they'd probably have practiced something more like apartheid and partition in order to carve out as large of a "Han" territory as possible after the collapse of the Qing. In retrospect, that would've resulted in a very bloody 20th century for the Chinese, but they might've come out of it more homogeneous and stable than they are now.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

National identity can be tied up with a show of multi ethnicity or multi nationalism, think England for instance.

 

The fact that all is not well in the quaint province of Tibet can be overlooked.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Gorgon