Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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?
First discussion on the status of Tibet I've seen here in quite a while, let alone in the media...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Here's 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.
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.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
The Chinese are rounding up Tibetans into death camps? First I've heard of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Read my post again. I said nothing of the kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.
I strongly disagree.Quote:
Needless to say (or so I hope) he was wrong on all three counts.
They generally are. It's the Olympics that can become politically charged. Anyhow, still no reason not to hold them in China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
They were of course used for propaganda purposes, but black and Jewish athletes did compete, and indeed won some events.Quote:
(2) that Germany would not abuse the Berlin Games for propaganda purposes ('They even allow black and Jewish athletes to compete!')
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Owens
Anyhow...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Owens
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.Quote:
and (3) the protests were organized by a 'Jewish-Communist conspiracy'.
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.
Exactly. Just what I said in #40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
A quick Google turns up no links on the subject - only on Falun Gong members in prisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
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.
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?
Tibetans are not rounded up and sent to death camps for the purpose of exterminating their race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
Alright, how about they have it a lot better?Quote:
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?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...5&postcount=35
:bow:Quote:
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.
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.
Labour camps, yes. Death camps, I very much doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
:inquisitive:Quote:
Some of them is being murdered because of their inner organs like heart (like into Japaneese death camps).
Linky, linky...
Yes, that's true. It's within China, so why should it be illegal?Quote:
There is massive colonisation into Tibet - because Chineese want be majority there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
*note that I'm completely ignorant of the population of Belgium.
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:Quote:
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.
No, just exterminating their cultural history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.Quote:
Labour camps, yes. Death camps, I very much doubt.
Aside from that, I think the protests may well be harming their cause more than helping. Just like Pankhurst and her suffragettes.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I have an issue with these protests because of the picture I posted. That is unacceptable.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
It's a pity, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.
One outrageous protester does not a movement make. You know that very well, or should, provided that you care to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
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?