Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 05:38:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
RPGFan Community Quiz
Next Quiz Date: January 11, 2014
Subject: 999 (Nintendo DS)
For more information click HERE!
327900 Posts in 13424 Topics by 2169 Members
Latest Member: KopeAcetic
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  RPGFan Message Boards
|-+  The Rest
| |-+  General Discussions
| | |-+  Wow.....China bans reincarnation w/o goverment approval
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Wow.....China bans reincarnation w/o goverment approval  (Read 5510 times)
Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2007, 03:51:34 AM »

Imperialism isn't justified at all, but least of all in territory. Economy isn't much different and I don't agree with economic warfare either. Nonetheless like you said, it's reality. But this argument is circular and therefore unnecessary.

Somehow I doubt you'd be so quick to justify imperialism if modern-day China was under Mongolian rule.

But nonetheless, it has nothing to do with personal approval. There are standards to human rights and cultural self-determination which China has violated so often in the past and done little to make up for. While I realise that not everything the Tibetan government says is true, I have even less faith in the Chinese government, considering its 50-some odd years of rather awful treatment. The only genuinely outstanding leader of the entire regime has been Deng Xiaoping, who despite the Tiananmen Square riots, was an otherwise able statesman. The Gang of Four, the Red Guard, and the general institution otherwise has been extremely imperialistic otherwise, masquerading as a Communist regime.

But then, almost all implemented communist regimes work that way, which is more-or-less abhorrent. The point is that China is still way behind in dealing with its modern realities, not the least of which is multiculturalism. It's not just the PRC either, most dynasties after the Tang have had a record of Han conformist policy. Hence the issues that came to Taiwan, where now most of the island speaks Mandarin despite originally being ethnically and linguistically distinct. I do prefer the Taiwanese government (I know YOU don't, but that's a different argument), yet there are clear effects of this historical policy in action through the ROC as well as the PRC.

The issue is mostly how we treat choice. Much like an individual, a culture must be allowed its own self-determination. While this does not always mean complete independence or autonomy, it does imply a degree of rights. Where in a case such as the Japanese governance of Okinawa has seen only limited revolt (although it is a sad thing that Okinawan linguistic culture is being dissolved in sight of adopting standard Japanese), the Tibetan revolt has been ongoing since the 1950's, without cessation or closure, largely because of the treatment of Tibetan peoples, the violent way in which the country was occupied, and the general propaganda and authoritarian stance by the PRC.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2007, 05:06:29 AM »

You speak as if you're acquainted with any way about life in these countries, when you aren't. You've never set foot inside ANY Asian country, and the only information you have about their stuff is second hand information (like the one about your "friend" who "ran into people listening in on them from the next door hotel room," the truth of which I still doubt right now). I'm not a huge fan of the government here, either, and if you speak to anyone in my family they'd tell you I gave them an earful about all the problems I've seen here. You, however, just have a terribly crooked perception of the culture and government here.

You believe that anything vs. the Chinese government is the little man vs. Oppressive, evil dictatorship. You've justified the independence of Taiwan even though its leaders came into power through corruption and manipulation of the public, because hey! All for the sake of "human rights," because, and I quote, "Dude, every country has some form of corruption like that." If you've ever even set FOOT in Taiwan or lived in the country for any length of time, you'd see human rights are just as dead there as in China. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Taiwan is WORSE, with its mafia-like police force and racketeering Credit Card companies. The only reason nobody knows about it is because China is a much larger country and Taiwan gaining independence gives the Western Powers a large advantage. But hey, what do I know? I've only lived in both places for a sum amount of four years! You have second hand information from unreliable sources! And no, news writers are not reliable sources, because nowadays they just spew propaganda and sensationalize everything.

I don't purport to know anything about Tibet or its culture, but if you're going to just make it out to be some black and white Good vs. Evil bullshit, then I'm going to call you out on it, because you are sadly mistaken. You try to pretend your views have any sort of credibility while you're still stuck in the narrow American mindset and view of every single piece of information fed to you about a specific culture or country through an outside source instead of looking at it with your own eyes. In this you try to paint yourself as a 'cultured' person who knows enough to have a reasonable, well based opinion of a culture or country.

You are not.

You know bits and pieces of different cultures and their histories, but you do not know what it is like to live there and experience it. You're an outside observer. You're much like an an American Otaku, you just arm yourself with information about a specific culture or country, when experience within that country or culture is much more important than the former.
Logged

Hathen
Posts: 1937


FORUM IDIOT

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2007, 06:01:18 AM »

Phew, lots to tackle, so speak up if there's anything important I miss.

Quote
One because neither was a Han government. Jurchans/Manchurians and Mongolians were not part of China proper (and the latter isn't at all), and in fact can be seen as occupying forces. In the Yuan case especially, the Mongolians were seen as an oppressive force who allowed for little actual Chinese involvement in government. Therefore this cannot be a precedent at all.


This can be debated, especially for the Qing government, as the difference between Manchurians and the Chinese are very minute by now. The most famous of Qing emperors, Kangxi, greatly respected Han culture and customs, and was very willing to let the Manchurians and Hans become a melting pot. In fact, my mother can be considered one of these examples, she is about half Manchurian, making me 1/4 so. The Manchurians are very rarely considered separate from Hans as far as I know by now. Hell, most people probably don't even know where Manchuria (used to be) is. Furthermore, the Qing empire was very open to letting the Han people become officials (Of course they were rarely the highest ranking ones, but they were definiately satisfied) as opposed to Yuan, which completely suppressed Han peoples which caused its eventual downfall.

Quote
Secondly, there has never been credible evidence to capitulation on the Tibetan government's part to the Qing authority, and certainly never to a Han Chinese authority. Prior to the Yuan dynasty, the most influence China ever had in Tibetan was the marriage of Wen Cheng to Songtsan Gampo. Being that she was the niece of Emperor Tai-tsung (Li Shih Min) of the Tang Dynasty, this was an important marriage, but has nothing to do with Chinese authority over Tibet.


I believe that was after Tibet was recognized as a sort of client state to China, and the purpose of marrying his niece was to keep the peace, as marriage justifies the Tibetans and the Hans as a family of people (So it was thought, at least).

Quote
The PRC has every interest in controlling Tibetan politics, and by extension, religious and secular affairs. Why is really beyond me, as there is little to be gained through control of Tibet, save perhaps to keep a secure border with India.


That's probably the main reason, since China isn't on the best terms with India. It's the same reason they need North Korea as an ally; North Korea is a "barrier" for China to the North (And of course they realize this so they always know China is going to back them up, as Kim Jong-Il has indeed used to his advantage). If China allowed Tibet's freedom now, they would almost undoubtedly be allied with India, which can spell all kinds of danger for China.

Quote
The point is that China is still way behind in dealing with its modern realities, not the least of which is multiculturalism. It's not just the PRC either, most dynasties after the Tang have had a record of Han conformist policy.


China has had 100 years since the collapse of the Qing to get back on its feet after getting their asses kicked in The eight-country alliance and Opium Wars. The Sino-Japanese War and others didn't help very much, either. It's hard for anyone to expect China to come out and be a super-advanced country as their business allows them to, yet people constantly hold China by the high standards in Western Countries, when they're still licking some of the wounds they have.

Quote
Hence the issues that came to Taiwan, where now most of the island speaks Mandarin despite originally being ethnically and linguistically distinct. I do prefer the Taiwanese government (I know YOU don't, but that's a different argument), yet there are clear effects of this historical policy in action through the ROC as well as the PRC.


Whole different can there, but I sincerely doubt you can convince any non-"Taiwanese" that the Taiwanese government isn't holding up an extremely unfair elitist standard. My mother's family came from outside Taiwan, and even though she was born and raised in Taiwan, the current Taiwanese government feels the need to treat these people like outsiders, simply because their ancestors were not in Taiwan.

They are constantly ruining the lives of those that "don't belong there". A family friend of mine worked for the Taiwanese government, and they forced him to work in Spain, which was basically "You better quit or we'll keep screwing you over" in disguise. Because of this, his wife left him, and he had to return home to take care of his children, losing his job in the process.

The Taiwanese government is screwing up the economy, it's not uncommon to hear entire families commit suicide because of money issues, and kidnappings (especially those of rich travelers) is extremely common. Oftentimes, in fact, your own family members kidnap you and kill you before asking for ransom (Because obviously the kid knows who kidnapped him).

If you've kept up to date anything Chen Sui-Bian has done, you'd know he cheats, lies, and steals. For example, he won his second term by doing things like shooting himself in the leg, and then claiming Chinese spies are attempting to assassinate him, putting all policemen and such on alert, making them unable to vote (Because he knows darn well that the police force in Taiwan is mostly anti-independence). He has stolen money from the government, and accused his opposition of corruption even though the so-called corruption is a loophole through Taiwanese traditions (I can explain more on that if you don't know what I'm talking about).

America may be in support of the Taiwanese government, but they sure as hell look down upon corrupt scum like them.
Logged
Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2007, 01:03:08 PM »

Quote from: "Leyviur"
You speak as if you're acquainted with any way about life in these countries, when you aren't. You've never set foot inside ANY Asian country, and the only information you have about their stuff is second hand information (like the one about your "friend" who "ran into people listening in on them from the next door hotel room," the truth of which I still doubt right now). I'm not a huge fan of the government here, either, and if you speak to anyone in my family they'd tell you I gave them an earful about all the problems I've seen here. You, however, just have a terribly crooked perception of the culture and government here.

You believe that anything vs. the Chinese government is the little man vs. Oppressive, evil dictatorship. You've justified the independence of Taiwan even though its leaders came into power through corruption and manipulation of the public, because hey! All for the sake of "human rights," because, and I quote, "Dude, every country has some form of corruption like that." If you've ever even set FOOT in Taiwan or lived in the country for any length of time, you'd see human rights are just as dead there as in China. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Taiwan is WORSE, with its mafia-like police force and racketeering Credit Card companies. The only reason nobody knows about it is because China is a much larger country and Taiwan gaining independence gives the Western Powers a large advantage. But hey, what do I know? I've only lived in both places for a sum amount of four years! You have second hand information from unreliable sources! And no, news writers are not reliable sources, because nowadays they just spew propaganda and sensationalize everything.


1. Was my professor, not my friend. It's also happened to relatives of mine who live on the mainland.

2. While I appreciate the fact you've been to China and so forth, that does not make you more aware of the political problems between it and Tibet, nor any other section on self-determination and human rights.

3. If you were to say that of say, CNN or Fox News, yes, you're correct. That does not mean however that news writers are all that way. The BBC has been known for generally more clear-cut reporting (though not so much on the Iraq war, but that's a separate matter again), as is UNI (United News of India). There's also the matter of actual written material on the matter. The statement that you cannot rely on journalists/the media/etc is a fairly weak defence against media citation, which is the one damning thing when people don't have a good argument (news from a PRC source is not, however, credible. Not in any media circle, be it international or domestic, largely because Socialist systems are known for control of the media ((the White Paper is especially guilty of this)), and because the homogenous viewpoint of the government is directly supported by any news source in the PRC that is not an underground or minority organisation).

Since everything else you said was either ad hominem, a red herring, or both, I'm going to go ahead and get on with the actual argument, including citing texts.

The modern Chinese government has a model that directly succeeds the old Qing policy of being very pro-development, as well as the sentiment of 'Han opinion only' inherited from the Ming and previous dynasties. This much is evident since the XUAR, TAR, and and IMAR regions haven't ever had a say in what goes on within their communities. Even in recent years where the government has played up "positive" aspects of development in these communities, there has been no actual communication with minority leaders or bodies in whether or not they desire the industrialised development. It's essentially the same as what happened in North America during the frontier days. This much can be gleaned from the Human Rights in China: China, Minority Exclusion, Marginalization and Rising Tensions report, starting from page 7.

It's also difficult to actual ascertain the status of the country whether you live there or not. Anyone, Chinese or not, with a journalistic or human rights organisation background is immediately censored by the government. That much is common knowledge.

Hathen: In regards to what you said regarding the marriage of Wen Cheng to Songtsan Gampo, this is problematic as a statement. One, there was little actual interaction between Tibet and China. At most, it was one a very religious level, but not so much a political one. Tibet did indeed have some border conflicts with China, and the marriage was intended to keep the peace. It had nothing to do with ideas of being a client state.

Further, the issue there is that China had just emerged from a civil war which Emperor Tai-tsung cleaned up. While he did indeed secure China's borders, there is little talk of his military conquests. If we study stories such as the Hsi Yu Chi (Journey to the West), as well as the actual biography of Hsuan Tsang (Xuanzang), Tibet is noted as being an independent kingdom, who knows little about China (and China little about Tibet in return). In the text, depending on the translator, it is also often noted that Tibet is referred to as Tufan.

More on this matter can be found here.


As to China's "licking its wounds", I can appreciate that. India has had similar problems, as have many other countries. The issue is that China has of late been putting on a "modern face", which seems more like a distraction from the actual issues it's facing. In Toronto a few years ago they put on a humongous show in the Spadina-Dundas Chinatown area, advertising the idea that Tibet was a "developed, modern state thanks to the PRC". It was extremely propaganda-friendly, the language used was little more than government advertising, and it was a very "tight run" affair.

While actual Tibetans were involved, not a single one I spoke to was allowed to speak with me directly. They all had to use "official translators", which made me arch a brow since one had been talking to a friend of mine (involved with the show) in English not a few minutes beforehand. It's that sort of thing which makes me roll my eyes.

On the matter of the Qing court, you're actually quite correct. After going further into the Qing's historical policies, it seems that they did consider themselves successors to the Han dynasties (not to be confused with the Han dynasty itself), which then takes on a different character of argument, which I will need to research further. According to the article I posted however, it seems the Qing were somewhat obsessed with the court's own "self-aggrandisement", which places it with the "Han opinion only" bent.

Nonetheless, the matter of actual governing authority is not the issue. The Dalai Lama has already said that he would accept Tibet as an Autonomous Region, provided it was actually autonomous. Interference in spiritual affairs however, is not permissible. That much should be determined by the at-home culture. Further, there has to be large political standing given to minority groups, especially where industrialisation and commercialisation are considered, as well as human rights. These things are still heavily lacking in the PRC structure, and have been since its founding.

In regards to the India-China issue, that is debatable. Both are trading partners with the USA, which places them in a bit of an economic obligation. Attacking one another would probably prove extremely unfavourable, especially since both are nuclear powers. Where in a historical context Tibetan occupation may be seen as necessary,  it is less so in modern political context. Further, the Chinese occupation has been far more damaging to Tibetan culture than was ever necessary merely to keep a border closed.

As to the Taiwanese issue, I'll leave that for another argument merely because it's humongous on its own and there is plenty of evidence for and against it. It seems unnecessary given this thread's actual content.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2007, 01:22:37 PM »

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
1. Was my professor, not my friend. It's also happened to relatives of mine who live on the mainland.


I'm sure. Those acquaintances of yours, always walking into hotel rooms and apartments that they don't live in! They must forget their room numbers often, don't they!

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
2. While I appreciate the fact you've been to China and so forth, that does not make you more aware of the political problems between it and Tibet, nor any other section on self-determination and human rights.


That was never my claim. I said that you are pushing this as an issue of human rights, the same way you pushed Taiwan independence as "human rights," but human rights in Taiwan are actually the same as, if not worse, than China's, pretty much showing you haven't a single clue of what you're talking about. See, this is where living in a country becomes important! You kind of not know the details of how a country works when you don't live in it. All you're doing is just going "Man, fuck China!" and trying to justify it by saying you're 'for' human rights. No, you're not 'for' human rights. You're 'for' fucking over China because you don't like the country, kind of like how most Americans hate France.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
3. If you were to say that of say, CNN or Fox News, yes, you're correct. That does not mean however that news writers are all that way. The BBC has been known for generally more clear-cut reporting (though not so much on the Iraq war, but that's a separate matter again), as is UNI (United News of India). There's also the matter of actual written material on the matter. The statement that you cannot rely on journalists/the media/etc is a fairly weak defence against media citation, which is the one damning thing when people don't have a good argument (news from a PRC source is not, however, credible. Not in any media circle, be it international or domestic, largely because Socialist systems are known for control of the media ((the White Paper is especially guilty of this)), and because the homogenous viewpoint of the government is directly supported by any news source in the PRC that is not an underground or minority organisation).


Every single news site/station/etc. I've seen puts its own slant on things. Every single one. There are no exceptions. It can be subtle at times, yes, but it's there all the same.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
It's also difficult to actual ascertain the status of the country whether you live there or not.


Really! Explain this logic to me! "You might live there, but I have just as much knowledge about life there as you." That sounds like a total pile to me.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
Anyone, Chinese or not, with a journalistic or human rights organisation background is immediately censored by the government. That much is common knowledge.


Wrong. I've seen quite a few newspaper articles and television programs that criticize the Chinese government vehemently (surprisingly). There IS much censorship, yes, and yes, it is worse than most Western countries, but it's no longer "EVERYONE SAY YOU LOVE CHINA! SAY IT OR YOU GET A PURPLE NURPLE!" Your common knowledge? *Sniff* Smells like bullshit!
Logged

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2007, 01:44:41 PM »

Following the Taiwanese issue with regards to what Hathen said, you can bash Taiwan all you want. I'm sure mainlanders, the PRC government, and mainland-related Chinese abroad are quite of that opinion. Why? Because of nationalist sentiment. By the same token that I find many Canadians who are extremely "pro-Canada" (Americans too, and heck, I used to be one of these people), the same can be said of many Chinese. It's even more condemning in this case because of the information control practised in the PRC. After 50 years of living with government-backed media, public opinion would naturally take on a bent to reflect support of the government's own opinions. While the KMT has played some pretty dirty politics, they're no worse than the PRC. Citing mafia intrigues and other such problems is highly unreliable, as no outside source of media confirms such allegations.

Now, is Chen Shui-bian a good man or leader? I don't think so. He's surrounded by scandal, that much is clear. That does not necessarily mean that Taiwan is in a worse political position where human rights are concerned however -- and that is the crux of this argument. It is not whether China is "good" or "evil", whether its government is surrounded by scandal or not (or any other government), it's whether the PRC government respects human rights and cultural self-determination.

It does not.

As to your rebuttle on news outlets -- doesn't matter if they have a bias. You have a bias, I have a bias. That doesn't factor into things. The point is you need to consider how strong the bias is, who is speaking, and collect from multiple sources. The issue why PRC news sources are generally unreliable has already been outlined: Heavy media censorship and governmental backing. It'd be like taking a doting mother's opinion on her son: "He's so wonderful and talented!". Better to ask the kids and teachers at school really -- they may have a more fair opinion, even if they're biased in their own ways.

Quote from: "Leyviur"
"You might live there, but I have just as much knowledge about life there as you."


Not what I said at all. My position is that whether you live in a country or not does not determine how much you know about its status. While it is important to often investigate with the local population for a complete picture, a singular "person" in this regard is not a qualifying agent. It is more important as to how much you've read, considered, and analysed on the matter. I have read the White Paper's documents, I've read over Michael Parenti's diatribes, I've gone through the HRIC reports, books on the matter by both Chinese, Tibetan, and Western sources. Not only on this matter, but on the history of both countries and comparative history with other countries. It provides a larger perspective than merely saying "well I live here, so I know more than you". By that logic, an 18-year-old college dropout smoking weed on a street corner knows more about the Canadian or American political systems and social dynamics than a Chinese or Indian researcher on the subject. Yes? No.

While I'm surprised that the news outlets would print criticism of the government, perhaps that is a sign of change. But then we have to consider what sort of criticism it is. Some things may be permissible merely because they're minor issues. Here, you'll actually need to pull up an article. But it does remain common knowledge. Just google up "chinese media censorship" and you'll get more than enough information on the matter. It's a widespread problem, and one that is in fact common knowledge.

Addendum: Hey look, even more recent news. Granted it's from a news source which may be considered "anti-government" given that it's Human Rights Watch, but nonetheless it's important to note considering the breadth of HRW's coverage.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2007, 02:08:41 PM »

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
While the KMT has played some pretty dirty politics, they're no worse than the PRC. Citing mafia intrigues and other such problems is highly unreliable, as no outside source of media confirms such allegations.

I never cited mafia intrigues.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
it's whether the PRC government respects human rights and cultural self-determination.

It does not.

And your insistence that Taiwan's government does is wrong, which is my point. You say you're supporting human rights, but the stance you're upholding is in the EXACT SAME BOAT. You don't know that Tibet isn't the same way.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
The issue why PRC news sources are generally unreliable has already been outlined: Heavy media censorship and governmental backing.

This is true. Which is why I didn't cite any PRC new sources.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
Not what I said at all. My position is that whether you live in a country or not does not determine how much you know about its status. While it is important to often investigate with the local population for a complete picture, a singular "person" in this regard is not a qualifying agent. It is more important as to how much you've read, considered, and analysed on the matter. I have read the White Paper's documents, I've read over Michael Parenti's diatribes, I've gone through the HRIC reports, books on the matter by both Chinese, Tibetan, and Western sources. Not only on this matter, but on the history of both countries and comparative history with other countries. It provides a larger perspective than merely saying "well I live here, so I know more than you". By that logic, an 18-year-old college dropout smoking weed on a street corner knows more about the Canadian or American political systems and social dynamics than a Chinese or Indian researcher on the subject. Yes? No.

Except we're not two extremes here.  Like I've said before, your research on the history of China and reading other people's accounts is all well and good... but that's all they are. Other people's accounts. You don't know if they're putting their own slant on things, or making things look worse than they actually are. In the end, you're still an outside observer. You miss the most vital part of the actual country - the day-to-day happenings within it. It's like how I could find that the censorship in the country isn't the despot like control everyone thinks it is - most people who don't live here don't have a damn clue. The status of China is, at this moment, ambiguous at best. It's not the end all Totalitarian Fascist state you evidently believe it is, and the only reason you believe it is is because you've never actually been to the country.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
While I'm surprised that the news outlets would print criticism of the government, perhaps that is a sign of change. But then we have to consider what sort of criticism it is. Some things may be permissible merely because they're minor issues. Here, you'll actually need to pull up an article. But it does remain common knowledge. Just google up "chinese media censorship" and you'll get more than enough information on the matter. It's a widespread problem, and one that is in fact common knowledge.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit it's a problem. I'll post up a newspaper clipping next time I find one.

But you apparently just expect it all to disappear in one night. Changes in countries take time, lots of time, often years. Every country is different, and for you to assess countries with your country's standard is not only absurd, it's completely idiotic.
Logged

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2007, 02:22:37 PM »

Mafia intrigues referred to Hathen's post actually. I decided to address it all in a lump paragraph.

As to the Taiwanese issue: Taiwan is generally better off than the PRC where human rights are concerned. There is a higher standard of living, not only in major cities but in rural areas as well. But even more necessary to cite is the  recall issues ongoing in Taiwan. Chen's position is currently being challenged by the Pan-Blue coalition and Shih Ming-te, a very open battle against the administration which could not happen in the PRC. More necessary is the libel lawsuit by James Soong against Chen, which was an absolute success. This again would not work in the PRC where the government is concerned.

The fact that a large number of scandals within the ROC have been solved (re: Chen Chien-ming being incarcerated for embezzlement and insider stock trading) shows a better political climate. While Taiwan certainly isn't a perfect country and is burdened by its own problems, its actual social and political dynamics are far more along where human rights are concerned, particularly in the judiciary sense. Administration is a different issue. While Taiwan is certainly ahead of the PRC in this regard, I won't say it's necessarily an example of "good" government.

An outside observer can still have a valid and grounded opinion. It's nice to say that because of slanting one may not realise the depth of the situation, but that depends on the research done. If I don't read Parenti's diatribes and the White Paper, and only read Human Rights Watch, then yes -- I am being wholly biased. But I do read the other sources and consider their stance as well. That's where the difference comes in. I'm aware of the other side of  the fence, and I do find some validity in arguments against. There is a mythology at work where people want to claim Tibet as the summit of peace and integrity. It's a lie -- a damned lie  and we will be sorely disappointed by a proper study of Tibetan history. But that does not mean Tibet loses all right to self-determination merely because of a rocky history. Every single country in the world has had these problems, new and old. But the PRC has frequently claimed that it "saved Tibet" from some totalitarian regime and "modernised" it -- without any care for what the minority population actually wants! That's the issue at hand.

As to "in one night" -- I don't at all. The issue has been ongoing for 50 years however, and that is one hell of a long night. It's easy to brush it aside and treat it like just a modern problem, but it is both a modern and historical issue. That's why there's so much fuss over it. This is just the latest in a humongous string of human rights violations. The charges against the Chinese government on this matter read pages upon pages of issues. I don't expect the PRC to solve its problems in a single night -- But hey, it'd be nice to speed things along and not have issues like this "no reincarnation recognition unless we say so" bullshit.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2007, 02:29:02 PM »

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
As to the Taiwanese issue: Taiwan is generally better off than the PRC where human rights are concerned. There is a higher standard of living, not only in major cities but in rural areas as well.


What? What on Earth is giving you this idea?

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
But even more necessary to cite is the recall issues ongoing in Taiwan. Chen's position is currently being challenged by the Pan-Blue coalition and Shih Ming-te, a very open battle against the administration which could not happen in the PRC. More necessary is the libel lawsuit by James Soong against Chen, which was an absolute success. This again would not work in the PRC where the government is concerned.

The fact that a large number of scandals within the ROC have been solved (re: Chen Chien-ming being incarcerated for embezzlement and insider stock trading) shows a better political climate. While Taiwan certainly isn't a perfect country and is burdened by its own problems, its actual social and political dynamics are far more along where human rights are concerned, particularly in the judiciary sense. Administration is a different issue. While Taiwan is certainly ahead of the PRC in this regard, I won't say it's necessarily an example of "good" government.


There's a proverb: "Those who retreat fifty steps shouldn't laugh at those who retreat a hundred." It means that just because you aren't as bad as someone, doesn't mean you aren't bad. The thing is, all you're doing is citing political situations. While it cannot be disputed that these are important, more important are how the citizens are treated, and Taiwan's citizens are oftentime treated with appalling cruelty, especially those whose ancestors weren't "Taiwanese."

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
Every single country in the world has had these problems, new and old. But the PRC has frequently claimed that it "saved Tibet" from some totalitarian regime and "modernised" it -- without any care for what the minority population actually wants! That's the issue at hand.

It's propaganda. Every country engages in it. The U.S. engaged in the Civil War to protect the slaves, they tell our kids. No, they just didn't want the South to secede from the U.S. If you watch John Stewart, there was a government official who responded to every one of Stewart's questions by saying the troops in Iraq honestly believe they're doing something worthwhile.

Governments have to put on a pretty face, it's discouraging to their citizens if they just go all out bastard mode. Reprehensible? Yes. Morally ambiguous? Yes. I could sit here and list all sorts of stuff that governments say about themselves to make themselves look better in the eyes of other nations and the general public. Politics has never, and will never, be about telling everyone your own government's flaws.
Logged

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2007, 02:36:52 PM »

I already did say: It's not necessarily a good example of government. It just so happens it's fairly more along than the PRC where the human rights issues are concerned. I wouldn't doubt that the ROC has inherited the "Han opinion only" policy, converting it to "Taiwan opinion only" and thus resulting in massive racial problems. The same can be said of Japan, both Koreas, and even North America, where the minorities often get poorer treatment than the majorities (re: Caucasians). The focus has to be as to how these issues are amended, what steps are being taken, etc, and how far in percentage these issues are being solved.

I have no doubt the racial issue exists. Quite a number of posts ago I cited the Han ethnicity overrunning the Taiwanese indigenous population, as well as the Japanese linguistic replacement of Okinawan speech. This is not something I'm contending, because it is an ongoing problem and one we are already speaking about where the PRC is concerned. But the issue is NOT Taiwan or Japan. It's mainland China and its treatment of Tibet.

In regards to the propaganda issue: I find it morally reprehensible either way. I don't support it where the USA is concerned, I don't support it in my own country (to the extent that it exists), and I certainly don't support it in the PRC. While propaganda is a necessary evil to some extent, that does not mean we need to agree with it, support it, or even be quiet about it.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2007, 02:40:21 PM »

And like I said before, you don't know if Tibet is the same way.

Quote from: "Hidoshi"
In regards to the propaganda issue: I find it morally reprehensible either way. I don't support it where the USA is concerned, I don't support it in my own country (to the extent that it exists), and I certainly don't support it in the PRC. While propaganda is a necessary evil to some extent, that does not mean we need to agree with it, support it, or even be quiet about it.

Because I'm sure telling everyone "My country sucks, here's a list of all our problems, be sure to invade us next time you're in the neighborhood" is surely the best path to being a good country.
Logged

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2007, 02:48:45 PM »

You're going to need to expand on what you mean by Tibet being the same way. That's a point I just don't quite understand. If you mean that we have no evidence as to the PRC oppressing Tibetans -- we do! There's plenty of historical precedent to cite. This latest article is one more piece of evidence against. The policy instituted here is that the PRC wants to control who gets recognised. They know the Tibetans value their reincarnated spiritual leaders a great deal. By saying who may or may not be recognised, the PRC gains dominion over the Tibetan people's cultural direction and can manipulate the society. That sounds clandestine, but it's been an ongoing issue for years now. The last time this happened a young boy and his family went missing.

If you're arguing that Tibet may or may not respect human rights itself -- No we can't know that. The historical pre-PRC Tibetan government probably didn't. Why? Because no government really did. Human rights at the time was only a budding issue, and would not explode until the post-war period. Then yes, it became a huge worldwide issue, and is a continuing modern issue. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile however is another matter. Being that they are so closely allied with human rights issues and have been supported by these organisations, were they put back in power proper, it is likely they would continue to modernise based around human rights assertions. The Dalai Lama institute itself has taken steps to democratise the entire process so that a Dalai Lama can be elected, impeached, and the entire post even eliminated if it really becomes necessary in the face of modern progress. Whether that tune changes if the Tibetan government returns to power we cannot say. Anything is mere hypothesis, and so we must base assumptions on the current standards held by the government.

Quote from: "Leyviur"
Because I'm sure telling everyone "My country sucks, here's a list of all our problems, be sure to invade us next time you're in the neighborhood" is surely the best path to being a good country.


Again, not what I said. The policy changes do need to come from within, but international pressure is key. It has nothing to do with invasion -- that IS morally reprehensible as well. I can't comment accurately on what the path to being a "good country" is. What I do know is that the current policies of the PRC do not value the individual, they do not value the minority, privacy and private property (though here things are improving), media integrity, and are more focused around "looking good". Hence all the development in Beijing and Shanghai, the public displays of "big improvements all around", etc. But it's all a farce, a propaganda machine that distracts from the actual problems at home. This is not to say China needs to be wholly honest with the world, but it is so FAR from being honest with itself and its internal problems.
Logged
Ashton
Contributing Editor
Posts: 5040


Lawful Asshole

Member
*


View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2007, 02:52:59 PM »

Right, but we have no idea how it treats its citizens even now. Much like before now you didn't know how badly many Taiwanese citizens are treated, for all we know Tibetians might be just as bad to non-Tibetians. That here is the main point I was trying to make, you're blindly supporting it against the Chinese government, much like how you supported Taiwanese independence, but you have no inkling about how it treats its citizens, the most important part of any country.

My point was never that China is great or whatever, but that you automatically default to an anti-Chinese stance when these issues come up because of your skewed views and second hand accounts of what purportedly happens in these countries, while you yourself remain ignorant to most of it.
Logged

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2007, 02:56:55 PM »

We do know. That's the thing. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile is under scrutiny from the Indian government, as well as being widely open to media outlets. Overall Tibetan policy has been to provide widespread education and pursue  multicultural policies. Living with the Indian community at large has given the Tibetan government a key benefit: intercultural communication. This at least has provided it with a world view that allows for multiculturalism.

My stance has nothing to do with anti-Chinese mentality. I am however deeply critical of the PRC. You know for a fact I'm half-Chinese, and beyond that I have become more and more acquainted with the problems in the PRC in recent years. The Tibetan issue is of special interest to me because of my religious background, as well as my own moral stances. What you probably don't know (because I don't believe I've talked to you about it) is that I do love China. Whether or not I've been there, I have a longing to go. What I hate is how the government is not taking care of the people in rural areas, how it doesn't value human rights, and how it treats minorities. I hate that at home and abroad. But do I love the actual country? Yes. To me China is a heritage homeland. But not the PRC as a government. That's where I take issue. I want to go to Gui Lin, to Fujian province. I want to see where my family comes from, where the temples are, and how life is in these places. But that does not mean I love the government one iota. What I do hope is that they get their act together.

For me, the historical Tang policies and their evidenced effects are somewhat more ideal. Tang policy promoted multiculturalism due to Emperor Tai-tsung being half-Turk. It also brought up the standards of living, the population grew exponentially, and centuries of bureaucratic corruption was done away with. Now, did it stay that way? No. That's the sad part. But for about a century and a half things were good. I just with the PRC could do as much, but its origins are stained in unnecessary bloodshed and cultural devastation, its policies are still poor in regards to human rights and recognition of religious and cultural freedoms, its judiciary process is still ham-stringed by backwards policies, and its media censorship is abhorrent.

I don't think the PRC is all bad mind you. I admire men like Chou En-Lai and Zhu Rong-ji for being strong, ethical voices in the PRC. Even Deng, who was surrounded by corruption, did some good for the party. Men like Jiang Ze-min on the other hand, seems to have been far more interested in appearances than real change. His only proper achievement was the return of Hong Kong to mainland China, which I feel was a good thing. Outside of that his cult of personality which developed and his general attitude towards party policy was pretty ugly.
Logged
Hathen
Posts: 1937


FORUM IDIOT

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 07, 2007, 06:31:45 AM »

Quote
The Dalai Lama has already said that he would accept Tibet as an Autonomous Region, provided it was actually autonomous. Interference in spiritual affairs however, is not permissible. That much should be determined by the at-home culture. Further, there has to be large political standing given to minority groups, especially where industrialisation and commercialisation are considered, as well as human rights. These things are still heavily lacking in the PRC structure, and have been since its founding.


The problem with not intervening with the religious system is that the Dalai Lama, as I said before, has tried to go for independence, and Tibet does have a long history of not separating their church and state. Obviously I can't prove the current one has any intention of wanting to do so, since if he outright made it obvious to everyone there'd just be a huge uproar. I believe China is going more for the "Safety first" rule to an extent, but like I said before, I'm not really in agreement with the methods involved, either.

But on the other hand, does it really make a difference who the Dalai Lama is or not? Even if China does get to choose who gets to be the Dalai Lama, either way, he should be just a religious leader and nothing else?

Quote
In regards to the India-China issue, that is debatable. Both are trading partners with the USA, which places them in a bit of an economic obligation. Attacking one another would probably prove extremely unfavourable, especially since both are nuclear powers. Where in a historical context Tibetan occupation may be seen as necessary, it is less so in modern political context. Further, the Chinese occupation has been far more damaging to Tibetan culture than was ever necessary merely to keep a border closed.


Well expanding on that, Tibet would not only be with India, but more importantly, Tibet would be more pro-America if anything. Indeed, the world is at peace for the most part, especially when it involves any kind of nuclear power, as it can easily mean the end of the human race if conflicts arise between huge powers like China and America.

However, it doesn't mean there's no tension. Being blunt, China and America arn't on very good terms with each other. They're huge trading partners with one another, but it ends about there (Just from that, actually, there's a lot of tension because America is always criticizing the quality of Chinese products and then ends up having to get them anyway). If Tibet becomes a independent nation, America could easily station troops there. While normally this isn't really a big deal, it doesn't make much strategic sense to constantly keep a potential enemy in your backdoor. Sure, America and China have a very, very small chance of kicking each other's ass, but that's only because it can lead to much larger consequences than just millions of soldier deaths. Tension is there, which is probably why you're rarely seeing any Americans media outlets actively praising China in any way, just a lot of criticism.

I personally think that if China was still weak as hell, the Western nations (and probably Japan, for that matter.) would have no real hesitation to tear up China fast.

Quote
As to the Taiwanese issue: Taiwan is generally better off than the PRC where human rights are concerned. There is a higher standard of living, not only in major cities but in rural areas as well. But even more necessary to cite is the recall issues ongoing in Taiwan. Chen's position is currently being challenged by the Pan-Blue coalition and Shih Ming-te, a very open battle against the administration which could not happen in the PRC.


Oh definitely. Taiwan is miles ahead of China, but keep in mind that so is Hong Kong, but they have no need to break apart completely. While Taiwan has been, for many years, much like an independent nation, there's no real reason at this point to make it official- all that's going to accomplish is pissing a bunch of people off.

Human rights, however, are as open as they can be- it's just that if you state your opinion and it happens to be pan-blue, the government tends to screw you over a lot because the majority of the high ranking officers are pan-green (Except for Taipei Mayor, but it's hard for him to accomplish much on his own).

I'm mostly indifferent to the whole concept of Taiwan independence, but I don't see why the Pan-Green has to go and make it all official if it's just going to cause a lot of needless conflict.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!