Actually Sishir, if you look into past events, I'd think that you'd find the Dalai Lama flip flopped several times already.
I'm not saying anything of the sort... I am in total agreement with you in saying that what took place in Nanjing at the hands of the Japanese army was one of the most horrific atrocities of the 20th century. You won't find me denying that. And you're spot on about the current Japanese government/people. While recognizing it would be ideal, they are not responsible for the atrocities committed so long ago. Arguing back and forth over the numbers killed, or the specific details... it's numbing. So is comparing it on a scale of atrocities to other examples -- Nazi concentration camps, Atomic bombing of Japan, eradication of American Indians, etc. It proves no point... it accomplishes nothing other than trivializing the events. Having said that, Iris Chang's book shouldn't be read as a historical document on "the facts" of the Nanjing Massacre. It was poorly researched and is a far better indicator of how people -- professional historians, amateur historians, etc. -- have appropriated and manipulated the memory of The Nanjing Massacre for their own ends. I think that was the point of my previous post.
My sino-supremacist friend, can you take a break from your own rhetoric for a second and stop typing "pwn3d!!!11!" enough to actually read for a second before lapsing into hyper-defensive mode? LOL, I didn't justify the reservation system, I said it was crappy. I said that native americans are granted significantly more autonomy than Tibetans have, and that I think many Tibetans would gladly accept this. Again, I'd invite you to ask most Tibetans this but most of them would be afraid to talk to you. As far as "small" reservations go, Tibet is seven times the size of Texas, so I'm pretty sure you could carve up a "small" portion for them in the southern half of the region and let them have self government in spots, and still have plenty of room for nuclear waste dump sites and military bases and coal mines and clapboard towns that the CCP likes to build there. That's all I meant. You likewise jumped the gun on the "claim" I made about British superiority (I should say, a measured dose of English reserve would do you some good, wouldn't it? It's a pretty sad state of affairs on this BBS when I'm the one who's acting like an adult, no? ). My point is that is hard, if not impossible, from the point of Tibetan self interest to imagine the Tibetans would be much worse off today, if the Brits had established a protectorate after their own (equally unlawful) invasion in 1906 as they had initially planned. I mean look at what happened to them after 1950 - you concede that Chinese committed various atrocities, killing thousands, kidnapped or imprisoned countless others, razed priceless historical sites, etc etc etc, and now they are dealing with being crowded out of their own country - tell me, short of hustling them into concentration camps and killing them off - how much worse could it possibly have gotten? Things are better now than they were in the 1970's I guess, but if you think that the past 50 years have collectively been anything but a huge-ass downer for the Tibetan people, not just the "loudmouths" in India, that's quite foolish. The legacy of Britain as a colonial master is not pleasant or pretty by any means, - but at least they figured out two things 1. that they eventually had to leave, and 2. left behind just enough to enable the rise of a few successful states (and many failed ones as well). Neither of those two things is something that the Chinese occupiers ever had in mind or will ever even attempt to do in Tibet, we both know that By the way, next time you call somebody a white-supremicst (let me guess, this isn't the first time you've made this charge? or even the first time today, heh), you should make sure that, you know, they don't happen to be latino, lol.
I don't know all that much about Chinese history either and am just fortunate enough that this thread popped up at an opportune period in my reading list. But I agree 100% that citing the nuances of Tang or even Qing dynasty suzerainty arrangements has little to no value today, or even by 1950.
Sam: How do you converse with Tibetans? In English? Spanish? Manderine Chinese? Tibeten? Just curious.
Thank you. That's at least better than "through grunts, leg kicks and monkey dance". Oh, that's hilarious.
I'm well aware that the Dalai Lama has changed his views regarding Tibetan independence but in the past decade he's been willing to accept Chinese sovereignity and has always wanted to negotiate. We forget just how young he was when the Chinese moved into Tibet, 15, and also when he fled. In the early days of Chinese occupation he was swayed by Mao and captivated by Mao's charisma and ideals. Living in exile for most of his life now and having the chance to see much of the world and international politics has caused his views to change and also grow. Right now worldwide the Dalai Lama is respected and revered not just as a religious leader but also a great moral leader. The PRC has a lot to gain from negotiating with him on Tibetan autonomy, or at the minimum allowing him to return to Tibet.
And I told you, I'm not sure what % of total land the reserves represent, I have to look into that. However, if you feel autonomy can be achieved that way, I'm sure equally racist pricks in the CCP would have no problems accepting similar % of Tibet being reserves, though still Chinese land. I'd tend to think that's inhumaine, as they deserve the land as much as any other Chinese citizen, but what the hell do I know? Actually it's not hard to imagine at all Tibet being worse under the British system. You assume that they have some natural benevolence towards the people around when evidence shows otherwise. But I'm certainly glad that they can be proud of no longer having a drug pushing queen around come 1906. This is not to incite any hate towards the British, but it's merely to prove that they don't have a monopoly on moral ethics. White people aren't inherently more benevolent nor more cruel than Asians, blacks other others, but you assumed that they do. Quite frankly you don't know what the British would have done. Ask yourself this question: had Tibet been British instead of Chicom territory, would it garner nearly as much attention as it does today? No. Proof? Hong Kong is a pretty good example. And actually it IS the first time I called somebody a white-supremicist, which speaks volumes.
And I get accused of being brainwashed. You know Sishir, the Dalai Lama once claimed that 1.6 million Tibetans died in the 50's and 60's as a result of the Chinese. Of course, a concensus of the population conducted by Tibetans in 58 (?) showed the actual population of Tibet was about 1.55 million. So aside from the PLA not having a strong enough contingent in Tibet to kill 1.6 million, they didn't have 1.6 million to kill. Now, mind you, it is conceivable that the concensus just under counted. But even at a population of say... 1.8 million, it would have to grow at a 12% annual rate to reach the level it is today. And we certainly wouldn't have cities in Tibet as supposed to villages. Now it may be possible that he was young at somebody purposefully misinformed him. I, however, find that unlikely. What he wants is to negotiate under his terms, or he won't negotiate at all. And when he does want to talk, the Commies want to negotiate under THEIR terms or they won't talk. Both sides did their share of it. So the Dalai Lama is as much of a politician as a religious leader, maybe more.
I'm not going to get into the long winded debate over statistics and historical minutiea that you and Sam have been engaged in. I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama or Tibetan independence supporters have exagerated claims just as I have no doubt that the PRC and supporters of Chinese sovereignity have exagerated claims for benefits that the Tibetans have gotten under the PRC. That said if you are to deny that their weren't many Tibetans killed, temples destroyed and monks and nuns publically humiliated is to deny even the history that the PRC publicly acknowledges. I'm leaving aside rancorous emotional debates regarding things like that to say that the PRC has a lot to gain from negotiating with the Dalai Lama even if it isn't totally on their terms and while it is true that the Dalai Lama is a political leader he has already accepted the main issue of Chinese sovereignity. Also unlike the leaders of the PRC the Dalai Lama has a much greater moral standing than the leaders of the PRC. The PRC can only gain from the worldwide goodwill of such a raproachment. Remember even the Israelis allowed Yassir Arafat to return and negotiated with him and the Dalai Lama hasn't advocated armed resistance or terrorist attacks against the Chinese. This isn't an all or nothign situation but one that can benefit both sides.
I tend to ignore useless discussions ... which this one clearly is ... but there's only one obvious racist here. (I'm looking at you ... )
Yes, I'm looking at him as well. MFW2310 has done an incredible job of self-delusion. Just amazing. Besides his racist remarks, repeated several times despite comments from more than you and I, he's called someone a moron, a prick, and some other things of that ilk. Some samples... "I'm not the one that suggested squeezing the Tibetans onto little reserves. You did that. Don't try to bait me and hang it on me. I argued for getting Tibetans more rights, you ignored that. I said the CCP needs to do more to preserve their culture, you ignored that. You didn't do anything other than whine and b**** about how China isn't doing enough. I don't see you coming up with plans how to do things better. Then you said you'd rather have them on reserves. Somehow I don't think they'd agree with you. And you said how the white men can somehow miraculously transform a difficult situation into a miracle, whereas the yellow men can't. What's the reason? They are too stupid, they have squinty eyes, they aren't Christians? And what makes you think I haven't been to Tibet. Your line is far more party line than mine, but you're too stupid to know it. You showed your true colours, You showed your true colours, a racist white supremicist." And... "Why? Because of white men's burden. White men have a monopoly on moral ethics. If they think Tibetans should be pushed to tiny reserves and the CCP are not responsible for their economic conditions after, let it be done. Hell, do it for the Uighers and the 53 other minority groups too. Oh but wait, I want it in writing. In other words, the white men have to give their words not to bash China ever after if this is allowed to happen, whatever the consequence. I know the white men's words aren't worth ****... oh wait, what am I saying, they are gentlemen? You are running out of lines Sam, every one of your points get even more pathetic, as you squeal for credibility, completely ignoring that you already lost it all when you proved yourself a prick. Yet somehow I am called the racist here." Along with... "I have maintained my points throughout. Why shouldn't I? They are facts which are owning your ass and which you have no means to challenge. But suppose I had cited other reasons, I'm sure you'd accuse me of pulling evidence out of thin air, as you have done in the past. I repeat my points because they are true, not because if I repeat them and they'll become true. Only a moron like you would think that way." And he said this, which I found astonishing, coming from him: "As for being polite, I agree 100%. However, I think there is a point, and to certain people, that you simply can't be polite towards. It isn't that I am confrontational. It's just some of those people just sicken me (and I believe many of our peers as well)." It boggles the mind. MFW2310, you might try to... Keep D&D Civil!!
This thread just keeps on spiralling down. I'm not one to get squeamish about such things but even I'm regretting starting this. A few things. MFW I know where you're coming from because many of my family espouse the same beliefs regarding issues like Tibet and Taiwan, unfortunately though the passions that these issues arouse among the Chinese are difficult to understand for non-Chinese because they are considered beyond politics to being personalized. While recognizing the importance of these issues I believe they also pose a huge danger to China's World standing, to the safety and security of Asia and to the lives of millions of Chinese on both sides of the straights of Formosa. What saddens me about this is the inability to let go of old hatred and fears and to discuss these issues rationally and with restraint. There is much to say that it makes sense for Taiwan to be reunified with the mainland and for Tibet to remain part of China but trumpetting ancient history, economic benefits thrust upon them, modernity (in that the PRC lifted the Tibetans up from feudalism) and insulting political opponents by questioning their ancestry isn't going to win anybody over but likely to harden positions. And yes its true that the US is hypocritical to criticise the PRC on human rights or occupations but the difference is that we as citizens of this country can and do criticize on our country for that too. For Sam, Deckard and Cohen; I hate to say this again but this really is a situation that's hard to understand for non-Chinese. As I said in an earlier post that unity is the most valued ideal for the Chinese. Given the past 150 years of history where what was once the most powerful nation has been humiliated by colonial power and racked by internal terminal the Chinese are desperate for a united greater China. So while I think that MFW and other pro-China posters have gotten out of hand at the same time I understand their passion. You may not but at least try to be understanding.
You know what's the problem with that argument? You have side A, which says (let's just say) 1000. You have side B, which says (let's just say) 20000 on the same subject. Then you have side C, which claiming to being the neutral observer and without any evidence or proof, says side B is right when both sides A and B are equally liable to BS (and probably both are). China is side A in this case. Tibet is side B. The US is side C. China and Tibet could be equally guilty of BS (and probably both are), the US is saying the China claim is BS and the Tibet claim is legitimate. I mean, that's why they keep quoting Tibetans figures right? All this means is that before side A and B are full of sh*t, now side C proves that its even more full of sh*t.
Deckard, I call you a moron because you are one, and you have just further proved that. Either that or you can't read. I WASN'T the one that suggested squeezing the Tibetans (or Native Americans) on tiny little reserves. I was AGAINST it. SamFisher was the one that suggested otherwise. Like I said, I wonder what motives you had to twist my words. Oh yeah and Deckard, I'm such a racist mofo that I suggests that neither "the white men" nor "the yellow man" have a monopoly on moral ethics, which once again was insinuated by SamFisher. And I am sickened by CLASS A WARCRIMINALS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS, which despite my putting it clumsily, was obvious. I am also sickened by the likes of you. Too lazy to bother reading other people's posts and too stupid to comprehend. That DOESN'T mean I think all people in a certain group or race are morons. It means I think YOU are a moron.
You're out of control, dude. I'd report you, but that isn't my style. So I'll just stay out of this thread. I'm going on a trip anyway. Have fun. By the way, I never said you called me those things, but now you have. Isn't that ironic? Keep D&D Civil!!
