Why Lhasa is not Tienanmen

by Patroclas Mon Mar 17, 2008 01:12

Tried reading it slowly, then tried bits of it on a friend, but still don't get it.

Maybe we're too tired and emotional? But sentences like:

"The migrant communities of Chinese or whatever ethnicity are the smallest demogaphically representational groups in the principal states & economies who use immigrant labour in the world. " are really not easy to try to decipher.

What can 'demogaphically representational" mean?

Even if the author means (my theory) that there are very few Chinese outside of China, a quick walk down Parnell Street would soon prove that wrong.

Something like two per cent of the population of Ireland are Chinese people, born in China. That's a lot of people. So if that is what is menat, it's clearly not true.

What does Australia have to do with anything? This is Irish indymedia, and the article is (we think) about China.

And anyway, what on earth could the different rates of immigration have to do with the rights and wrongs of what's happening. Are the people killed demonstrating dead, or not? Were their deaths justified? Is it okay to kill peaceful protesters now?

Is there something sad and unjust about the fact that there was a St Patrick's day parade in China this weekend, but a Tibetan Parade would be beaten off the streets?

There may be a point hidden in here to be made, but it's so deeply obscured by the writing that who can tell what the author is trying to say.

by Fu Manchu Mon Mar 17, 2008 01:40

That line had a typo error - it ought to have read "The migrant communities of Chinese of whatever ethnicity are the smallest demogaphically representational groups in the principal states & economies who use immigrant labour in the world. "
I think Irish people especially today are quite aware of the place in diasporic ethnicities whose demographic presence worldwide is not representational either. Put very simply - there are too many Irish worldwide and not enough Chinese.

PRC is not ethnically hetrogenous. The Han majority are those who are choosing to move to Tibet in the last year since the rail link opened just as the non-Han minorities are flocking to the cities and special economic zones of the east. Over one sixth of this planet's population live in PRC if we (as many of us do) regularly ask why the USA with 5% of the planet's population contributes the most to carbon emissions & uses the most resources - then the simple point I'm making that we do not welcome demographically just sized communities of Chinese migrants ought be easy enough to understand. I haven't walked down Parnell street in a long time. Are one sixth of the non-Irish ethnic origin pedestrians & road users of any of the 60 ethnic groups in the PRC? Would that be the same on the SCR or NCR or D24 or Kildare?

Yet throughout Ireland as throughout Europe you will find both US & EU based corporation products & clothes as well as Chinese produced products and clothes on sale. They are made by a population which is exploited both here and there by our economic policies. & yet we only call foul on ethnic or demographic balances & demand a "Tibet for Tibetans!" when we heed the Dalai Lama & ignore the pictures of Han Chinese being beaten to a pulp on the streets of Lhasa.

We even read our Irish Times which oblivious to history spins this story as Tibetans resisting the rule of China. If people in Munster beat Polish workers to death, do we say they are resisting either the rule of Dublin or the structures of the EU?

by Joeyjoejoe Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:21

It's up to the people of Tibet to decided their future, not the Chinese dictatorship.
The regime in Beijing is attempting to destroy the Tibetan people by moving colonialists into Tibet to make the Tibetans a minority in their own country, by suppressing their culture and religion and by forcing the Chinese language down their throats, the Dalai Lama was right, it's cultural genocide.

by Historian Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:40

Similar nonsense was trotted out to excuse Hitler's annexation of German parts of neighbouring countries and Stalin's genocide of "counter-revolutionary" nations. The Chinese dictatorship is a horror show responsible for millions and millions of needless deaths. Nothing the monks of Lhasa could ever do could match the brutality and inhumanity of the Beijing Marxists.

by Abolitionist Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:02

Before anyone should view the theocratic, slave owning 1950's Tibet as some type of shangri la with benevolent lamas then please read the following at http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html.

Buddhist monks involved in ethnic cleansing may shock some people fed on lotus perfumed shite over the years but perhaps also the fact, admitted by the Dalai Lama, that he was funded by the CIA may bring some perspective into the situation. Eye gouging and torture was normal fare for opposing the lamas in theocratic Tibet. The Commies weren't at the races when it came to sadism

The Chinese may not be receiving a gold medal for upholding human rights but it should also be acknowledged that they abolished slavery in Tibet and constructed 375,000 housing units, according to the UN. It is also illegal now to defecate in the streets in Lhasa.

by Fu Manchu Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:27

* Or is it just taken for granted by the "Tibet for the Tibetans" that all the dead were Tibetan?
* What proof is there that Mandarin is "imposed" on Tibetans? Certainly they have used it in all trade outside their region since the 17th century, considering that the vast majority of their trade is with China.

If you had actually looked at the pictures of Tibetans beating Han Chinese to a pulp & attacking Han Chinese property you would have seen one of the most popular targets "The Bank of China" had its sign written in both Mandarin & English.

Is English imposed on Tibetans too? Will English be a requirement for the next Dalai Lama?

This is about Ethnic purity, Sectarianism, Western Propaganda & not about Democracy.
There is a democracy movement in PRC. There are Democracts in PRC. Continued hypocritical & ignorant unquestioning kneejerk support for a historically dubious independent Tibet which even the current Dalai Lama rejects as feasible will not serve the needs of Democracts in Beijing. To the contrary it will pose tought questions. If "Tibet ought only be for Tibetans" then why should the muslim majority ethnic provinces of the west not join the ever increasing folds of Waziristan & the Taleban?

by Fu Manchu Mon Mar 17, 2008 22:36

these are images from China state TV also embedded in the comment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pcfQ8GA063c
these are the images collated by the BBC "the Chinese call this sabotage, the Dalai Lama calls it a sign of his peoples' deep resentment"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cbXvgHcUt4E

Now you may as I always insist you do "compare & contrast" with the images collated by pro-Tibetan Youtube member "AMDO 2007" but note you'll have to log in as the images are for over 18's only. You could sit on an Irish poets lap at 17 in Nepal & be a man, but not watch these pictures without parental guidance.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FzH77Cg2TyA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mAPBvoTvNY

__________________________________

Next I feel like I have to reply to "Historian" who in one of the comments above claimed my article (asking the readership & horizontal media peergroup to consider this as an issue of ethnic purity & sectarian hatred first before wrongfully describing this as a show of Tibetan democracy in the face of PRC totalitarianism) was typical of the excuses heard before Nazi Germany occupied German parts of neighbouring countries. In fact there was only one such annexation should we consider the Anschluss with Austria to simply been the illegal (under the terms of the Armistice accords to redraw the maps of post ww1 Europe). It was that of the Sudetenland allowed by the British & French which saw Chamberlain crow "peace in our time". The comparison "historian" makes is utterly ludicrous. The Sudetens or more historically accurately the Bohemians, Silesians & Moravians of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire were ethnic Germans. At no stage did Hitler or his diplomats or ally Mussolini in the brokership of the carve-up play the lebensraum or "living space" card, which I of course have touched on in the article above. Perhaps it was a bad word to touch on. As we near the end of Patrick's Day 2008, we have seen ample evidence of the historical lack of "living space" the Irish people suffered quite possibly together with their exceptionally high fertility. Lest the diasporia of the Irish be blamed on An Gort Mhór alone, let me remind the readership that Brian Lenihan claimed the island of Ireland with 84,412 km² (32,591 sq miles )could support no more than 8 million people towards the abandonment of De Valera's dreams of self-sufficiency & the fortuanate ascendency of the modernisation of Lemass, as an excuse for the continuation of the obvious policy of exporting Irish workers. Yet the island next door [80,823 sq miles (209,331 km²)] which is less than one and half times the size supports a current population of 59 million.

I purport to be a libertarian & an anarchosocialist. I believe in universal fraternity, equality & liberty.:. I do not hold with either frontiers or borders. I do not accept that it is just that 5% of this planet's population produce over 50% of the car exhausts & use the vast majority of resources (as is the case of the USA) is morally justifiable or anything less than evil exploitation. I consider the resources & prosperity derived from same of this planet to be common inheritance & right of all humanity alive on this planet. I consider the genius of human science to be by birthright the common tool of all humanity. But I realise I'm on the lunatic fringe no that one & most of my readers came at my demographic statistics which I sourced above from traditional nation-state concepts of wealth & privilege.

The Chinese no longer enforce a policy of controlled fertility which in its time was yet another stick to beat them with, & if they are not welcomed in other economies which use & exploit immigrant labour, then I see no reason why they ought not be welcomed in a historical province of their state.

The argument put by the "Freedom for Tibet" lobby in the west is that alone of the constituent ethnicities of the PRC, the Tibetans are entitled to an ethnically pure population.

You can not posit it otherwise. & we must see the statements of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama for what they truly are - the manipulative words of a shrewd political fox. Whilst supporters of Tibetans worldwide demonstrate against the Olympics, he refuses to withdraw his support. Whilst supporters of a "Free Tibet" worldwide demand "independence" he engages in horsetrading to gain the greatest economic advantage from the new infrastructural links between Tibet & the rest of China.

I wonder has any other incarnation of a Deity since perhaps the 5th "great" dalai Lama ever been so geopolitically astute? Was the prophet (PBUH)? Was Jesus?

by Fu Manchu Tue Mar 18, 2008 15:20

As reported in today's New York Times, the 14th incarnation of the Buddha of Compassion & 2007 winner of the US joint houses of Congress Gold Medal for usefulness has threatened to resign if violence escalates. He's not talking to the red Chinese, you know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/asia/19dalai.ht...login

Background thread on the succession / reincarnation referendum & issues -
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84612

by MacE Tue Mar 18, 2008 17:09

The CIA ceased supporting Tibetan independence groups in the 1970s. Rather abruptly, too. Apart from the Dalai Lama's famous but useless efforts, Tibetan independence movements have pretty much been on their own since, which is a fair testament to Tibetan spirit given the huge difference between their population and that of the Han. I haven't come across many people who think that pre-communist Tibet was well-run, but excusing oppression with the "if it wasn't for us the Tibetans/Africans/Irish (insert as appropriate) would still be living in huts and shitting wherever they liked" spiel really grates.

by Fu Manchu Tue Mar 18, 2008 18:08

Yep "MacE" you're right, up to a point.

"......After 1959, the CIA trained Tibetan guerrillas and provided funds for the fight against China. However, the effort stopped when Richard Nixon decided to seek rapprochement with China in the early 1970s. Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, in The CIA's Secret War in Tibet ,
( Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2002 [http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592]) reveal how the CIA encouraged Tibet's revolt against China - and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. The New York Times reported on October 2, 1998 that the Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the CIA, but denied reports that the Tibetan leader benefited personally from an annual subsidy of $180,000. The money allocated for the resistance movement was spent on training volunteers and paying for guerrilla operations against the Chinese, the Tibetan government-in-exile said......."

you'll note the magical name Nixon there which I've mentioned a few times already.

The failure of covert military activity turned as in many other places to the much more insidious use of "soft power" by which of course is meant Hollywood, Pop concerts, Celebrity endorsements & high profile placement of the Tibetan flag & regular awards & meetings with heads of state & the Dalai Lama both as supposed spiritual leader and incarnation of a God and displaced ruler of a theocratic state.

It is very important to finally challenge this God & take him off his plinth.

Is the "cultural genocide" of which he speaks whilst refusing to withdraw support for the Beijing Olympiad comparable or worse than Mao's cultural revolution? if a bear shites in the wood does anyone hear it?

by MacE Tue Mar 18, 2008 18:29

Soft power? Richard Gere isn't going to succeed where the CIA failed. The Dalai Lama has been travelling the world since his exile, with zero results. The US administration has long contented itself with platitudes about "human rights" and "dialogue", while doing exactly nothing meaningful for Tibet. The Dalai Lama has been the biggest brake on Tibetan independence for decades. The sooner he leaves the stage, the better for Tibet.

by Sean D Wed Mar 19, 2008 15:45

I don't think you've proved this just by detailing Tibet's history of invasions and alliances. Also, stating that the nationalist government in taiwan also claims tibet means nothing, as they also claim outer mongolia and part of siberia. Is there an underlying contention that if you get invaded by a left-wing state you should shut up and like it?

by Vlag Wed Mar 19, 2008 18:34

I have never gotten this craze for supporting 'Tibetan Independence' amongst Westerners.. What is with all these 'hippie vegetarian save-the-dolphins pot-smoking' Westerners and the natural support for 'Tibetan independence'? Is it mandatory or something to be in the 'Free Tibet' camp? Drawing all our attention on the Chinese crackdown on Tibetan dissent is very unfortunate for the many other non-Han peoples throughout China, who wish to seek independence (of some form) too. Do not forget about Xinjiang, a region with a huge Muslim Turkic-speaking non-Han population, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi and so on.. These are all places in China that are partly or wholly 'non-Chinese'. This brings me to my second point.

China is an amazingly diverse multi-national state. That very vague term 'Chinese' shouldn't be used at all. In Chinese, there is a term for 'Chinese people' which, when put into context, means not only the majority Han population, but also includes the non-Han minority groups. What Westerners think of as 'Chinese' and the 'Chinese people' are actually the Han. In Chinese, 'Chinese people' are 'Hanren' or 'Han people' and the Chinese language 'Hanyu' or 'Han speech'. Another area of misunderstanding by Westerners is to do with the 'Chinese language'... There is no one Chinese language, and that is fact. Apart from the inability to tell apart the dozens of different Chinese languages from one another, another reason why these languages are mistakenly called dialects by the West and by others in general is the fact that the Chinese themselves call them 'fangyan' which, when translated to English from Mandarin, roughly means 'regional speech'.. Of course, the Chinese would insist that their multitude of languages are in fact dialects because to do otherwise would be blasphemous towards the notion of a single unified Han people and culture. In other words, to do so would mean the fragmentation of Han China.

Lastly, I scanned the other comments and noticed the comments about the number of overseas Chinese.. There are in fact as many people of Chinese descent outside of the PRC as there are people of Irish descent outside of Ireland. In Taiwan there are around 20 million, South East Asia alone harbours millions. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma when combined has over 10 million Chinese. Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines combined amounts up to 20 million, probably even more due to the fact that many of these countries do not have proper censuses nor is it very effective and because of the fact that many Chinese in these countries are hesitant in claiming Chinese heritage due to to the huge animosity and hatred of the mostly wealthy Chinese by the indigineous populations. Take my family and relatives for example. I myself am a fourth-generation Chinese-Filipino and would consider myself Filipino first, then Chinese second. But many in my family and many of my relatives would consider themselves Chinese first, and then Filipino, or in some cases, as Chinese and Chinese only, even if they are from the Philippines. Moving on, Australia and New Zealand have sizeable Chinese populations. Across the Pacific, the USA and Canada combined hosts up to 5 million Chinese (and this is not including the Taiwanese population in North America). Add to that number, the other Asian-American groups such as Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and Filipinos. These groups in fact, especially the Vietnamese, have a lot of people of Chinese heritage, which explains why many Vietnamese restaurants in America and outside of Vietnam in general are 'Chinese-Vietnamese restaurants'. That would be an addition of another 2 million of Chinese ancestry. Europe, is also home to many Chinese, especially countries such as France (where many of the Chinese are in fact from Vietnam), Britain, Holland and Russia (unusually enough). I dunno the figures here but its well over 2 million at least since there are over a million in Russia, about 300,000 in France and 300,000 in Britain. Populations from other European countries would amount to another million or so. Worldwide we are talking at least about 50 million people of Chinese heritage, bearing in mind to the countless numbers of other Chinese who refuse to claim their heritage or do not take part in censuses (like my grandfather in the Philippines does).

by fu manchu Wed Mar 19, 2008 21:32

In the article I reffered to the book "Ethnicity in Asia" edited by (*) Refsing, Kirsten; Colin MacKerras published in the United Kingdom by Routledge, 58-59. ISBN 0-415-25816-2 as source for my figures on Chinese ethnicity in Asia.
According to wikipedia the Irish diasporia contains 80 million people figures which are based on a combination of estimates by both the RC church on global membership (notoriously overestimated) and US census reports on its second largest ethnic group (the first ethnic group in the USA is german). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_people#Irish_diaspora Together with the Jewish diasporia the Irish is the single largest global population group found outside its supposed homeland.
Even allowing for the last commentators unsourced estimate of 50 million people of Chinese heritage worldwide, to be comparable to the Irish presence that would mean only 25,000 people of Irish heritage. There are (just for example) 60,000 Argentinians of Chinese descent compared to 500,000 of Irish descent.

But I really liked your input Vlag. thank you.

_________________________________________

Led by France & Germany yesterday some EU members began to moot a a boycott of the Olympiad, that usual politicisation of the single showcase of excellence amongst third world athletes which supposedly transcends politics by gets abused every four years anyway by people who quite probably couldn't run a mile even on industrial strength angeldust let alone do it in a matter of seconds.

Then Ratzinger came in. "olympics must go on" (mammy church now approves of the internationalist masonic plot) & Red China & Heathen Tibet must enter dialogue. He sees the bigger picture you know. Accordingly now the Dalai Lama is not mentioning his resignation any more and leaving a dangerous vacuum in world pacifism but has said he is prepared to talk to Beijing. Oddly enough, they were actually doing that before...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7305445.stm