Tibet: anti-Chinese rule protests spread to other areas - Page 4

jfuh · 03-18-08, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

You know, reading this - I get the image of countless millions of Chinese in their tanks cowed and suppressed wherever they go by Tibetan thugs. It's just the way you've written it jfuh - the most populous Nation on earth cowed and beaten into submission within its own borders by thug Tibetans.

Seems you have an image that all ethnic Han are in tanks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

I too have watched BBc reports and Tibetan are shown attacking chinese passersby within Tibet, the propaganda is being warred on both sides but I certainly don't see events as one-sided (Tibet beating up the Chinese) in the same way you seem to.

I have presented a side that has not been represented in this forum. As soon as anyone mentions Tibet everyone immediately bandwagons onto oh those evil Chinese communist - regardless of the fact that Tibet is Chinese to begin with. The whole Tibet vs China is like screaming the Rep. of Texas vs the US - ridiculous and ignorant.

As to the one sidedness I ask you, who started these riots?

bub · 03-18-08, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

well for starters as has been shown already foreign media has a tendancy to intentionally misrepresent the facts to better resonate with readership; I wouldn't want such misrepresentation either. Granted that deffinetely takes out the objectivity from anything produced on the matter yet from the bandwagoning I have seen here as long as china is communist it seems it won't matter what they do everything will still be viewed negatively regardless of because it resonates.

That is very true and I am aware of that. However, does that mean that Tibet does not have the right to claim its independence, or that the Chinese dictatorship is acceptable?

Quote:

again I can't understand this, when gb colonized Tibet by annexation they enslaved the Tibetans, then when the Chinese nationalists ruled the dalai lama propped himself up as a demigod living in luxury while normal people were forced to live in utter poverty and authoritarian rule without justice. The prc took over and ruled with an iorn fist; undesireable true but the far lesser of the former evils. Sanitation, social justice, obligate school education regardless of sex or social status, modern medicine ECT.

Why are you advocating Chinese communism? That is a dictatorship where those who disagree with the government "disappear"!

As for Tibet not being an independent nation historically, well, every nation is a geopolitic construction. Belgian is not an ethny different from the Germans or the French, and it is not an "historic" country, yet we are independent.

jfuh · 03-18-08, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

That is very true and I am aware of that. However, does that mean that Tibet does not have the right to claim its independence, or that the Chinese dictatorship is acceptable?

For one thing, this is a trick question because it assumes the alternative were only to be Chinese dictatorship. Would this even be a matter were it not for the fact that China today is communist rule?
But to give you an honest response to your sincere question no, they do not have the right under the status quo. Should they have the right yes - all people should.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

Why are you advocating Chinese communism? That is a dictatorship where those who disagree with the government "disappear"!

Why do you advocate the Dalai lama regime? That is the dictatorship where people are enslaved and those that dissent "disappear".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

As for Tibet not being an independent nation historically, well, every nation is a geopolitic construction. Belgian is not an ethny different from the Germans or the French, and it is not an "historic" country, yet we are independent.

Tibet for the last 700 years has never been an independent nation. This whole mess started with GB annexing Tibet, then the ROC being incompetent and not ruling over the territory directly, and the Lama practicing theocratic rule and a very negative resentment against the communists that has blinded many to some facts of the matter. Tibet is Chinese.

bub · 03-18-08, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

For one thing, this is a trick question because it assumes the alternative were only to be Chinese dictatorship. Would this even be a matter were it not for the fact that China today is communist rule?
But to give you an honest response to your sincere question no, they do not have the right under the status quo. Should they have the right yes - all people should.

I think they want to be independent because they don't want to be communists. I don't think it's against China itself, it's rather about its authoritarian regime. If China was a democracy, or if they had more rights, maybe they would not want to be independent!

Quote:

Why do you advocate the Dalai lama regime? That is the dictatorship where people are enslaved and those that dissent "disappear".

I have never heard that before. The Dalai Lama may advocate a theocracy with a religion I do not really know, but at least they seem peaceful. Today they are throwing stones at Chinese embassies, but generally speaking they are peaceful and look more open minded than Communist China.

Quote:

Tibet for the last 700 years has never been an independent nation. This whole mess started with GB annexing Tibet, then the ROC being incompetent and not ruling over the territory directly, and the Lama practicing theocratic rule and a very negative resentment against the communists that has blinded many to some facts of the matter. Tibet is Chinese.

That's not a valid argument: nations are constructions. Until 1830 there had never been a country called Belgium. But that did not prevent us from revolting against the Dutch and create our own country.

jfuh · 03-18-08, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I think they want to be independent because they don't want to be communists. I don't think it's against China itself, it's rather about its authoritarian regime. If China was a democracy, or if they had more rights, maybe they would not want to be independent!

Honestly, somehow I doubt that, see Quebec; Scotland. Because the advocacy is for the theocratic rule of the dalai lama. Their biggest support right now comes from the fact that china is ruled by an iron fist that the west bears resentment towards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I have never heard that before. The Dalai Lama may advocate a theocracy with a religion I do not really know, but at least they seem peaceful. Today they are throwing stones at Chinese embassies, but generally speaking they are peaceful and look more open minded than Communist China.

Seem; they're not just throwing stones
What's peaceful about this?

YouTube - Tibet riots -15 March 08

Yeah ok, I know the irony Al Jazeera right? But in those last seconds of the video, note something missing from those soldiers? No guns

seriously I am shocked by this. Very un-communist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

That's not a valid argument: nations are constructions. Until 1830 there had never been a country called Belgium. But that did not prevent us from revolting against the Dutch and create our own country.

I can't say I quite understand what you mean then by "constructions" I believe what I have presented is that Tibet is under the construct (if I understand you correctly) of China.

jfuh · 03-18-08, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I think they want to be independent because they don't want to be communists. I don't think it's against China itself, it's rather about its authoritarian regime. If China was a democracy, or if they had more rights, maybe they would not want to be independent!

Honestly, somehow I doubt that, see Quebec; Scotland. Because the advocacy is for the theocratic rule of the dalai lama. Their biggest support right now comes from the fact that china is ruled by an iron fist that the west bears resentment towards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

I have never heard that before. The Dalai Lama may advocate a theocracy with a religion I do not really know, but at least they seem peaceful. Today they are throwing stones at Chinese embassies, but generally speaking they are peaceful and look more open minded than Communist China.

Seem; they're not just throwing stones
What's peaceful about this?

YouTube - Tibet riots -15 March 08

Yeah ok, I know the irony Al Jazeera right? But in those first and last seconds of the video, note something missing from those soldiers? No guns

seriously I am shocked by this - very un-communist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bub

That's not a valid argument: nations are constructions. Until 1830 there had never been a country called Belgium. But that did not prevent us from revolting against the Dutch and create our own country.

I can't say I quite understand what you mean then by "constructions" I believe what I have presented is that Tibet is under the construct (if I understand you correctly) of China.

Infinite Chaos · 03-18-08, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

It's not my version, it's historical fact. A nation called the Republic of China (aka Taiwan).
Yes Tibet is still included in there.
To further on what you have presented here however, who did GB colonize Tibet from?

So please help me understand what the period of time between the Brits and Chinese leaving in 1912 and China taking over in 1950 - 1951 is. Even on Wikipedia -your source for the map - there is a recognition that Tibet was ruled by the 13th Dalai Lama until his death in 1933...

The point is not who GB colonised Tibet from - the question is your assertion that Tibet has always been Chinese property.

Infinite Chaos · 03-18-08, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

--snip-- Hence as per the honesty portion, are you insinuating that the images I've posted are forged?

I really can't explain this any clearer than my previous explanation. Sorry if that's not clear enough. Would a simple "no?" suffice because there's not much else I can say to explain that you might understand.

Infinite Chaos · 03-18-08, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

--snip-- I have presented a side that has not been represented in this forum. --snip--

I most certainly agree. I have only really heard your version of things coming from the Govt of the PRC otherwise.

jfuh · 03-18-08, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

So please help me understand what the period of time between the Brits and Chinese leaving in 1912 and China taking over in 1950 - 1951 is. Even on Wikipedia -your source for the map - there is a recognition that Tibet was ruled by the 13th Dalai Lama until his death in 1933...

The point is not who GB colonised Tibet from - the question is your assertion that Tibet has always been Chinese property.

It's an err to assume that China ever gave up it's sovereignty over Tibet

It was forced at gun point by the British and then ended up with WWI on it's front door right after proceeded by foreign occupation of China as well as civil war and then getting WWII and then 3 more years of Civil war to which the dust and blood of war never settled until after 1952.

But at any point was Tibet recognized by China to have it's own sovereign rule - neither did Tibet.
From here on I will quote the following

Quote:

First, maintaining state sovereignty over Tibet by enacting laws and issuing official documents for its strengthened rule over Tibet. Article 3 of the General Outline of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, enacted under the auspices of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, Interim President, stipulated that Tibet was one of the 22 provinces of the Republic of China. This legalized the rule of the Government of the Republic of China over Tibet. Stipulations concerning Tibet in the Constitution of the Republic of China promulgated later all stressed that Tibet is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, and the Central Government of China exercised sovereignty in Tibet.

Second, establishing the Council for the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs and the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. The Council for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs was set up in 1912 to operate directly under the State Council in its capacity as a Central Government organ to take charge of Tibetan and Mongolian affairs. It was renamed the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs in 1914. In 1927, the Republic of China moved its capital to Nanjing, now capital of Jiangsu Province, and the Nanjing Government was founded. Before long, the Nanjing Government announced the establishment of the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. The Commission members included people of great influence in the Mongolian and Tibetan areas, such as the 9th Panchen Erdeni, the 13th Dalai Lama and Tibetan government representatives stationed in Nanjing including Gongjor Zongnyi, Zhamgyia Hutogtu and Master Xeirab Gyamco, a very famous Buddhist master who served as Vice-Chairman of the Commission.
Third, giving additional honorific titles to the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, and having representatives to preside over the reincarnation and enthronement ceremonies for them. In the early days of the Republic of China, the 13th Dalai Lama, who was deprived by the Qing Government of his honorific title and left Tibet for India, managed to get in touch with the Government of the Republic of China, and expressed his wish to return to Tibet. On October 28, 1912, Interim President Yuan Shi-kai announced the restoration of the honorific title of the Dalai Lama. Before long, the 13th Dalai Lama returned home. To ease internal contradictions between the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, Yuan, on April 1, 1913, issued an order to give an additional honorific title to the 9th Panchen Erdeni to honor what he had done to defend the unification of the motherland.

In December 1933, when the 13th Dalai Lama died, the local government of Tibet submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with historical precedence. The Central Government granted the late master the additional honorific title of Master in Defense of the Country and sent Huang Musong, Chairman of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, to Tibet to mourn his demise. In 1938, under the auspices of Regent Razheng, Lhamo Toinzhub in Qinghai was found and determined as the soul boy of the late 13th Dalai Lama in accordance with the religious rituals and historical precedence. In 1940, Wu Zhongxin, Chairman of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, went to Tibet, in his capacity as Central Government representative, to preside over the ceremony enthroning the 14th Dalai Lama. When the 9th Panchen Erdeni passed away in Qinghai on his way back to Tibet in December 1937, the Nationalist Government granted him the honorific title of Master. And in 1938, the Central Government sent Dai Chuanxian, President of the Examination Yuan, to Garze to mourn the demise of the 9th Panchen Erdeni. In early 1949, the Nationalist Government sent its envoy to announce that Guanbo Cidain was the 10th Panchen Erdeni, and he attended celebrations held in the Tar Monastery in Qinghai. In August, Guan Jiyu, Chairman of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, was sent by the Nationalist Government to preside over the enthronement ceremony.

Fourth, bringing in upper-class monks and lay people to participate in State management. During the period of the Republic of China, whenever the National Assembly met, there would be Tibetan delegates who participated. For example, from November 15 to December 25, 1946, when the National Assembly met in Nanjing to work on the Constitution of the Republic of China, 17 delegates including Tudain Sangpi and Jijigmei came from Tibet.

Source

Now I ask you, would a separate sovereign national entity have representation in the national congress of another nation? Obviously not, that's utterly ridiculous, it would be saying that King George still have representation within the US congress after it's formation.

Does this answer your question?