A question for those who support China's atrocities in Tibet

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately, there are some people who defend China's occupation and atrocities in Tibet by saying Tibet was a backwards country and that China is just lifting them out of the stone age and so forth. Well, even if that's true, what do you have to say about China using tanks to crush Chinese protestors at Tiannanmen square back in 1989? Were these protestors barbarians that needed to be civilized with health care and education? Why would they protest if China's communist system is so great and benevolent.

Please answer me that. If you defend China's action against Tibetans, then will you also defend China's actions against Han Chinese who are also fed up with the lack of freedom?

China Syndrome topic

I have a hunch not many governments support China on this one. Still, we must wait and see because this is one of many stories in which there will be no happy ending, only a complex and disasterous stalemate.

Well, I doubt your government, or ours, will get too pushy about it as they know that they'd be doing the same thing to us given similar circumstances. Indeed, although our governments may not be as brutal and oppressive as the Chinese, they're prepared to use disproportionate violence if it's assessed to be politically acceptable. For example, British police don't shy from using metal truncheons to crack the skulls of old folk, as was seen in London a few years back when protestors demonstrated against the government banning hunting, or in the case of US law enforcement there are several examples of them shooting protestors dead, as in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg%2C_South_Carolina

For the record I don't support my own government in many matters either. But if my government invaded Canada and were doing to Canada what China is doing to Tibet you can be sure I would not approve of it and I would speak out.

Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China in a similar (but not exactly the same) way to South Carolina being part of the US.

I think a better analogy would be the way Ireland was part of the UK.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. And yes that would be in some ways similar, but as most Americans know little about the geography and politics beyond their shores, I thought it best to keep things close to home.

Where were all the China-bashers when the Guatemalan military was massacring entire villages (men, women and children) of Mayan Indians (with far, far more dead than in the current Chinese crackdown)? Where were they during the Rwandan genocide, in which a modest provision of arms to the Tutsis would have brought down the regime? Do they put pressure on Japan for oppressing her Korean minority (which exists because they were taken as slaves during WWII)? Do they defend religious minorities in Saudi Arabia?
Yes, the way China deals with Tibet is wrong - but so is the treatment of many minorities around the world. What, exactly, is so unique about Tibet?

the difference is china is an emerging superpower and the west is using this to portray a negative image of china.

Or perhaps how Puerto Rico is part of the US, as the best modern parallel to the US I can think of. As better historical examples, maybe we could look at US involvement in the Philippines. We justified that occupation by saying that we were bringing them civilization, but they really did not want us there.

China is a commie country in which its citizens have few rights.

No, it isn't.

If South Carolina was an independent country with a distinct culture and religion and languages spanning milennia and if the U.S. invaded it and annexed it within the last 50 years then your analogy would make sense, but South Carolina was one of the original 13 states and joined the union voluntarily.

True, it's more like Hawaii.

The motivation behind the Tiannamen square uprising was that the Chinese people were fed up with communism. May I point out that in the 90s, the Chinese goverment realized the futility of communism and has since put itself on the fast track to a market economy. The result is that the (Han)Chinese are a LOT more satisfied-EVEN though they dont have personal freedom and democracy. People WILL put up with authoriarianism-ESPECIALLY in east asia where democracy goes against thousands of years of asian tradition. What they will NOT put up with is a state run economy with NOT economic freedom and no private property rights. You do realize that the Chinese goverment could curtail its human rights abuses against Tibetans EVEN IF Tibet
isnt granted full independence. Another problem is how would an independent Tibet support itself? Maybe it was Hyperbole to call the Dalai Lama a dictator-in-exile BUT the reality is that he isnt really the paragon of virtue and compassion that the West has portrayed him to be.

That's true. And if you asked me if I think it was right for the U.S. to invade Hawaii and take it over I would say that it wasn't. There is a movement to make Hawaii independent even today, and I would support it because Hawaii was an independent Kingdom and it was wrong for us to do what we did. I have no problem criticizing my country for some of the things it has done wrong, so I am not a hypocrite for criticizing China or other countries when they do wrong either.

He is the reincarnation of Buddha, and Buddha is the paragon of virtue and compassion. I will admit there were problems in Tibet before China invaded (actually, what country doesn't have some problems? Look at how the U.S. had slavery, for example) but I don't think it is fair to lay the blame for Tibet's problems on the Dalai Lama. He was only a child when the Chinese invaded. From what I understand, there were regents who ruled for him because he was too young to handle things himself. It is probably a great deal like how Japan was before and during WW2 where there was a young emperor, but he didn't have any real power and dictators like Tojo were allowed to run things. But after the war, the emperor kept the throne but his position is just ceremonial and Japan is now a modern democracy.

That's what I think should be done in Tibet. The old religious theocracy should be abolished, and instead there should be a modern democracy and then the Dalai Lama would just be a ceremonial leader with no real power. Like the Emperor of Japan or the Queen of England. If this worked for Japan after the war then why couldn't it work for Tibet?