<p>I can't believe CNN can say that protest were "peaceful" when you can see rioters beating innocent chinese bystanders in their OWN video! Setting fire on shops and beating ppl with sticks!</p>
<p>I just hope CNN and other western media can REALLY cover stories with UNBIASED perspective.</p>
<p>if the chinese police arrest INNOCENT & UNARMED ppl that is definitely wrong. </p>
<p>But if the "protesters" are beating up other innocent people just because they are chinese, that is called RACISM, and when it is also violent that is the worst !</p>
<p>I agree. The recent unrest in Tibet is another one of the series of planned campaigns to damage China’s international image before the start of the August Olympics. As I was born in China, I am feel disappointed that ethnic Tibetans could commit such violence against people of other races. Although often labeled as an oppressive, communist, authoritarian dictatorship, the Chinese government has actually been very lenient in its policies towards Tibet. Not only are ethnic Tibetans not subject to the one-child family planning policy, the Chinese government has also been pouring billions of economic aid into the isolated region to stimulate economic growth and boost basic living standards. I don’t understand why western media always likes to label Chinese presence in Tibet as “genocide,” because I see it as a total insult towards a peaceful, culturally and ethnically diverse civilization with 6000 years of history. As a Han Chinese, I have never met or heard of anybody in China who takes pleasure in commiting “ethnic cleansing.” This claim is just absurd and insulting. </p>
<p>Of course, our most excellent western media with all their seeming objectivity has rarely shed any positive light on this 1.3 billion people nation. For instance, take a look at what CNN has “fine-tuned” their photo images in order to make it fit “their version” of the story:</p>
<p>This little photo trick was detected by some Chinese bloggers, noticing that CNN clearly intended cut out the part showing rioting Tibetan mobs and only chose to show a moving Chinese military truck instead. When you look at the full picture on the right, any ratinoal person who would rather know the truth would conclude that this simple “peaceful protest” in Tibet was far from “peaceful.”</p>
<p>Everyone has a reason to be ****ed. If that was the case, shouldn’t Native Americans be rioting and looting all across America too? I mean we did kind of exterminate their peoples and destroy their way of life and round them up and make them live on reservations once. And what about Chicanos living in Texas… America did basically just annex Texas from Mexico and then treat the people who were already living there like 2nd class citizens (see the vigilante reprisals and random executions of Mexican-Americans in the Gregorio Cortez affair). Everyone’s got a beef about something.</p>
<p>The point is, it doesn’t give you the prerogative to start destroying shops and stores and overturning cars and stabbing people you see on the street. Are the shopkeepers and storeowners and random pedestrians the ones that are making your life miserable? I wish the Chinese government would be more sensitive and open in their treatment of the Tibetans and Uyghurs and stop inundating those regions with Han Chinese culture with little thought of the effect it has on the people that already live there, but I also hope every last one of those rioters get arrested and punished.</p>
<p>I’ll admit I don’t know that much about the subject. I have been to Tibet once in my life for a day, and what I got out of it is that reality is neither the Chinese government’s happy portrayal of economic rejuvenation, but also not the Tibet-in-exile perception of some kind of apartheid state where Tibetans are being systemically taken over. As with any argument, the reality is somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I know it is a sensitive issue.</p>
<p>Just curious, why don’t the Chinese just leave? Do they benefit economically from staying in Tibet? What’s so worthwhile that the Chinese want to stay so badly?</p>
<p>I don’t write off the youth movements of the 60’s because of Chicago '68. It’s unfortunate that they rioted in the situation, but a lot of that is part of the [psychology</a> of the crowd](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology"]psychology”>Crowd psychology - Wikipedia) - you’re “faceless”, violence self-propagates, etc. - so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make posting this video, unless you’re trying to provide evidence that a handful of the protesters were violent. It doesn’t really shed any light on the situation itself.</p>
<p>Cynical take: They’re not being any worse to Chinese citizens than the Chinese government itself is :)</p>
<p>The extent of censorship in China is exaggerated by many western press. We could receive CNN and ABC channels in our apartment cable in western China (only thing hindering them is that none of the American channels actually provide Chinese language service, the reason why very few people watch it there). </p>
<p>I agree with Wraider2006 in that issues like this are never simply black or white, but often times a grey picture. Although Tibet is obviously not the happy utopia as portrayed by the Chinese government, it is certainly not the kind of Orwellian, authoritarian, oppressive, murderous big brother society insisted by the small minority of Tibetan exiles abroad. It is somewhere in between, and enormous progress has been made in recent years to boost up economic growth, infrastructure, education, health care, and government aid to ethnic Tibetans. </p>
<p>Why doesn’t China just leave Tibet? It certainly could, and at the same time save billions of aid money every year. I think the reason why China insists on keeping Tibet, just like Taiwan, is part of China’s natural response to territorial integrity and national soveriegnty. Traditionally in Chinese history, those who broke off homeland territories were often harshly criticized and ridiculed, and China’s current government certainly does not want to leave that kind of reputation in Chinese history books for future generations. When Taiwan broke away from China in 1644, the Qing dynasty took years of planning to eventually re-unite with the island by force. When the Empress Cixi gave Hong Kong and other coastal cities to the British in late 19th century, there was a massive nationalist rebellion that threatened to topple the Empress for betraying the sovereignty of the nation. I’m sure these sentiments were not just unique to China, but often shared by people from around the world. How would President Lincoln be remembered today if he happily handed half of America to pro-independent forces in the South (that marble monument in DC would probably be reserved for someone else)? How would Canadian citizens respond to the Canadian government if it decided to give in to pro-independent forces in Quebec? Any rational, capable national governments will respond to these kinds of separatist protests, riots, whatever you call them, to uphold that nation’s territorial integrity. History has proven that issues of sovereignty are not negotiable.</p>
I’m confused. FellowCCViewer said, “funny, the whole thing is quite censored here in china. not too surprised though..,” which sort of implies that he’s in China right now. I mean, if he’s saying it’s censored and he’s there… it’s probably censored. </p>
<p>Also, earlier this year, there was a poster living in China asking what clubs he could join. I suggested Amnesty International-I did not know he was living in China when I responded. He responded saying that he tried to access the website but could not because it was “blocked.” That sort of sounds like unreasonable censorship to me?</p>
<p>I have to say, I am quite disappointed and uncomfortable with how the Western media insists on portraying China negatively. Tibet is not a genocide–in fact the Chinese ba-lu-jun actually helped end feudalism there. I think it’s very wrong how CNN chose to pick and choose their news images.</p>
<p>Regarding the question of why doesn’t China just leave Tibet–well why didn’t the US just let the South secede during the Civil War?</p>
Are the situations really comparable? Anyways, the Union invaded the South because it was in there interest economically, morally, etc. to do so. By asking, “why China doesn’t leave Tibet,” I was just trying to hear as many perspectives on the issue as possible. You’re asking why “the US just let the South secede” did provide me with some perspective, but did not answer the question.</p>
<p>PS.
I already tried Googling but I could not tell which sources were unbiased.</p>
Not only are clubs limited, but there are a lot of restrictions. My local government won’t allow “China-studies” related field trips. Hence why school sucks :(.</p>
<p>newjack, I can’t really answer your question since I don’t pay that much attention to current events/political stuff, but I just made my statement b/c I think oftentimes people find something strange/inconceivable when someone else does it, but when they do something similar they consider it perfectly understandable.</p>
<p>Replace China with Israel and Tibet with Palestine. Oh look, no one gives a **** anymore.</p>
<p>[Kadfly[/url</a>]</p>
<p>^The closest to an unbiased source I’ve seen.</p>
<p>Tibet has been part of China for the past 700 years. It once briefly declared independence after WWII. Both China and Tibet were once ruled by the same Emperor, who appointed the Dalai Lama to be in control of Tibet. The current Dalai Lama said he wouldn’t stop the protests, even though his condemnation would end a lot of the violence there right now, which leads me to wonder if the Dalai Lama simply wants control over Tibet once again and reinstate the theocracy once in place.</p>
![http://picture.talkcc.net/0,0803/6538_14184242.jpg[/url]](http://picture.talkcc.net/0,0803/6538_14184242.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
