Valid Protest?

[Lemur]

So this lady gets an invite (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_china_protester_is_torched_by_critics.html) to carry the Olympic torch for a wee bit in the U.S.A. Fine, whatever. So she hides a Tibetan flag in her sleeve, whips it out once she has the torch. Good idea? Who knows. Poor taste? Maybe. Protected political speech in the U.S.A.? You betcha.

Here's where it gets dicey: "A Chinese paramilitary squad escorting the torch quickly snatched it from her, and cops pushed her into the crowd." I'm not sure I understand why that's fair or legal. This ain't China, and if a law-abiding citizen wants to wave a flag, it's allowed. Why are private security details allowed to stop her? Why are our own police helping? Can someone make a cogent argument for why this is okay, and not a sad episode of toadying on the part of our government?

Yeah, I get it that the torch is not public property, that there are restrictions on how it's handled, etc. But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

[HoreTore]

But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

Dictators do.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Good for her. Shame on Newsome (SF mayor) for changing the route like a coward and the police for touching her. I bet that SF mayor likes to chat with his upper crust friends upper how Tibet should be freed, but lacks the balls to stand up to some real badness in our world.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nobody has managed to point out to me how the occupation of Tibet is worse than, say, the occupation of Iraq.

Ah, I've got it. It's because one side is a dictatorship. Sorry. :rolleyes:

[Incongruous]

Rather disgusting really, pretty sad also.
Oh well, the Olympics are rubbish anyway.

[Lemur]

Nobody has managed to point out to me how the occupation of Tibet is worse than, say, the occupation of Iraq.
Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?

However, I will play. The U.S.A. does not consider Iraq part of its natural territory. The U.S.A. does not intend to integrate Iraq into its homeland. The U.S.A. wants to get out of Iraq as soon as it reasonably can, and all of the hullabaloo you hear between political candidates over here is about when and how fast. Nobody who wants to stay or get in office is talking about an infinite occupation.

The parallels just keep ... not happening. Why do the two seem comparable to you, anyway? Is there any serious, interesting observation you can make about the congruency of the two occupations, or are you just shooting from the hip, seeing if you hit anything?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So this lady gets an invite (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_china_protester_is_torched_by_critics.html) to carry the Olympic torch for a wee bit in the U.S.A. Fine, whatever. So she hides a Tibetan flag in her sleeve, whips it out once she has the torch. Good idea? Who knows. Poor taste? Maybe. Protected political speech in the U.S.A.? You betcha.

Here's where it gets dicey: "A Chinese paramilitary squad escorting the torch quickly snatched it from her, and cops pushed her into the crowd." I'm not sure I understand why that's fair or legal. This ain't China, and if a law-abiding citizen wants to wave a flag, it's allowed. Why are private security details allowed to stop her? Why are our own police helping? Can someone make a cogent argument for why this is okay, and not a sad episode of toadying on the part of our government?

Yeah, I get it that the torch is not public property, that there are restrictions on how it's handled, etc. But if an invited torchbearer wants to make a small gesture that is well within the legal rights of a citizen in good standing, who's got the legal standing to hustle her away and kick her out?

Despicable. People should assault those security guards with some paint or something.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?

Derailing threads? Really? Perhaps you'd like to point out an example? :inquisitive:

As I see it, not only do Backroom threads generally get more derailed than this on a regular basis, but I am in the vast majority of cases not the instigator of this, and we're still talking about Tibet.

I'll presume you're tired or something, as you're usually very polite.

EDIT: Now I'm confused as to if your comments were in jest or not. By your comment below, I presume so.


The parallels just keep ... not happening. Why do the two seem comparable to you, anyway? Is there any serious, interesting observation you can make about the congruency of the two occupations, or are you just shooting from the hip, seeing if you hit anything?


Three agendas, to be honest.

1) To get a rise out of people, of course. Not strictly amusing in it's own right, but it generally sparks some excellent debate.

2) Both were invaded and occupied by powers who shouldn't be there in the first place. In this case, you can argue that China has more right to be in Tibet than America does in Iraq. Inhumane treatment and civilian casualties are commonplace in both places. Civilians were abducted by the occupiers and taken to places where their human rights were ripped to shreds. So on and so forth.

3) I don't believe the Tibet protests make sense, just as much as I don't believe Iraq protests make sense - though for two completely different reasons. I believe that people have the right to protest, but the Chinese have the right to keep the flame in a secure, peaceful environment. They can protest from the sidelines, but the second someone moves to damage (put out) or disrupt the actual event, it becomes unacceptable. I'm not aware of the laws on this type of event in America, however.

[Lemur]

Derailing threads? Really? Perhaps you'd like to point out an example? :inquisitive:
I will only answer this question when you explain whether or not you prefer crushing kittens to the aforementioned activity. I asked a perfectly straightforward question about kitten crushing, and dang it, I deserve an answer!

And since you've "dodged" my kitten-death question, you still owe me an answer, to a question which I will formulate any minute now. It's going to be something along the lines of "Why do you hate freedom?" but maybe more topical. I'll get to it presently.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I will only answer this question when you explain whether or not you prefer crushing kittens to the aforementioned activity. I asked a perfectly straightforward question about kitten crushing, and dang it, I deserve an answer!

On the contrary, I am a great fan of cats. Stomping on kittens gives me little pleasure. Shooting puppies? Still no.

Chipmunks?


May they rot in the fires of doom.

[Pannonian]

I'll say again that these kinds of protests are counterproductive, if their objective is to secure better conditions for Tibet. However, if their objective is to make the protestors feel good about themselves in upholding some moral good, then they're certainly effective.

What do you think?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Photos from the protest in SF:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/zombie-chronicles-the-olympic-torch-relay-in-san-francisco/

Everyone with a grudge against China turned out; anti-Darfur genocide, Burma, Vietnam, and of course Tibet.

CR

[naut]

Well I'm glad Mr. Smug Rudd has grown some balls and said that the Chinese paramilitaries will not be allowed off the Chinese bus and the torch will be protected by Aussie security.

I hope someone extinguishes it.

[CountArach]

What jurisdiction do the Chinese Parmilitary forces have in this case to stop teh person from this legitimate protest? Absolutely shocking.

[HoreTore]

What jurisdiction do the Chinese Parmilitary forces have in this case to stop teh person from this legitimate protest? Absolutely shocking.

I'm guessing they use the same as Blackwater does to shoot civilians and get away with it.

In other words, none.

[Geoffrey S]

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.

[Adrian II]

Modern Olympics aren't about sports. Anyone who thinks so needs his head examined. It's a circus in the original sense. And anyone who protests and ridicules these games is entitled to feel good. Cause they did good.

This torch thingy has become the best anti-Chinese propaganda train in quite a while. Most amusing. In London it was nearly snatched by protesters, in France it had to be doused despite the presence of 3000 police, in San Francisco it was paraded through empty warehouses and alleyways at break-neck speed. Teh redicule. :beam:

[Pannonian]

Not protesting what the Chinese are doing in Tibet is one thing. Understandably there are plenty of opinions on the matter, so disagreement is not surprising.

But allowing the Chinese to abuse the Olympic Games as spectacle, and not drawing a line when they do things like this? It's beyond their sovereignty and jurisdiction and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm all for keeping politics out of the Olympics, but if the Chinese can't resist the gloves should come off.
I personally think the Olympics are inconsequential, but if the Chinese want to make much of it, then smart politicans will extract some concessions for it. If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for. Instead, people have protected the purity of the Olympic ideal, which is a load of nonsense anyway, while ensuring that no concessions will be made for Tibet, and the Tibetans will suffer Beijing's anger once the games are over. And after all this is over, people will preen themselves on how they stood up for the forces of good against the forces of evil, oblivious to the opportunity they had ignored to actually do some practical good.

Shakes head at the idiocy of it all.

[InsaneApache]

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.

[Adrian II]

If people really wanted to help Tibet, they'd have agreed to let the Chinese parade their flame in a blaze of glory, in return for movement towards the cultural autonomy and Beijing government political position the Dalai Lama is pushing for.You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.

[Adrian II]

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.That would be the Olympic Committee. And you have my full support. :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

You are confusing cause and effect. If it were not for these (and previous, similar) international protests the Chinese wouldn't even acknowledge that the Dalai Lama exists.

Apart from that, the protests show the Chinese government that we may have diplomatic relations, trade ties and other exchanges with them, but that we are no dupes to their dictatorial propaganda.
The Dalai Lama doesn't exist, he is an imposter rather than the real Dalai Lama whom Beijing backs, and his legitimacy threatens the integration of Tibet into China, all at the same time. Do you really think that you've decisively undermined the strength of the Chinese position by forcing them into a position that shows up the contradictions in their case? The fact is, there is no contradiction at all, in all of these arguments. The Chinese are in possession of Tibet, they have the strength and willingness to do whatever they like with it, and there is nothing any outsiders can do to force them to do otherwise. Those are the bare facts that arguments about the Dalai Lama's legitimacy and the abuse of democratic principles and human rights cannot disguise.

The Dalai Lama recognises this, which is why he's attempting to push for an arrangement that is good for Beijing as well as for Tibet, independent of whether or not he is the legitimate Dalai Lama. Unlike the protestors, he's actually attempting to achieve some practical good for Tibet. If Beijing can agree to some kind of solution that is acceptable in practice to both sides (and they don't actually need to recognise the Dalai Lama to do so), then all these arguments about legitimacy can be waived away in a wash of doubletalk. Diplomacy can begin with workable arrangements, through to more permanent structures, before ending in formal recognition. Recognition without substance means nothing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Modern Olympics aren't about sports. Anyone who thinks so needs his head examined. It's a circus in the original sense. And anyone who protests and ridicules these games is entitled to feel good. Cause they did good.

This torch thingy has become the best anti-Chinese propaganda train in quite a while. Most amusing. In London it was nearly snatched by protesters, in France it had to be doused despite the presence of 3000 police, in San Francisco it was paraded through empty warehouses and alleyways at break-neck speed. Teh redicule. :beam:


I agree. The more people are reminded of how awful China is, the less anti-American they will be. For a short period of time

[Adrian II]

The Dalai Lama doesn't exist [..]

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.' https://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1104/charliechanfb8.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wonder if the Chinese think they're really getting to host the greatest spectacle on earth.:laugh4:

That is obviously the (football) World Cup. Nobody I know has even mentioned the Olympics, at least not the sporting side. But when the World Cup comes around....

[Pannonian]

Ancient ancestor say: 'Words can not cook rice.' https://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1104/charliechanfb8.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.

[Ronin]

I agree. The more people are reminded of how awful China is, the less anti-American they will be. For a short period of time

if the US was chosen to hold an Olympic event right now I think there would be protests too...and with good reason...no wear near near the same level...and rightfully so...but it would exist.

[Adrian II]

Explain? Preferably with reference to my post or yours.Dear God, isn't that obvious? Look at your post (#22).

First you say that the DL doesn't exist, next you say that he is an imposter, and finally you say that he is on the right track.

I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel such confusion. You'll probably do a better job yourself. :bow:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Whoever had the idea to award the games to a one party state should be sacked.

In my opinion, they should be complimented. I mean, I would prefer they weren't in China (I despise communism, for one), but by doing that they showed that they would award the games to the most deserving, regardless of politics. That being said, when accepting the Olympics there should be a clause that limits the use of propaganda.

[Pannonian]

Dear God, isn't that obvious? Look at your post (#22).

First you say that the DL doesn't exist, next you say that he is an imposter, and finally you say that he is on the right track.

I wouldn't know where to begin to unravel such confusion. You'll probably do a better job yourself. :bow:
Erm, it was supposed to be confusing. I was showing that the Chinese government can maintain all of these contradictory positions at the same time, for there is no contradiction in the facts that really matter - their possession of Tibet. Adding yet another contradiction to their fictions, as you're arguing for, makes no practical difference, as long as the nature of the Chinese possession of Tibet remains unaddressed. I then pointed out that, if those facts on the ground are dealt with, the diplomatic niceties will naturally follow.

There are many examples of factions who are ostensibly at war with each other, or who refuse to recognise each other, who somehow find some kind of accommodation with each other, and eventually reach a more permanent solution. Eg. Sinn Fein and the DUP co-governed in many councils in Northern Ireland, long before they dropped the pretence of absolute non-cooperation with each other. I'm sure there are examples of that in Israel's history, where there were understandings concerning certain border issues even while they were at war with their neighbouring states. Looking back at Chinese history, IIRC Zhou Enlai was the main conduit of the Communists' ententes with the Nationalists, which culminated in the Xi'an incident.

[Adrian II]

I was showing that the Chinese government can maintain all of these contradictory positions at the same time, for there is no contradiction in the facts that really matter[..]New facts, many seemingly innocuous but collectively effective, are created every day. That's what people do. I hear the barricades were up in Buenos Aires today to, um, greet the torch.

Any news, amigos? :mellow:

[Pannonian]

New facts, many seemingly innocuous but collectively effective, are created every day. That's what people do. I hear the barricades were up in Buenos Aires today to, um, greet the torch.

Any news, amigos? :mellow:
China is not a democracy. As long as they don't give a monkeys about outside opinion, outside opinion doesn't matter. Not positively, anyway. It might irritate them though, and result in worse treatment for Tibet once the games are over. One way of getting the government to care about outside opinion might be to turn the majority of their population against them, thus making the country ungovernable. But all I've heard about the opinion inside China is that the Chinese support their government in this matter, and want some kind of revenge on the Tibetans for this embarrassment. Which is the point I'm making.

Can you show just why the Chinese government would be compelled to listen to these protests? How are these little facts, as you call them, relevant to Tibet?

[Geoffrey S]

How are these little facts, as you call them, relevant to Tibet?
First discussion on the status of Tibet I've seen here in quite a while, let alone in the media...

[Pannonian]

Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080412/ts_afp/chinataiwanpoliticsdiplomacy_080412145114) an example of what I mean by sorting out the practical problems first, before bothering about the symbolic gestures. A deeper problem than Tibet too, since not only does Taiwan have more independence than Tibet, it even has some claim to be the legitimate state of China. Instead of grandstanding on issues of principle, such as the precise status of Taiwan, they're concentrating instead on getting the practical issues of trade and travel sorted out, while leaving recognition on the side as a largely irrelevant issue.

[TevashSzat]

I guess I might provide a bit of background on why the general Chinese population feels that Tibet needs stay with China without full autonomy.

Generally, the people feel as if Tibet has taken benefits from Chinese rule and is now attempting to go off by itself. Granted, Chinese rule these past half century has hardly been perfect (Yeah, yeah, there were tons of killings/deaths, but it wasn't as if the Cultural Revolution, Great Lead Forward, ect... was just limited to Tibet. All Chinese suffered), but pre 1950s Tibet was hardly a paradise. The average lifespan was in the 30s, infant mortality was extremely high, and generally, a backwards place. Now, life expectancy is in the high 60s, and Tibetan life has improved alot. It is arguable whether an autonomous Tibet could achieve such growth had it remained independent, but I doubt many can deny that it has certainly improved.

Now with many protesters wanting "free Tibet" many in China feel as if the Tibetans suddenly forgotten everything China has done. I guess it may be comparable to Texas wanting to leave the Union a decade or two after the Mexican-American war. Now, that wasn't the sentiment, but had the state wanted to, you could guess the uproar that it would've caused.

[Redleg]

Truely one could make an impact on China by protest would to do it with your wallet. If the goods are made in China - just dont buy them. Until the world community decides to do this - China will do as it will.

[Xiahou]

I have to say that I don't have a big problem with what happened to her. She was free to protest all she wanted from the sidelines, but in agreeing to be a torch bearer she also agreed to behave in a certain manner. As soon as she decided to break the rules, they were free to eject her from the proceedings and she was free to continue exercising her free speech rights from the sidewalk. :shrug:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have to say that I don't have a big problem with what happened to her. She was free to protest all she wanted from the sidelines, but in agreeing to be a torch bearer she also agreed to behave in a certain manner. As soon as she decided to break the rules, they were free to eject her from the proceedings and she was free to continue exercising her free speech rights from the sidewalk. :shrug:

I have an interesting picture of the torchbearer in Paris, and what happened. I'll show it when I get back on my own computer.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5532/parisprotestsolympictorhr4.jpg


I don't care what your cause is, that is not acceptable. They do not do a credit to the Tibetan independence movement by stunts like that.

[Adrian II]

Truely one could make an impact on China by protest would to do it with your wallet. If the goods are made in China - just dont buy them. Until the world community decides to do this - China will do as it will.I think the connection is already there. What you describe is exactly what is happening right now. The Games are a huge publicity stunt for the host country as well as a commercial undertaking. Now the protesters and their many sympathizers around the world are making it clear that they refuse to 'buy' into the Chinese chauvinism and propaganda lies, both literally and symbolically.

I recommend a round-up of the British press (which is accessible to all Org. members since they all supposedly speak English). Between The Guardian (left) and the Telegraph they carry the most caustic comments, columns and readers' letters about China, the modern Olympics, the idiocy of the IOC and the idiocy of the British government to go along with it.

From what I've seen from the French press, it is about the same.

It is not a consumer boycot in the formal sense, but it certainly could be the beginning of one.

To members who question the fact that most protesters are not Tibetan, I would say that this is not just a matter for Tibetans. Just like the protests against the 1936 Olympics in nazi Germany were not a matter for Jews only. Unfortunately that insight came rather too late to most European and American minds.

[Pannonian]

I think the connection is already there. What you describe is exactly what is happening right now. The Games are a huge publicity stunt for the host country as well as a commercial undertaking. Now the protesters and their many sympathizers around the world are making it clear that they refuse to 'buy' into the Chinese chauvinism and propaganda lies, both literally and symbolically.

I recommend a round-up of the British press (which is accessible to all Org. members since they all supposedly speak English). Between The Guardian (left) and the Telegraph they carry the most caustic comments, columns and readers' letters about China, the modern Olympics, the idiocy of the IOC and the idiocy of the British government to go along with it.

From what I've seen from the French press, it is about the same.

It is not a consumer boycot in the formal sense, but it certainly could be the beginning of one.

To members who question the fact that most protesters are not Tibetan, I would say that this is not just a matter for Tibetans. Just like the protests against the 1936 Olympics in nazi Germany were not a matter for Jews only. Unfortunately that insight came rather too late to most European and American minds.
If you want to make the Godwin comparison, note that Nazi Germany wasn't brought down by worldwide protests, it was brought down by military force. I'll ask again, what are you trying to accomplish, and how effective are your chosen means?

BTW, have you read that article on Taiwan I linked to? In 12 months time, compare the results of the approach you advocate with the results of the approach I advocate, and see which is the more substantial.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just like the protests against the 1936 Olympics in nazi Germany were not a matter for Jews only. Unfortunately that insight came rather too late to most European and American minds.

The Chinese are rounding up Tibetans into death camps? First I've heard of it.

[Adrian II]

The Chinese are rounding up Tibetans into death camps? First I've heard of it.Read my post again. I said nothing of the kind.

I said that protests against dictatorships are not only a matter for the immediate victims, they are a matter for all of us. In that sense the comparison stands. In 1936 most Europeans and Americans reckoned that as long as Hitler only killed Communists and Jews, we could live with him.

It pays to look into the debate that raged back then. In the U.S. the American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee rallied, petitioned and picketed in favour of a boycot of the Berlin Games. Their main opponent was Avery Brundage, president of the American Olympic Committee. Brundage won the debate. He maintained that (1) politics and sports were radically different arenas, (2) that Germany would not abuse the Berlin Games for propaganda purposes ('They even allow black and Jewish athletes to compete!'), and (3) the protests were organized by a 'Jewish-Communist conspiracy'.

Needless to say (or so I hope) he was wrong on all three counts. Alas, these days we see the same lame horses being trotted out in favour of participation in the Beijing Olympics.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Needless to say (or so I hope) he was wrong on all three counts.

I strongly disagree.



He maintained that (1) politics and sports were radically different arenas

They generally are. It's the Olympics that can become politically charged. Anyhow, still no reason not to hold them in China.


(2) that Germany would not abuse the Berlin Games for propaganda purposes ('They even allow black and Jewish athletes to compete!')

They were of course used for propaganda purposes, but black and Jewish athletes did compete, and indeed won some events.


Hitler didn't snub me—it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram.


When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.

Anyhow...



and (3) the protests were organized by a 'Jewish-Communist conspiracy'.

Well, the protests were organized by Jews - you said so yourself. He said it like it was a bad thing, which is not acceptable, but factually, Jews did organize it.

Anyhow, you're likening the Jews to Tibet. Tibetans under China have it far better than Jews did under Hitler. TevashSzat made a good post on this page.

[Adrian II]

Well, the protests were organized by Jews - you said so yourself. He said it like it was a bad thing, which is not acceptable, but factually, Jews did organize it.Exactly. Just what I said in #40.

Now, bear with me. In 1936 Brundage and his ilk considered that the bad treatment given to Jews in Germany need not concern outsiders. It is only afterwards that we recognize that this treatment portended trouble for the entire world and that the appeasement of nazi Germany only postponed and worsened the ensuing conflict. Would the athletes who went to Berlin in 1936 have done the same, had they known what followed? I don't think so.

Today, we face the same indifference or feigned ignorance with regard to China. We are invited to celebrate human brotherhood under the banner of a government that simultaneously clubs monks to death in prisons, and half the populace sees nothing wrong with it.
Why? Because as I said above the Olympics and related professional sports events are the circenses of our day, the ultimate distraction for the passive and politics-wary masses. If the Chinese paraded one hundred Tibetan monks through Beijing and executed them in Tienanmen Square before the entire world press on Day One of the Games, we would still hear the same cowardly evasions and pea-brained excuses and from sports officials, diplomats and major car or soda companies.

[Kralizec]

They were of course used for propaganda purposes, but black and Jewish athletes did compete, and indeed won some events.

On that note, did you know that China has made it clear that Falun Gong practioners would not be allowed to participate in the games?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

On that note, did you know that China has made it clear that Falun Gong practioners would not be allowed to participate in the games?

A quick Google turns up no links on the subject - only on Falun Gong members in prisons.

My point is not that China doesn't have some serious problems to work out with human rights, but that we should not boycott the Games and that Tibetan prosecution is nowhere near on the same scale or even on the same page as the Jewish prosecution.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just because it is not on such a large scale does not make it acceptable. As for the Tibetans having it better than Jews under Hitler, well that still doesn't say a lot for how they are treated does it?

Although I agree these protesters that try to snatch the torch are not giving much aid to their cause, they're just ruining the parades and leaving thousands of spectators disappointed.

How often do these hippie protesters that completely cross the line of a respectable protest turn the average people against their cause, and discredit their whole movement?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just because it is not on such a large scale does not make it acceptable.

Tibetans are not rounded up and sent to death camps for the purpose of exterminating their race.


As for the Tibetans having it better than Jews under Hitler, well that still doesn't say a lot for how they are treated does it?

Alright, how about they have it a lot better?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1890065&postcount=35


Although I agree these protesters that try to snatch the torch are not giving much aid to their cause, they're just ruining the parades and leaving thousands of spectators disappointed.

:bow:

[KrooK]

There is kind of camps. Chineese prisons are very similar to concentration camps. People there are not being poisoned like into Birkenau but they are forced to work till death like into Auschwitz. Some of them is being murdered because of their inner organs like heart (like into Japaneese death camps).
There is massive colonisation into Tibet - because Chineese want be majority there.
Sorry but this is crime against humanity.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is kind of camps. Chineese prisons are very similar to concentration camps. People there are not being poisoned like into Birkenau but they are forced to work till death like into Auschwitz.

Labour camps, yes. Death camps, I very much doubt.


Some of them is being murdered because of their inner organs like heart (like into Japaneese death camps).

:inquisitive:

Linky, linky...



There is massive colonisation into Tibet - because Chineese want be majority there.

Yes, that's true. It's within China, so why should it be illegal?

[Redleg]

My point is not that China doesn't have some serious problems to work out with human rights, but that we should not boycott the Games and that Tibetan prosecution is nowhere near on the same scale or even on the same page as the Jewish prosecution.


If a free society wishes to boycott the games - what issue would the Chinese have with it? Free societies have the ability to protest against what they deem to be an injustice, that is what seperates them from the totalirian state thta is China.

If China does not like having thier internal politics center stage in the world - then maybe they shouldn't of asked for the games to take place in their nation.

[woad&fangs]

Yes, that's true. It's within China, so why should it be illegal?

Because Tibet never should have been part of China to start with. If France invaded Belgium and 50 million* Frenchmen moved into Belgium would France not be forced to give Belgium its independence back?

*note that I'm completely ignorant of the population of Belgium.

[Papewaio]

The Tibet protests are the headline ones. There are other ones about the lack of human rights around.

http://www.amnesty.org/ for instance has a campaign that looks at the rights to a fair trial.

Now the Olympic games are a mass advertising event.

=][=

As for the Olympic Torch relay, one can just read how it was incepted to see that it was and always has remained a propaganda vehicle (either for governments or companies).

Wiki:
The Olympic Flame from the ancient games was reintroduced during the 1928 Olympic Games. An employee of the Electric Utility of Amsterdam, lit the first Olympic flame in the Marathon Tower of the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam.

The modern convention of moving the Olympic Flame via a relay system from Olympia to the Olympic venue began with the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, Germany.

The relay, captured in Leni Riefenstahl's film Olympia, was part of the Nazi propaganda machine’s attempt to add myth and mystique to Adolf Hitler’s regime. Hitler saw the link with the ancient Games as the perfect way to illustrate his belief that classical Greece was an Aryan forerunner of the modern German Reich.

[Craterus]

Tibetans are not rounded up and sent to death camps for the purpose of exterminating their race.

No, just exterminating their cultural history.


Labour camps, yes. Death camps, I very much doubt.

They're similar, working people to death is more economical. Are you saying that labour camps are somehow ok whereas death camps are not? Hmm.

Aside from that, I think the protests may well be harming their cause more than helping. Just like Pankhurst and her suffragettes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If a free society wishes to boycott the games - what issue would the Chinese have with it? Free societies have the ability to protest against what they deem to be an injustice, that is what seperates them from the totalirian state thta is China.

They shouldn't have an issue with it - that is, not a big issue - but I'm saying that it's rather senseless not to go. I'm not justifying China's rather bad human rights record, just saying that a boycott is, IMHO, a little dumb.

I have an issue with these protests because of the picture I posted. That is unacceptable.


Because Tibet never should have been part of China to start with. If France invaded Belgium and 50 million* Frenchmen moved into Belgium would France not be forced to give Belgium its independence back?

*note that I'm completely ignorant of the population of Belgium.

I think a better analogy is modern Germany asking for Alsace-Lorraine. There is an ancestral link, there is a cultural link, there is a historical link, but they are a different people.



Now the Olympic games are a mass advertising event.


It's a pity, really.


They're similar, working people to death is more economical. Are you saying that labour camps are somehow ok whereas death camps are not? Hmm.

I never said that. I come from a family that had people who spent a long time in communist labour camps. Labour camps are not OK, but they are a way away from death camps.

[Adrian II]

I have an issue with these protests because of the picture I posted. That is unacceptable.Apart from the Chinese oppression of Tibetans and intentional destruction of their cultural heritage, there are many first hand accounts and even smuggled pictures of far worse, systematic abuse in laogai, the Chinese prison camp system, which is the most extensive in today's world. Just Google 'Harry Wu'.

Many Tibetans, Uigurs and other minorities as well as Han Chinese have huge issues with the Chinese government based on much more than a picture. If you lack the sense of proportion to understand the difference, no one will ever convince you. I certainly can't be bothered, I think you fall in the category of jaded spectators I mentioned.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Apart from the Chinese oppression of Tibetans and intentional destruction of their cultural heritage, there are many first hand accounts and even smuggled pictures of far worse, systematic abuse in laogai, the Chinese prison camp system, which is the most extensive in today's world. Just Google 'Harry Wu'.

Many Tibetans, Uigurs and other minorities as well as Han Chinese have huge issues with the Chinese government based on much more than a picture. If you lack the sense of proportion to understand the difference, no one will ever convince you. I certainly can't be bothered, I think you fall in the category of jaded spectators I mentioned.

My position:

1) China has a human rights problem that needs to be fixed. I've had family go through labour camps. I would not wish that on anyone.
2) Protests are fine if they are peaceful. When a torchbearer is assaulted, the police need to step in.
3) Tibetan independence is all well and good, but their government before the Chinese was not exactly a good role model.
4) Sense of proportion? The Chinese violence against Tibetans does not justify the assault of a torchbearer. It's not proportion, it's law.

[Adrian II]

The Chinese violence against Tibetans does not justify the assault of a torchbearer. It's not proportion, it's law.One outrageous protester does not a movement make. You know that very well, or should, provided that you care to know.

[Pannonian]

Because Tibet never should have been part of China to start with. If France invaded Belgium and 50 million* Frenchmen moved into Belgium would France not be forced to give Belgium its independence back?

*note that I'm completely ignorant of the population of Belgium.
Both versions of the Chinese republic claimed Tibet as part of their inheritance from Qing China, neither having given it up through right of war or treaty. The Republic of China (ROC, nowadays Taiwan) claimed Tibet as part of Chinese territory, but did not have the muscle to back this claim before they were expelled from the mainland altogether. The People's Republic of China (PRC) continued this claim, and they did have the muscle to back this claim, which they did soon after their succession. The legal comparison one should look at is not an invasion of Belgium, but of Hong Kong. Hong Kong (strictly speaking, the New Territories) and other concessions were ceded by treaty by Qing China, treaties which both the ROC amd the PRC decried as unfair. But both Chinas observed these treaties, for they were part of their inheritance, and a proper successor state observes the treaties signed by its predecessors.

So Tibet is legally part of China, unless someone wishes to force Beijing into giving its independence. If one is concerned about what China is doing there, the issue is not one of a foreign invader oppressing a conquered territory (it's as much part of China as Virginia is part of the US), but whether human rights override sovereign rights. But as sovereign rights depend on the state's ability to keep itself together and free from outside influence (what the monopoly on organised violence is meant to achieve), so human rights depend on the state's willingness to observe them. If a state wishes to assert sovereign rights over human rights, what right, or more relevantly, what power does an outsider have to prevent this?

[Vladimir]

Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?




I will only answer this question when you explain whether or not you prefer crushing kittens to the aforementioned activity. I asked a perfectly straightforward question about kitten crushing, and dang it, I deserve an answer!

And since you've "dodged" my kitten-death question, you still owe me an answer, to a question which I will formulate any minute now. It's going to be something along the lines of "Why do you hate freedom?" but maybe more topical. I'll get to it presently.

:laugh4: Let me just derail this thread with a derailment. :2thumbsup:

Personally I enjoy tossing puppies over cliffs. (Oh my, did he just say that?!) :yes:

[Ronin]

:laugh4: Let me just derail this thread with a derailment. :2thumbsup:

Personally I enjoy tossing puppies over cliffs. (Oh my, did he just say that?!) :yes:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/threadGoing.jpg

:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

So Tibet is legally part of China [..]Only de facto.

Nations have a right to self-determination as well as a right to secede from tyranny. Quite a few states, including the U.S., were founded on these principles. To deny them to Tibet would be nonsense.

Their practical implementation of course is a different issue.

What is not debatable is the legitimacy of the methods and measures which China applies in Tibet. They are unacceptable by all standards, even official Chinese standards as laid down in its Constitution.

[Pannonian]

Only de facto.

Nations have a right to self-determination as well as a right to secede from tyranny. Quite a few states, including the U.S., were founded on these principles. To deny them to Tibet would be nonsense.

Their practical implementation of course is a different issue.

What is not debatable is the legitimacy of the methods and measures which China applies in Tibet. They are unacceptable by all standards, even official Chinese standards as laid down in its Constitution.
There is no realistic way Tibet is going to secede. That much is fact. The best we can do is to get better treatment for them. So how do we go about doing so?

My argument is that these protests are counterproductive, even worse than sitting back and doing nothing, as they harden the Chinese determination not to listen to the outside world, and even to get their own back at Tibet when the Olympics are over. AFAIK this is by far the majority opinion within China, so there is no chance of substantial protests within China in support of Tibet.

My other argument is that more can be done by laying the arguments about human rights and so on aside, but to emphasise instead the material gains an integrated Tibet under competent governance can bring. I linked to a new article where the Beijing and Taipei governments reached agreements to promote trade and travel links between the mainland and Taiwan. This is significant, for the problem there is even more intractable than that of Tibet - Taiwan claims to be the lawful successor to Qing China, as does the PRC, thus the existence of each invalidates the other. Despite this, and despite not having moved in any way towards settling this fundamental contradiction, they've nonetheless reached a peaceful accommodation in the areas that really matter - the material wellbeing of their citizens.

Thus my challenge, to look back in 12 months time, and see which approach got the better results. While the protests may allow the protestors to take the moral high ground and stand up for human rights and democracy, they do diddly squat towards actually realising them.

[Adrian II]

There is no realistic way Tibet is going to secede.Oh, but there is. Inner turmoil or a political collapse are never far away in China, despite appearances to the contrary. Entire provinces of that country are already semi-autonomous these days, so is the army as an institution as well as an economic powerhouse, and even the Party is corrupt and split over regional issues and interest, to the point of being apolitical.

During the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91 we have seen how easily and speedily matters of nationality and independence might be settled. Same could happen to Tibet. Of course, as in the case of the Soviet Union, there will always be fatalists and pseudo-realists who refuse to even think about the possibility of Tibetan independence - until the moment arrives.

I am not sure that Tibetan independence is the way to go, although it is obviously not my call whether it happens. It might be better to stay in China with semi-autonomous status, provided that Beijing undergoes some very major political changes and Tibet can let its voice be heard there.

[Vladimir]

Oh, but there is. Inner turmoil or a political collapse are never far away in China, despite appearances to the contrary. Entire provinces of that country are already semi-autonomous these days, so is the army as an institution as well as an economic powerhouse, and even the Party is corrupt and split over regional issues and interest, to the point of being apolitical.

During the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91 we have seen how easily and speedily matters of nationality and independence might be settled. Same could happen to Tibet. Of course, as in the case of the Soviet Union, there will always be fatalists and pseudo-realists who refuse to even think about the possibility of Tibetan independence - until the moment arrives.

I am not sure that Tibetan independence is the way to go, although it is obviously not my call whether it happens. It might be better to stay in China with semi-autonomous status, provided that Beijing undergoes some very major political changes and Tibet can let its voice be heard there.

The reason it fell apart so quickly was that Gorbachev refused to take action to hold it together. This is what pissed the KGB off so much that they attempted a coup. Mismanagement and CONSIDERABLE outside influence (Regan, Thatcher, and a Pope) are what lead to the collapse.

[Pannonian]

Oh, but there is. Inner turmoil or a political collapse are never far away in China, despite appearances to the contrary. Entire provinces of that country are already semi-autonomous these days, so is the army as an institution as well as an economic powerhouse, and even the Party is corrupt and split over regional issues and interest, to the point of being apolitical.

During the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-91 we have seen how easily and speedily matters of nationality and independence might be settled. Same could happen to Tibet. Of course, as in the case of the Soviet Union, there will always be fatalists and pseudo-realists who refuse to even think about the possibility of Tibetan independence - until the moment arrives.

It's not my impression that China is anywhere near as fragmented as you describe. Autonomy has been given (Shenzhen), and even encouraged (Hong Kong), where Beijing deems the locals can sensibly govern themselves. The army is being downsized with political and strategic direction. The population generally agrees with the 2 main priorities of the government - economic growth and a bigger footprint on the world stage in accordance with China's image of itself. There is much disgust with the details of government, but there is little chance of the majority risking turmoil for political gain - their main concern is making money, and that requires stability.


I am not sure that Tibetan independence is the way to go, although it is obviously not my call whether it happens. It might be better to stay in China with semi-autonomous status, provided that Beijing undergoes some very major political changes and Tibet can let its voice be heard there.
Beijing has more urgent concerns than political reform, or at least at government level. That they are obsessed with maintaining a high rate of economic growth is well known, but the effects of this is rarely discussed in anti-Chinese polemics. China is moving away from a predominantly agrarian society towards a more modern, industrialised society. The rural areas, of which Tibet is one, are being transformed, by force if necessary, into a modernised society worthy of the China Beijing aspires to be. Taiwan underwent this process in the 1970s IIRC, and there was quite some ado back then about the abuse of human rights. What this will eventually result in is the creation of a substantial middle class, spread across the country, that will be able to take up government for themselves. In Taiwan, there was a 15-20 year gap between modernisation and democracy. I expect the timeline to be longer in the far bigger China, but we're currently seeing the start of that process.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One outrageous protester does not a movement make. You know that very well, or should, provided that you care to know.

I do. I just believe methods like this are inappropriate when they do happen. Apparently it happened more than once in Paris.

[King Henry V]

I think the importance of Tibet is being exaggerated, as it is not the only issue. In any case, it is true that Tibet has historically been a part of the Chinese Empire and legally China did have the right to dispute Tibet's declaration of independence when it had the means to do so, i.e. in the '50s. However, the Tibetan people should be allowed to exercise the universal right of self-determination. Then again, how an independent Tibet would fare when the only probable ressource it has is catering for hippy tourists is another matter.

Notwithstanding the Tibetan issue, there are many other other problems for which the Chinese government should be chastised, whether it is their involvement in Dafur and their repeated vetoing of any U.N action (not that it would probably be very effective) in the Sudan, their execrable human rights record (and this is from someone who is usually extremely sceptical when claims of human rights abuse are bandied about) and repression of minorities, not to mention their appalling neglect of environmental issues and other matters.

Will a huge boycott of the Olympic Games bring the communist regime to its knees, make it don the sackcloth and ashes and say that they are so very sorry for all the suffering they have caused and that they will all be very good boys in future? No. Will it have any tangible effect whatsoever? Probably not. Will it deny one of the world's most repressive governments a chance to boost its prestige immensely and show the world that they rule a happy and smiling people and that everything is absolutely hunkydory in China? Yes.

People say that the Olympics and sport should not be mixed, however they were embroiled the moment the IOC decided that China should host the Olympics, an action which could only serve to lend the government prestige and legitimacy.

However, to return to the original point: Yes, the lady in question had every right to declare her opinion in any place or at any time. Yes, the organisers of the run also had the right to withdraw her from the proceedings (to do so would be to condone the action, which is not what they wish to do). No, Chinese officials, paramilitaries and security guards had absolutely no right to intervene in the matter or give any orders whatsoever to members of the constabulary. China does not own the world
Just yet.

[Don Corleone]

When I was a wee little lad, it was the Japanese that were going to own me and force me into indentured servitude. Didn't quite work out that way. Something about inadequate banking systems and a 2 decade recession.

Then I remember the "Asian Tigers", and how if I wanted to have any chance of putting my degree to use when I graduated from University, I ought to start looking to move to ROK, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong.

Then, when I graduated from school, and I had gotten my first job, there was another Far Eastern menace that was taking over the economic world. This time it was Malaysia and Indonesia.

And through it all, amazingly, the USA is still here.

I'm not making light of the situation. Our students ARE lazy. Not enough of them enter science and engineering cirriculum, and of those that do, the majority under apply themselves. As a result, the average graduating class of engineering students, at least the ones I come across, decline year over year.

This is not a universal phenomenon. There are bright, hardworking kids that you come across. You hire these guys, by the way.

But the whole "the scale is tipping too far" paranoia model... it ignores two things.

1) China can try all they want to artifically restrain inflation. Sooner or later, the pressure will become too great and they'll have to let the Yuan go, and the longer they wait, the worse it will be for them in the end. Can you really expect a factory worker to earn $8.00/day, when his residential costs rise to $300/month?

2) As wages rise, demands for a better standard of living rise. Do people really think that the average Londoner in 1888 wasn't saying the same things about the USA that we currently say about China? Did the UK go belly up when the USA grew past it?

Trust me, speaking as somebody who has been to China, worked there, talked to the people... the average Chinese doesn't care one whit about reclaiming lands lost to Russia, and they don't fantasize about invading the USA. (In fact, the commonly accepted Chinese term for the USA is Mei Guang, which means 'the beautiful land'. For a people we fought a war with 50 years ago, they're incredibly friendly and open).

What I predict? A much, much larger segment of the world will join the 'global middle class'. As they do, their wages will rise and some other new place will be the "IT" labor market, possibly Vietnam or Laos. Meanwhile, Chinese society will take its place in the global market as a mature market force, both in terms of demand (its middle class will want I-pods too) and supply (Huawei is gaining on Motorola every day).

And this is a good thing. It's how the world grows up. Yes, there will be competitive pressure on us from China. This is good for them, as they win some accounts, and its good for us too, as our own labor pool and entrepreneurs responds to the competion and steps it up a notch or two. And as a consumer, it's always better for you to have more and more choices.

As for the whole Tibet issue, it is entirely too complex an issue for me to enter an opinion. I'd like to see more openness to democratric reform in the Chinese government, but there are scant few nations in the world where I wouldn't say that.

So stop fearing the Chinese. Understand that they're enjoying a cycle of their history through which we passed, others have passed, and others will pass. And pass me an egg roll. :2thumbsup:

P.S. (India is a slighty different situation, but much of what I have said applies there as well).

[Adrian II]

Mismanagement and CONSIDERABLE outside influence (Regan, Thatcher, and a Pope) are what lead to the collapse.Outside influence. Hear hear.

[Papewaio]

Everything else is spot on. The bit about the engineering graduates being more and more lazy I've been hearing from my dad since I was knee high to a grasshopper .. and my cousins-in-law in Taiwan have said the same thing...so I think it might be a rose tinted glasses thing coming from Engineers/Scientists ... same idea of walking to school 15 miles through snow uphill both ways.



(In fact, the commonly accepted Chinese term for the USA is Mei Guang, which means 'the beautiful land'. For a people we fought a war with 50 years ago, they're incredibly friendly and open).


However I do think China was on the same side as us 50 years ago. All the permanent members of the UN security council where on the winning side 50 years ago and they all have fairly robust economies now. And even during the cold war more of the wrath was directed at the Soviets. Only real wars have been using proxies (Korea and Vietnam)... and even then both sides were real careful in naming observers.