Very "peaceful" tibetan "protest" in China

[butterbattle]

<p>Okay, fine. I came to the U.S. when I was seven years old, first grade, 1996. I have also returned to China several times afterwards. So, I can speak Mandarin, but I can’t really read or write anymore, although I still recognize some characters. </p>

<p>I am Chinese. Don’t assume I’m not just because I don’t behave the way I’m supposed to or something. That’s ridiculous. </p>

<p>

I’m Chinese and I’m not US citizen.I’ve spent more time in China and I’ve done more research.
So,Obvisouly,I know more than you.

</p>

<p>Whatever.</p>

<p>

Since your political view is anti-China,you’ll choose CNN. That’s quite normal.

</p>

<p>Of course. As Howard Zinn explained in his book, it’s impossible to be unbiased. The mere manner in which you present a topic contains bias. Choosing what to emphasize and what to ignore is bias. </p>

<p>You have to analyze every news source and take the substance and objective details away from the bias. Just based on that, I’m going to learn a lot more from CNN than Chinese media sources that are contolled by the government. </p>

<p>

But this is really weird,99% chinese are not like your relative.

</p>

<p>How the **** did you get that statistic? Is that a survey or something?</p>

<p>

Because I’m Chinese and I won’t betrary my country like somebody else.

</p>

<p>I don’t hate China. I hate Communism. </p>

<p>And what kind of ■■■■■■■■ argument is that? If you were in Germany before WWII, would you just follow Hitler cause otherwise you’re betraying your country? </p>

<p>Plus, I thought you said I’m not Chinese, then how the **** am I betraying my country</p>

<p>

I’ve never heard re-education camp.

</p>

<p>My grandfather went to re-education camp. You never heard of this because you haven’t really looked at both sides of the debate. </p>

<p>

But unfortunately,we won’t take your words seriously.

</p>

<p>We? There are many Chinese people that are dissenting and speaking out against the government. There are much more people on the Earth supporting my position than yours, don’t kid yourselves. </p>

<p>

Our country was invaded by other countries like Japan,we have to fight against them.

</p>

<p>It feels like you’ve been implying that Chinese history is mostly peaceful. I hope I’m just imagining that. </p>

<p>

Do your homework next time,and find a better chinese tutor.

</p>

<p>Okay, fine you’re right. You’re always right. Of course, it means ‘not radical.’ Yeah, that makes so much ****ing sense.</p>

<p>

Communism is an economic term where everyone has equal amounts of stuff, not a political term.

</p>

<p>Sigh……disagree….BS. So, the term ‘Communist Government’ would be a purely economic term, correct?</p>

<p>

Anyways, the “commies” you refer to are now embracing capitalism if you haven’t noticed by now, not communism.

</p>

<p>Blocking out entire sections of the Internet is capitalism. Running over peaceful protestors with tanks is capitalism. Dragging women to the hospital and forcing them to have an abortion in the third trimester is capitalism. Barging into an “underground, illegal” church without warning and torturing and executing some of the monks is capitalism. Paying Chinese citizens wages that can’t even sustain a living and then reaping all the benefits from the products they produce is capitalism. </p>

<p>

Um, I think you people are obsessed with the notion of what a true Chinese should behave.

</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Also, thanks Jack for that article. I think it’s about as unbiased as any news source is ever going to get on this topic. I like the fact that it stresses facts and statistics. I like statistics, but not yucca’s; his statistics are just BS. For example, taser with 100,000 volts is impossible. 99% of Chinese don’t praise their government. Okay, man. </p>

<p>

I can’t give your source any credits.all your source is western websites like csmonitor?

</p>

<p>Again, you’re brainwashed. The simple fact that it’s a Western website destroys any credibility it has. You don’t even consider the facts that it presents because you already assume it’s wrong. After all, you are right; therefore, any alternative perspective must be wrong. That’s csmonitor, that’s not some obscure blog.</p>

<p>Compare his article with these and tell me which ones are more biased.</p>

<p>[Tibetans</a> enjoy ‘unprecedented human rights’](<a href=“http://www.china.org.cn/china/Lhasa_Unrest/2008-04/10/content_14744132.htm"]Tibetans”>Tibetans enjoy 'unprecedented human rights' -- china.org.cn)
[China</a> denies ‘media war’ over coverage of Tibet](<a href=“http://www.china.org.cn/china/Lhasa_Unrest/2008-04/10/content_14733902.htm"]China”>China denies 'media war' over coverage of Tibet -- china.org.cn)
[Chinese</a> people: Torch disruption outrageous](<a href=“http://www.china.org.cn/olympics/torch/2008-04/09/content_14711353.htm"]Chinese”>Chinese people: Torch disruption outrageous -- china.org.cn) They didn’t mention the elite torch protectors lol.
[Human</a> rights experts blast Amnesty report](<a href=“http://www.china.org.cn/china/Lhasa_Unrest/2008-04/09/content_14664996.htm"]Human”>Human rights experts blast Amnesty report -- china.org.cn) This last ones my favorite out of the four. Human rights experts, lol :)</p>

<p>

Butterbattle, man, you should do some serious homework before you post again on this topic.

</p>

<p>Oh my god, shut up. I’ll post what I want to post. This is a public forum.</p>

<p>

In fact, even the Communist Party itself isn’t always united inside out.

</p>

<p>Nobody said it was.</p>

<p>

China also often points to the fact that the United States took almost two centuries to achieve universal suffrage.

</p>

<p>Yep, two centuries. And China has been around how long?</p>

<p>

“This is one issue,” a Beijing newspaper editor joked, “about which we Chinese may be less patient than you Americans.”

</p>

<p>Are you implying that there’s universal suffrage in China? Okay, humor me, expand on that.</p>

<p>

If you never had elementary education in China, I guess that would also automatically disqualify you from being someone who truly knows about China.

</p>

<p>Why would it? What kind of logic is that? You can be in China your entire life and not know **** about China. Many Americans can’t find the U.S. on a world map and many don’t know that we have 50 states. What the hell do you learn about China in Chinese elementary schools? All I learned was a little bit of Mandarin, math, and fake P.E. </p>

<p>

Peace out man.

</p>

<p>Alright, have a nice day.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>I am truly unimpressed by the way you respond, Butterbattle. To sum it up, your argument against your debate opponents draws resemblance to a bitter, pre-teenage diary with an abundance of confrontational language and little academic basis. </p>

<p>When I posed that question to you in the first place, I was actually expecting something with a little more substance or depth.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>^ That was a lvl 1 question, not some deep, philosophical exploration. What am I supposed to say? No, I don’t remember the name of the textbook because, obviously, it was a long time ago and I wouldn’t have it with me.</p>

<p>What is this? You’re calling me immature? Yet, you’re so desperate that you can only resort to personal attacks now?</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>I have nothing to say. So what does everybody else think about this subject?</p>

[PlattsburghLoser]

<p>I’m going to have to side with butterbattle, his arguments seemed more…logical. I also can’t imagine remembering a textbook from elementary school, I don’t remember the textbooks I had from last semester.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>well, it happened to be that in China, every public elementary school used the same edition of the language text book called “Yu Wen” throughout the 6 years in elementary education. All of my friends in America who used to go to school in China still vividly remember many aspects of the book, because in China, you use that one edition called “yu wen” for all six years of elementary school.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>Nonetheless, I was only trying to find out if Butterbattle really knows about Chinese language, culture, history, and political background. By reading that elementary school text book called “yu wen,” one can actually learn alot about Chinese culture, literature, and history.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>Because Butterbattle has so far refrained from directly responding to my analysis on China’s current political atmosphere, I’ll re-post it again to allow everyone else to have a look:</p>

<p>I must also emphasize one other point, and that is China is not a monolithic entity. In fact, even the Communist Party itself isn’t always united inside out. The Central Party Academy recently published an extensive report, outlining the potential obstacles, pros and cons, and aftermath of a future political reform. This study was published and circulated among top party members. In 2004, a survey was conducted among nearly 700 local Communist Party officials who had attended a provincial training program. More than 60% of the officials polled said that they were “dissatisfied” with the “backward state of democracy” in the country then, and 63% said that political reform in China was “too slow.” An even more surprising figure to the Beijing government was that 67% of the polled officials chose either “support” or “strongly support” for implementing new “popular elections in the village, county, and municipal levels of government.” </p>

<p>China also often points to the fact that the United States took almost two centuries to achieve universal suffrage. In fact, American women had to wait until the 20th century, and African Americans until the 1960s civil rights movement to really achieve the franchise. “This is one issue,” a Beijing newspaper editor joked, “about which we Chinese may be less patient than you Americans.” </p>

<p>In the spring of 2006, an article provocatively titled “Democracy Is a Good Thing for China” caused a small sensation in the central government. Published among one of Communist Party’s mouth-piece papers, the editorial boldly pointed out that “among all the political systems that have been invented and implemented, democracy is the one with the least number of flaws…that is to say, democracy is relatively the best political system for China and for the rest of the world.” </p>

<p>Last year, one senior Party leader interviewed by New York’s Council on Foreign Relations also stressed the need for China to “institutionalize” its political process and move towards a more “transparent, open” system. This Party leader sees that China’s first stage of political reform will most likely take place by the Third Plenum of the 17th Party Congress in 2009.</p>

<p>Calling China’s Communist government a “dictatorial regime” is over-simplifying the current situation. In fact, even within the Communist Party itself, there are numerous competing factions, conservative hardliners, moderates, and liberal-minded Western graduates. There also dissenting voices and officials within the party who are currently trying to lobby for greater reform and transparency in China’s electoral and ministerial organs. You might have noticed that, in the backdrop of the recent unrest in Tibet, central government ministries have been more expedient at their response to this public relations crisis. This change is because of recent lobbying inside the Party to equip each government ministry with the ability to independently and freely issue press conferences without permission from the State Council. Although changes like these are miniscule, they are clear indicators that the Chinese government and the Communist Party are intending to move onto the track of gradual political reform.</p>

[Ohgosher]

<p>Isn’t it weird for some of the protestors in Europe and US to say that it would be right to free Tibet when they have no idea where Tibet is actually located?</p>

<p>And why should China give up almost the 1/9 of its land mass just because some old monk believes that he’s tired of China’s control (or the lack of, since violence broke out already)</p>

<p>However I do feel that it would be wise for Bush to attend opening ceremony considering the bonds China holds over US can literally destroy the US and World economy.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

And why should China give up almost the 1/9 of its land mass just because some old monk believes that he’s tired of China’s control

</p>

<p>Most people are disastrously uninformed. You’re not that awesome either. I think it should be noted that it’s not just because of some old monk. </p>

<p>

However I do feel that it would be wise for Bush to attend opening ceremony considering the bonds China holds over US can literally destroy the US and World economy.

</p>

<p>Yes, the U.S. buys so many products from China and has invested so much money there that China could make the U.S. fall to its knees simply by cutting off trade and seizing American property and funds. </p>

<p>However, you have to remember that it works both ways. If China starts to lash out, how is that going to help their economy? They’re going to be hurt just as bad.</p>

<p>Sorry, <a href=“mailto:JIMMY@KILLARNEY”>JIMMY@KILLARNEY</a>. Actually, I didn’t really discuss your analysis of the political atmosphere because I didn’t see much wrong with it (yeah, for the sake of arguing). Your post #119 was thoughtful and informative and it was one of only few posts that really intrigued me. </p>

<p>I agree that China has come a long way. But, it still has a long way to go. I simply believe that as long as the Chinese government trespasses on human rights, then the Tibetans have a right to separate and form their own government, if that is what they want. </p>

<p>Obviously, Chinese people are usually against Tibet separating because, well, it’s their country. They are always partly motivated by this fact. As an American citizen, I just…feel like an American. So, yes, in a way, I am more detached from the situation than some of you guys. Even though I am 100% Chinese, in a way, I’m not Chinese at all. Tibet splitting off just wouldn’t bother me as much. Sorry.</p>

<p>I wonder if I do have any Chinese textbooks lieing around somewhere. I’ll post again if I find it.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

67% of the polled officials chose either “support” or “strongly support” for implementing new “popular elections in the village, county, and municipal levels of government.”

an article provocatively titled “Democracy Is a Good Thing for China” caused a small sensation in the central government.

</p>

<p>Did the writer get arrested? ha, jk jk</p>

<p>

This change is because of recent lobbying inside the Party to equip each government ministry with the ability to independently and freely issue press conferences without permission from the State Council.

</p>

<p>hmmmmm, so maybe there’s more progress than I thought. Although, if you refer back to the csmonitor article, there are obviously still many problems. China still imposes tons of restrictions on its citizens, mostly politically and socially. Miracles have ocurred in how the government handles in economy. However, these new approaches were implemented mostly because capitalism makes money, not because the government gives a crap about its people. </p>

<p>I guess we could each submit evidence forever to support our opinions on this topic. At least, I think we can agree that China isn’t exactly…‘glorious’ with human rights. Once again, as long as that’s an issue, I think I’m going to have to side with Tibet. That’s what I believe. </p>

<p>The protesters really need to stop assaulting civilians though. That’s kind of stupid. It’s detrimental to what they’re trying to accomplish.</p>

<p>Any more input?</p>

[aisgzdavinci]

<p>

Communism is an economic term where everyone has equal amounts of stuff, not a political term. </p>

<p>Sigh……disagree….BS. So, the term ‘Communist Government’ would be a purely economic term, correct?

</p>

<p>The “Communist Government” was named that way during civil war because its founders envisioned a China where everyone would receive the same amount of stuff, regulated by the government. That’s not the case today.</p>

<p>

Quote:
Anyways, the “commies” you refer to are now embracing capitalism if you haven’t noticed by now, not communism. </p>

<p>Blocking out entire sections of the Internet is capitalism. Running over peaceful protestors with tanks is capitalism. Dragging women to the hospital and forcing them to have an abortion in the third trimester is capitalism. Barging into an “underground, illegal” church without warning and torturing and executing some of the monks is capitalism. Paying Chinese citizens wages that can’t even sustain a living and then reaping all the benefits from the products they produce is capitalism.

</p>

<p>Wow, you display your massive intelligence brillantly -_-. Unfortunately, blocking out Internet has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. And I will strongly disagree with your “wages that can’t even sustain a living” since if that were the case, there would be massive unemployment in every city, which isn’t the case.</p>

<p>

China also often points to the fact that the United States took almost two centuries to achieve universal suffrage. </p>

<p>Yep, two centuries. And China has been around how long?

Technically only 60 years as the PRC. Did you really expect dynastic people to come up with universal suffrage?</p>

<p>

“This is one issue,” a Beijing newspaper editor joked, “about which we Chinese may be less patient than you Americans.” </p>

<p>Are you implying that there’s universal suffrage in China? Okay, humor me, expand on that.

I have no idea how you implied that there was universal suffrage.</p>

<p>

For example, taser with 100,000 volts is impossible.

You can buy a 900,000 volt taser now. Go google it.</p>

<p>I will have to see that you are very informed, given that you’re not fluent in Mandarin and live halfway around the world at the US capital. Siding with yucca and Jimmy.</p>

<p>

但要是领土都没了，正统中华民族最后连自己栖息之地都没有。

同意.</p>

[pharmakeus01]

<p>谁说西藏是汉人的？
西藏是藏人的，他们生在那，长在那。汉人在几千年前把藏人的国家所灭掉后才出来什么中华明族，而不是藏族或者汉族。传说说汉人藏人都是一条根，不过那时汉人的传说，而不是藏人的。圣经说耶路撒冷是基督教徒的并不以为犹太人和基督教徒可以随意霸占耶路撒冷。</p>

<p>What China and Chinese people need to realize today is that westerners are forever hostile to Chinese. Think about it, Olympics is only meant for westerners! When independent non western countries such as China and USSR host Olympics game, westerners are not very comfortable because it is not meant to be hosted outside the west. If you want to host a western game, westerners believe you must conform to the western standards. Resentments toward western media and westerners are not going to help to alleviate the clash of civilizations. Both China and the West interpreted the same Olympic Torch Protest and Tibetan unrest differently. However, we do see some biases,colonial biases in westerner’s media. For instance, they all unanimously suggested that Chinese people do not know the truth while they, western media, live some 3000 thousand miles away from China and claims to know the truth, and they all believed that Chinese who live in China and who experienced the riot do not know the “truth.” So, in essence, the conflict between Chinese and the west is an issue of legitimacy, namely, whose description is more legitimate, China’s or the west’s?</p>

<p>Let’s face it, Olympics is local not global. It is an western game designed not for Chinese nor Russians nor middle eastern. I see the protests as a form of anti-globalizationism. Globalization was initiated by the west, but today, even within western civilizations, we see a resistance to the very project they have initiated.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>Today, personal freedom in China has been at its peak in 5000 years of Chinese history. Ordinary citizens have lots of freedom and opportunity to better off their lives without government or social constraint. However, that personal freedom ends as soon as one starts to directly oppose the Communist Party. In China, it’s usually not a big deal to directly criticize the government or reveal corrupt officials. The punishment only arrives when one directs that opposition to the Party. </p>

<p>Personally, I’m okay with one Party rule, as long as it could allow some sort of freedom of expression, protection of human and private property rights, and the right to participate in civil and political affairs. I know that China still does not have these elements today, but nonetheless, every year I visit China, I always hear and feel that there are gradual improvements.</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>Oh by the way, Butterbatter, if you would like to learn more about the different economic systems, I recommend that you read these:</p>

<p>Das Kapital (Volume I) - This is a purely economic analysis of the capitalist system by Karl Marx. Before you read it, try to put aside any previous political prejudice you may have against him. In this exhaustive work of analysis, Marx did not mention a word about communism.</p>

<p>An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - this other famous piece of classical economic analysis by Smith famously lays the foundation for today’s capitalist system. Although the book is kind of wordy (after all it was written in 1776 by this little Scottish professor), it offers a glimpse of classical capitalist economics and it differs from today’s so called “modern” capitalist economics, especially in the area of perfect mobility and perfect competition.</p>

[anon43256521]

<p>hahaha kapital is a great book but it’s obviously not pure economics, the whole basis for his views is a specific reading of history that relies on hegelian value conceptions and other philosophical constructs </p>

<p>edit: which were absolutely central to communist theory, and in fact kapital is entirely an indirect call to implement the violent revolution that is a necessary prerequisite for socialism</p>

<p>capitalism has a lot of problems, and marx is a fantasic writer/thinker for his time, but it’s outdated in terms of its legitimate critical aspects.</p>

<p>edit2: outside of the classic fundamentals, wealth of nations isn’t an accurate description of true capitalism either…</p>

<p>

What China and Chinese people need to realize today is that westerners are forever hostile to Chinese.

</p>

<p>cut it out</p>

[JIMMY_KILLARNEY]

<p>Jack4640, before giving an outright dismissal of some of the greatest foundations of economics, I simply want to ask you to read the stuff you are commenting on from cover to cover. Before doing that, you don’t have the assets to put out an outright dismissal that they are “outdated” in terms of “legitimate critical aspects.” Yeah, and I wonder what sort of “legitimate critical aspects” you are looking for in economics anyway? Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations are must reads at top economics departments throughout the country. We study and analyse them from various perspectives before we even touch on the most basic aspects of modern micro and macro economics. In fact, 1/2 of today’s introductory microeconomics course is based on Smith’s theory of Perfect Mobility and Perfect Competition. That is the only way economic efficiency can be achieved in modern day microeconomics, through price-taker firms that obey the market price, and to impede scale-economics from influencing the market price. Unfortunately, some of us are still so ignorant enough to take modern economics for granted without looking back and see that someone has already come up with the idea 300 years ago in Scotland.</p>

<p>And yeah, laughing at them with “hahaha” indeed shows the depth of your knowledge.</p>

[anon43256521]

<p>dude i go to the u. of chicago </p>

<p>so yes </p>

<p>i have read those books</p>

<p>they are, in fact, both deeply philosophical in nature; neither make any quantifiable statements about economics in the slightest. they are about the philosophy of value. i don’t think you have read either work in a proper setting.</p>

<p>and i would be very surprised if you read more than a few excerpts of “wealth of nations” at any economics program </p>

<p>hahahahahahahaha</p>

[anon43256521]

<p>

neither make any quantifiable statements about economics in the slightest.

</p>

<p>no, no, i take this back. way overstated - both of them make what are arguably quantified descriptions of economic systems. </p>

<p>my issue is with you recommending “wealth of nations” as a start for understanding modern capitalism, which it isn’t good for (outside of the foundational principles, which are so well-known by now that it’s almost redundant to read wealth.) you hardly have to read “origin of the species” in its entirety to understand evolution. </p>

<p>and also, recommending kapital as a way to understand the historical (real) implementation of socialism is silliness.</p>

[1of42]

<p>
[QUOTE=pharmakeus01]

What China and Chinese people need to realize today is that westerners are forever hostile to Chinese.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, yes, excellent call. “EVERYBODY HATES US CRY CRY CRY /WRIST/!”</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=pharmakeus01]

Think about it, Olympics is only meant for westerners! When independent non western countries such as China and USSR host Olympics game, westerners are not very comfortable because it is not meant to be hosted outside the west. If you want to host a western game, westerners believe you must conform to the western standards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm… no? I’ve been trying to figure out a better response than that, but this is another mountainous load of dung you just dropped. First, exactly when did you get the idea that we’re not comfortable when the Games are held outside the West? I have never seen any such thing happen. Westerners only tend to get uncomfortable when the Games (which are supposed to represent global coming together, human achievement and rights and all that) are hosted by repressive, authoritarian regimes - and in the history of the games, China is accompanied only by Nazi Germany in this regard. Splendid.</p>

<p>The reason why there haven’t been many Games outside the West is that the Games are extraordinarily expensive, require massive planning, and only recently has the Far East become capable of that kind of capital undertaking. I expect a Middle Eastern games at some point soon, as well, since wealth there is rapidly increasing.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=pharmakeus01]

Resentments toward western media and westerners are not going to help to alleviate the clash of civilizations. Both China and the West interpreted the same Olympic Torch Protest and Tibetan unrest differently.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don’t know about that. I thought it was an inappropriate way to protest. But I understand the reasoning behind it, and it was obviously effective (did you see the airtime the protests got? it doesn’t get much better than that). I hate the way the Chinese regime treats Tibet as well, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the way the Torch is being used as an object of protest. On the other hand, insofar as the Torch relay is meant to glorify the host country (started by Nazi Germany… again, how appropriate), I guess maybe it’s justifiable.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=pharmakeus01]

However, we do see some biases,colonial biases in westerner’s media. For instance, they all unanimously suggested that Chinese people do not know the truth while they, western media, live some 3000 thousand miles away from China and claims to know the truth, and they all believed that Chinese who live in China and who experienced the riot do not know the “truth.”

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I can tell you for damn sure that most Chinese people are less aware of the impartial facts regarding Tibet than most Westerners. Most, not all. The reason for that is simple: Chinese peoples’ media diet is heavily restricted and censored; Western peoples’ is not. It is still biased, but subject to editorial bias minimization, cross-checking facts, and competitive media, which the Chinese media is not.</p>

<p>Now, as for people living in China, one of two things is true:</p>

<p>1) They live in Tibet, in which case they probably have a pretty good idea of the exact facts of the matter (tempered, always, by government spinning of events).</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>2) They live elsewhere in China, in which case I bet they know much less than Westerners, because their only information is through the Chinese media, which is heavily biased and censored, as I said above.</p>

<p>So yeah, I think generally the Western media is less biased. Do you disagree?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE=pharmakeus01]

Let’s face it, Olympics is local not global. It is an western game designed not for Chinese nor Russians nor middle eastern. I see the protests as a form of anti-globalizationism. Globalization was initiated by the west, but today, even within western civilizations, we see a resistance to the very project they have initiated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I see it as a protest against dogs, because dogs are evil. Oh wait, we don’t get to just make up our own messages for the protest. Well then, I guess we’ll just take the protesters at their word that they’re protesting against China’s oppression of Tibet. Probably a safe bet, no?</p>