Greetings, everyone, apparently my hiatus was quite brief. Turns out my mother-in-law is very easy to get along with, so I get to have the chance to post again

Last year on a PBS forum, there was a great discussion/debate between an Australian teacher (M.A. Jones) living in China and several pro-Tibet posters. Without prejudicing anyone with my view, I would simply post the link here, and you can make your own judgement on who put forth a more compelling case:

PBS Discussions :: View topic - In response to Tony Martin (in relation to the Tibet issue)

The discussion is very very long, as apparently Mr. Jones is a very eloquent speaker who knows what he is talking about.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

I saw that discussion a few weeks ago. It is apparently very long. It is refreshing and rare to see some well informed westerners with first hand experience in east asia, and use numbers and facts to argue, instead of some empty useless values stuff.

Sure... Considering that China is practicing the same ideology as the Japanese in their justification of conquering and oppressing China, I'll believe anything you tell me. <- Sarcasm.

Truth be told. China throughout much of its history has been an easy place for someone to just walk up and conquer. So the Chinese try to get it smart this time by building up their population to unstable bounds and administrate the tyranny to its occupied lands its oppressors have given them.

And as for this issue about Westerners complying with the same ideology that you Chinese try to explain, bull... These westerners are those hired by corporations to speak on their interest (but indirectly I might add) in securing the structure of China for their own agenda. They don't care about the Chinese people nor about the Chinese government. What they care about is their trade with China. If China was conquered by one of them, they wouldn't feel the least bit of remorse for what they have done.

As for those that side against this view, those human beings are those from African American and Latino American civil rights groups in America and other parts of the globe. Those who have the biggest grudge against China's occupation and oppression are those that know and seen what occupation and oppression is. Live I've said before, China for most of its part in the modern age has been an occupied power. So no one in China could actually notice what oppression is as Libertarians cannot recognize what Fascism is.

If you believe that anyone speaks in favor of China is prejudiced or has special interests tied with the current Chinese regime, without even reading his/her opinion, I think I should stop discussing with you.

__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL

Thanks a lot for that link to the discussion, very interesting information. The amount I've learned about Tibet in the last weeks is amazing

I've tried to ask similar questions across the board but, probably due to the overflow of information, I have not gotten an answer yet, which is why the issue is still sticking with me. I think you might be able to help me with this.

How would you, as a person living in the West, evaluate the handling of Human Rights issue in China and in Tibet, from a Western perspective. Is it as bad as some media outlets suggest? I mean obviously we have edifferent values (West and China), but purely from a Western standpoint: if a Western country would do what China is doing in Tibet and China as a whole (of which I am not even really sure), what would be the reaction? I don't want to confine this to the recent not-so-peaceful protests, but more to the general way that Chinese (specially the government) handle Tibetans and how the government treats Chinese.

__________________

Well lets put it this way... when someone becomes completely irreasonable then that person gives up their rights as a human being.

Reason, the ability and the understanding of such is what makes us have the right of choices and decisions.

When you decide to abandon your ability to reason, you abandon your humanity.

Chinese people cannot reason, except for those that live in a democracy like Taiwan. You can say all the crap you want about their little Island, but atleast they didn't abandon their humanity.




Here is the different civilizations.

Regardless if it is PR China in mainland or RO China in Taiwan, both Chinas consider Tibet as an indispensable part of China since ancient times. So, majority of Chinese have no sympathy to Tibet seperatism. Westerners are familiar with Westphalia System and Colonial System, but are not familiar with East Asia Tributary System that maintained for thousands of years. That is one source of conflicts.

Chinese are much more familiar with Buddhism, and we have seen all different types of monks in the long history, good or bad, sincere or hypocritical. Dalai Lama's Buddhist teachings are fine, but not so special compared with other senior monks. The difference is that Buddhism usually have reclusive philosophical values, while Dalai Lama has ambitions to retain his political theocratic position in ancient Tibet. Chinese people usually have no special sympathy for Buddhism, and treat Buddhism the same with Christianity and Islam. Any religious theocracy has very negative implications.

We see Tibetans as the same with any other ethnic groups. They have to compete with all other ethnic groups, like Han, Zhuang, Miao, Mongol, Manchu, Korean, Uyghur, Hui, Qiang, Dong, Dai....... They are given affirmative actions as other minority groups, but no special treatments just because they have foreign sponsors.

Economic developments and technological innovations have much higher priority than western individualism, consumerism, western freedom and democracy. Majority of Chinese people are getting much richer. Now, buying a car for 500 million urban residents is quite common (we pay all the money once. we do not take loans and monthly payments like Americans.) For 800 million rural residents, most of which are migrant workers in the cities, the polarity between rich and poor is big. However, majority of the people are absorbed by materialistic progress. Majority of the 1.3 billion people do NOT feel any major suppression.

There are social injustice, and not each of the 1.3 billion people get much richer. There are protests if some people are not satisfied. But if westerners continue to live like a cold war caveperson, they are terribly outdated.

Darkseid, maybe you should start by reading the article. At this point you're just spouting nonsensical bull without a valid point.

Basic human rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression cannot be taken away by anyone under any circumstances in any place of the world. That is a main pillar of my beliefes and I will not ever discriminate any human being nomatter of what culture by "altering" what rights he has.

However, first of all thnx Luke for the explanation, I guess that if a person consciously says he shall not demand those rights, then I guess that is a personal choice that shall be respected. No action can without explicit approval of the person, forfeit their basic human rights, but a conscious decision, like many Chinese are appearently making, to willingly "reduce" the importance of these rights is, I guess, fair game.

However, you said that MOST Chinese are OK with this, not all. If anyone, including the government, forces these "separatists" to give up their basic rights than they shall and always will be harshly criticised by me and the West and hopefully also tried under international law, rightfully so.

That's why I'm asking how "bad" human rights abuses in China are, from a Western perspective. I thank you for your insight, Luke, but this basic question is still kind of hanging in the air

__________________

Well obviously since my point has become unjustfully invalidated by you on grounds of just slandering it that is quite obvious that I should just continue talking and ignore your existence. Thank you for validating my point. After all if someone is just going to be disrespectful to you, then why listen to them? Thank you and god bless you.

They are and can. Do you know what imprisonment is? no of course not, argue away already.

So you don't have any means of differentiating humans from animals without disregarding this very principle.

Allow me to explain. As you have said. All humans should have freedom on no grounds, just because they are humans. I see any logic in that. If you can say that exact same thing without using an informal fallacy of any sort, then I'll agree. I want you to make me agree without telling me that I should just agree. Can you do that for me? Please?



I must say that I agree with you even though you contradicted yourself on an action base level.