China is often accused of censorhip, and rightfully so. However, I think the urge to censor exists in everyone. Some of us deal with it better than others.
I was arguing with Tibetan independence movement people again, as I do. Here’s one of two threads. This one is in reply to this article.
Personally speaking, I don’t think I’m hating on them at all. I might come across as a little bit hostile, but that’s because I really do not agree with what they stand for and I’m putting my alternative views across.
This is the second thread that I posted on, in reply to this article:
This is their reply to my last post, which got deleted by them; I hope you can read it.
After this reply, I said something along the lines of how we should all be multicultural societies, that race should no longer be a boundary between people and how China should represent all the different ethnicities within its geographical and political borders instead of just the race of Han. I can’t give you the exact reply because I was late in screencapping, as this happened: (This is the thread about ‘What is Tibet’s Cause’)
All my griping about censorship got deleted too.
I then sent them a couple of vitriolic messages about how if they want to advocate a cause, they should debate better and let people see both sides of the argument, and how they’re no better than the Chinese Communist Party when it comes to censorship.
The same thing happened on the thread about ‘China’s Cultural Zoo’.
If you go to the original articles here and here you will not find my comments there anymore. On the first link, it will be as if I didn’t dare to argue with their terrific reasoning after they replied.
Do I need to say anymore on the topic? Not really, except that censorship isn’t just a Chinese thing. This group of people obviously couldn’t deal with opposing ideas and so had to get rid of them. If these are the people who will run Tibet after independence…I will leave you to judge whether it’s a good or bad thing.
Luckily, not all Tibetans agree with this stance. I was messaging someone on YouTube and they said they had no problem with Tibet being counted within the borders of a truly democratic China (if that ever happened) if Tibet had cultural autonomy. He was polite and didn’t tell me I was a propagandist.
I am still open to persuasion. If you support Tibetan independence, you’re welcome to try and convince me that I’m wrong.
Sandra Toksvig
April 25, 2011 at 11:59 am
You are missing the point with what has sall the hallmarks of clever fallacy, obviously you are pushing an ideology that is sympathetic to China, but anyone can see that you are simply trolling, presenting straw-man arguments aimed to support China’s rule over Tibet. The subject as I read it is not about an organization requiring to ‘prove’ you wrong, it’s not an issue of your ego after all, no, the matter is about Tibet and the fact of its former sovereignty. That is only a matter of dispute if you hold China’s cynical and fact-free claims of legitimacy over Tibet,which your comments appear to reflect. Now of course you are free to hold such views, however bogus they may be, yet to expect an organization that clearly is dedicated to Tibetan independence, to accommodate a proposal that effectively surrenders Tibetans to a dangerous and uncertain future under China’s domination is either willful provocation or innocence off the scale. If it is the former then your protests about censorship are cynically disingenuous, and it would be reasonable to expect a pro-Tibet independence organization to decide not to feature views that echo the position of China’s authorities. May I suggest, if you are so attracted to discussing the matter, instead of provocative public comments, you email that group to initiate a mature conversation.
F_Le_Rulz
April 25, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Actually, if you read my comments properly, you will see that I do not, in any way support the Chinese Communist Party. I said a ‘democratic’ China, not a dictatorial China. Also, how is working together to turn China into a democracy any less ‘dangerous’ and ‘uncertain’ than Tibetan independence?
My interest is human rights first and foremost, not racial rights. One of the reasons Tibetan independence activists cite for wanting independence is that China does not respect human rights. The claim itself is correct, of course. I myself have criticized China’s lack of human rights severely, and it’s one of the reasons why I can’t get along with my father. However, how is fighting for Tibetan Independence going to change the human rights situation in China? Would it not be better to work with Chinese human rights and democracy activists? How will it help them if they alienate 1.6 billion Chinese? It’s not just Tibetans who need to be delivered from the Chinese Communist Party. Everybody living under the CCP’s rule needs to be delivered. Why help just 6 million when you can help 1.6 billion? 1.6 billion Chinese want freedom and democracy and human rights. Not very many want China to be fragmented. You do the math.
Also, as for non-factual claims, please google ‘Emperor Qianlong’. That is the historical event that China always cites when claiming sovereignty over Tibet. I have asked them to address that issue, but they have failed to do so.
Also, I have asked them several questions pertaining to Tibetan independence, which they have failed to answer.
1) What sort of government would Tibet have if they got independence?
2) What would be their source of revenue, as they are a landlocked nation so trade will be difficult?
3) What will happen to the Han Chinese already living there?
I think those are quite reasonable questions.
I want all of them to make China theirs, so they can claim ownership over this united state. Is it so different from any other multicultural society like…the USA for example? The Native Americans campaign for their rights, but they are not fighting for independence. Maori campaign for Maori rights, but they are not demanding for a separate Maori state. What really needs to happen is for the CCP’s monopolized rule to end and for real elections to take place in China. That’s how grassroot voices will be heard. That’s what I believe in and that’s the cause I will fight for. The Tibetan independence activists have yet to convince me that their reasoning is better. Look through what they’ve written. What actual facts and statistics and events have they given for proof? What is happening in Kirti Monastery now is only further convincing me that the CCP needs to go, not that Tibet should be independent. I don’t believe that such violence is justified at all.
You will also notice that I have verified your comment despite the fact that I don’t agree with you, and you’ve called me a troll , with ‘straw-man arguments’ and basically accused me of being the CCP’s stooge. I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I just don’t like people censoring comments. You will see that I have included their comments and linked their blog to mine so that my audience can decide for themselves what is right. Is there any sign of counter-arguments on their blog?
Like I said, if they have strong arguments, then their arguments should stand up against anything that I decide to throw at them and therefore there should be no need to delete them. I believe in presenting all sides of an argument.
F_Le_Rulz
April 25, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I haven’t the time right now to give you the detailed answer that your response deseves, but I will say this: I am not a supporter of the current regime in Beijing. My position of revolutionizing China and turning it into a democracy will most likely get me arrested in China and I know that China getting democracy is about as likely as Tibet gaining independence (as in unlikely). But has the unlikelihood of anything ever stopped you from striving for it?
My questions are legitimate, and another Tibetan has answered them on a different forum (also public) but their answer is radically different from this one’s stance of absolutely ‘no China’.
I’ll have to read about that Chinese scholar at a later time because I have to head out.
But, if he supports Tibetan independence, he is most definitely a minority and islikely to be ostracized by most other Chinese. You can’t say anything critical about China without people flocking to attack you.
Edited to add:
As for the website not being a chat based platform, they have no problem holding ‘supportive’ conversations. If they really didn’t want chat, all they had to do was disable comments. Or, they could have moderated comments and then simply ignored mine, but they did leave one of my comments and their reply up, but then deleted my subsequent comments.
My stance on this is if you are advocating or fighting for anything, be ready for uncensored debate. Really, is the question ‘what will happen to the Han people already living in Tibet if Tibet ever gains independence?’ aggressive? I don’t bend over backwards to suit people’s sensibilities, and I don’t expect them to do that for me either. But I do expect them to not censor me.
Further edited to add:
I’ve read through the news articles: http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_tibet-wasn-t-ours-says-chinese-scholar_1081523 (this one is linked on the ‘Tibet Truth’ site), and on the TT site, it was quoted quite selectively. I will have to search for the full article in order to make further comment because I don’t want to somehow misrepresent what the scholar is saying by only reading part of his article. He does state that the Qing claimed Tibet as their own in some documents, so if Tibetan independence activists wish to gain support from people within China, that is something they have to analyze, address and debate. But, as I said, I have not yet read the full article.
There’s a tweet that I don’t think featured on ‘China and Tibet 2′. It says:
TIBETANSTIBET
@F_Le_Rulz no i’ll not answer ur question unless u answer my question becoz u 2 much question & my only Question not yet reply.Independence?
After I requested information. My reply was that I can’t say I support Tibetan independence without adequate information to make an informed decision because then I’d be just another blind brainwashed sheep.
And edited to add more:
It is possible to be opposed to an institution and still hold some of its views. I believe in One China because I don’t believe in disunity or racism, and especially not disunity through racism. Nationalism that’s based on ethnicity is just racism by a nicer name. If they said they wanted to establish a democratic state to act as a bulwark against the tyranny of the CCP, a state which is not defined by ethnicity, I could live with that. However, this is a specifically Tibetan state that they’re advocating for.
Now, for the practicalities. One answer I’ve asked often is ‘How is an independent Tibet going to support itself?’ Trade? It’s going to need seaports and Tibet is landlocked. Tourism? Where is the money going to come from to build the necessary infrastructure to attract tourists?
And two. What is going to happen to the Han Chinese already living in Tibet if Tibet gains independence?
Three. What will be the new Tibetan constitution?
My idea of One China is not one China under the CCP. I’ve been toying with the idea of a system similar to the United States. There are state governments (Tibet and the Uyghur territories would be examples of states) and they would have their own state laws. Then there would be a federal government which only interferes when problems extend across states or if state law can’t cover that problem. All government officials would have to be elected by the people. There should be a multiparty system in the federal government level to balance things out (i.e. each party gets seats if they get a certain number of votes). There should also be reserved seats for the representatives of minority groups. It’s complicated and an unlikely dream, and I probably won’t be able to make it happen because I’m just a blogger, but hey, Martin Luther King started with a dream.
Sandra Toksvig
April 25, 2011 at 2:53 pm
As I noted previous your aggressive and curious attacks are not the most productive way to engage with people. Such an attitude of pressing such strident one China views was destined to fail, particularly with groups that have a distinct focus to openly support Tibetan independence. Given your obvious intelligence surely you would not have expected that organization to have published lines of thinking which mirror China’s position on Tibet. That is either grossly misplaced optimism, or as mentioned previously a deliberate action of trolling, with an agenda to spread China’s propaganda. Now it may well be that you are a sweet innocent your assertions imply, driven by pure motivation. Then again some reading your comments may well conclude that you are an agent of China’s lies. Whatever the facts, your over-reaction about censorship is utterly misplaced, clearly that website is not a chat-based forum, but a platform for Tibetan independence. So, expecting that group to indulge your obvious pro-China sympathies was a nonsense. This is why the charge of straw-man argument has validity, as from the start anyone seeing that website would be fully aware and expectant that it would not permit comments saturated in ‘one-China’ viewpoints. I have no idea about the group in question apart from seeing their site, yet even I can see that their Editorial team appear to have examined your comments and realized that your have an agenda, which despite your claim of not being a fan of the China’s authorities, share some fundamental positions on Tibet. The raison d’etre of that organization’s site is obviously not to encourage and publish such views, so it looks to me like a plain editorial decision not to feature your comments, once the pro-China nature of them had been identified. As the publishers and owners of that site they have every freedom to operate an editorial policy that is keeping with their objectives, it was ludicrous to shout ‘censorship’ simply because they chose not to give publicity to comments the nature of which run counter to the aims of that organization. I cannot believe that you would not have been aware of such an understandable response, which again is why I suspect you are indeed offering somewhat duplicitous arguments, made mostly of straw, designed to reinforce your own rather hardened attitudes.
I have looked at your Blog and found it very interesting but what disappoints, on this topic at least, is a sense of bitterness and aggression which shines from your writing. Along with an impression of immaturity, in that because your did not receive the reaction demanded, you are now behaving in an entirely inappropriate manner. Lashing out against paper tigers, that are of your own creation.
There is present too a tone of arrogance, in that you presume that group has not responded to you on the basis of being unable to offer a valid response, which you vilify as ‘failure’, Have you not considered the reason there was no reply to your rather acidic remarks, was based upon ‘choice’ as opposed to inability? Perhaps they were quick to identify an indivdual who was possessed of inflexibility, someone selling a fixed message, intolerant of genuinely listening, and one whose comments bore a similarity to official Chinese views on Tibet.
Seems to me that their position is entirely clear in what they stand for, whereas yours is more opaque, ambiguous and has resonances of China’s propaganda. In that context I am not at all surprised why they chose not give give exposure to your comments.
On closing perhaps you may remind your self that the particular Emperor your mention was in fact
not Chinese, but Manchurian. A people of central Asian origins, with close cultural affinity to Tibetans, who having invaded and dominated the Han Chinese sought Buddhist ties, with the then Dalai Lama. So the ‘reasoning’ that the Qing Dynasty (Manchu conquerors of China) forged relations with Tibet, is therefore ‘proof’ of China’s rule over Tibet is cynically misleading and baseless. I read recently on that group’s site of a wonderfully courageous article by a Chinese scholar on the subject. Who had the integrity to publicly announce such claims as utterly false http://tibettruth.com/2009/12/06/leading-chinese-academic-affirms-tibet-was-not-part-of-china/
Sandra Toksvig
April 26, 2011 at 9:09 am
Thanks for re-stating views which you obviously have a very strong attachment to, perhaps that explains the dogmatic nature of the comments. Of course no matter how assertive or forceful an opinion may be presented it’s inherent credibility is not enhanced. I have a feeling that others reading your opinions on this subject will be left with an uncomfortable sense of being lectured. It is unfortunate that your views carry such an ideological fervour, it is this which in all probability portrays you as being a propagandist. Along with your liberal use of specific phrases which China’s government uses in its distorted reportage on Tibet. Yet its the repeated insistence that Tibet is doomed without the tender mercies of China that will be recognized by many as revealing a troubling bias. In my occasional reading around the subject I have noticed a number of arguments employed by overheated supporters of China’s regime. These include references to America’s native population, colonialist assertions that portray the occupier as bringing economic or social progress over supposedly ‘backward’ peoples, and claims that Tibetans would be unable to create a viable, self-sustaining economy. Such a message of despair has similarities to ‘reasoning’ used by England to justify its colonial dominance over many peoples. It may well be that in the fossilized convictions you have on such matters, you are simply unable to identify the degree and nature of propaganda you promote. With no obligation to publish your views and in light of the nature of your views, it was not unusual that the organization you mention chose to remove your comments, and as you say they did at least feature a contribution from you, which who knows perhaps their Editor felt was representative of the general points you were making.
Nor can I share your curious conflation of nationhood with ‘racism’, the thinking you display on this raises some interesting questions. For example having been illegally occupied by Nazi-Germany were the French Resistance being ‘racist’ in seeking to regain their nation’s freedom? With some 800 years of English occupation and rule were the people of Ireland racist in their struggle to throw off the shackles of foreign/imperialist rule to achieve independence? More recently were the oppressed people of East Timor racist to seek an end to the violent suppression of their culture as they struggled, and realized, national sovereignty? Was China guilty of racism in in its effort to overthrow foreign imperialists that had reduced countless millions of Chinese people to opium addicts? Would it not have been better for China to have recognized the economic advantages of being a vassal state of France and Britain, at that time hugely prosperous and technological developed empires.
The answer of course is a resounding ‘No!’ All the cases were not simply about human rights but restoring national freedom, and therein lies the distinction your strident opinions choose to ignore, that nationhood and human rights are not in themselves mutually exclusive. Moreover as history has testified there have been many justifiable examples where a people have been right to seek national freedom from foreign, violent and unjust rule. That is not ‘racist’, simply a basic expression of a collective determination for freedom, the alternative which your thinking proposes is a nonsense. For example would you have applauded a decision by the Bosnian people to have renounced their struggle for independence against vicious Serbian oppression, for fear of being ‘racist’? While all around women were being raped and men and boys taken away for mass executions!
When faced with the worst horrors of tyranny a people have the right to seek national liberation, as your ancestors presumably would have agreed under the exploitation and suppression imposed during China’s occupation by imperial powers. too have that right and following decades of abuse and oppression, their nation invaded and placed under military occupation it is entirely reasonable and understandable that they seek freedom.
Unfortunately I suspect that you will find it challenging to accept such reality, in that sense the charge of being an ideologue or propagandist for China may well be merited. It’s a pity that agreement cannot be reached, I like your other writing, which appears more personal, individualistic, sadly on the subject of Tibet, your voice is a disappointing reminder that China’s regime has carried out a effective job in terms of indoctrination.
F_Le_Rulz
April 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Firstly,from Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
According to this, what the ‘Tibet Truth’ site did to my posts was censorship in every sense of the word.
It’s clear you’re already biased against my judgements because I don’t support this sort of independence movement, so no matter what I say or how I say it or what tone I use, you are not likely to accept my views. That’s okay, because who can be truly objective? It’s an ideal we strive for but never reach.
As for being too fervent in my arguments and posts, is it now a sin to be passionate about something? This is how I feel about it. I will be honest about how I feel. This blog isn’t a news page; it’s more like a column. I will present all the arguments so you can decide for yourself what you feel about the issue, but I will not try to hide my opinions on the issue. I won’t hide other people’s opinions either, even though they might oppose mine. I’ll just debate with them.
You say that I’ve been ‘indoctrinated’ by the CCP, without knowing about my background an my upbringing, as if someone who has not been indoctrinated cannot come to these same conclusions. To be honest, I could have accused you of having been indoctrinated by the Tibetan independence activists, yet I will not, as I believe that most people who have not grown up under a dictatorship are able to make their own decisions. Am I too optimistic about human intelligence? Perhaps. But I would rather have hope than to have despair. Besides, the word propaganda should not be thrown around lightly. It’s a trick used by the media to alienate the messages of certain groups and to discredit them without properly representing their views. “It’s propaganda when the enemy do it. It’s public relations when we do it.”
About nationalism: I’ve seen too much nationalist extremism, and it is my conclusion that separating groups of people based on race (whether it’s for administrative purposes, identity and so on and so forth) breeds racism. By saying that ‘this is Tibetan’ or ‘This is Han’ or ‘This is American’ or something along those lines, you inevitably cast people who can’t claim that label as being the ‘other’, and it’s so easy to forget that we are all human in the end. I like having different cultures, but at the same time, I don’t like the way culture is associated with ethnicity.
With the French Resistance, apart from the fact that most of it is a myth created by the French government to hide the shame of collaboration (read Tony Judt’s book on Europe after 1945 for more information on that), I also wouldn’t equate the CCP with the Nazi Party just yet. It might be getting there, but it’s not setting up concentration camps. I am rather worried about the mindless version of patriotism that they push onto people in territories like Hong Kong, where political news consists of Wen Jiabao doing Tai Chi in a park in Macau when he visited. However, I don’t think you can compare current Chinese leaders with Hitler. Until they commit genocide, you can’t compare anyone with Hitler. Actually, it would be interesting to note that the USA compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler right before they invaded Iraq on both occasions.
I would never seek to justify the CCP’s atrocities against the people living under its rule, whether they be Han, Tibetan,Uyghur, or whatever else they happen to be. Atrocities are atrocities and they are wrong. However, let’s assume that Tibet does get independence and it’s all really wonderful in Tibet. What about the Uyghurs? The Han? The Mongolians? The Manchurians? The 1.6 billion people who are still living under CCP rule, which is why I’m advocating for all of us to unite to fight the CCP first. And then…who really knows what will happen afterwards?
And to be sure, if we all declare independence, there will be weakness in that part of the world. History is too deeply ingrained in us. When our people are divided, other people will come and oppress us. Remember the Opium War. Remember the European armies that ransacked Beijing in the 19th century. Remember the Japanese invasion during WWII. In our understanding, fragmentation = foreign invasion = economic exploitation and cultual exploitation. I guess the Chinese insistence on unity is based on those experiences. That’s something we can’t get rid of, no matter how liberal or exposed to western ideals we are. We know that we are weak if we are divided. That’s what our experiences have taught us.
I actually don’t care if this united state that I want to see emerge is ‘China’ or not. Hell, it could be called the ‘East Asiatic League’ for all I care, or perhaps the ‘United Han Manchurian Mongol Tibetan Uyghur State’, as long as it is united. As long as we can stick together in the face of foreign invasion.
When I say that an independent Tibet is going to have economic problems, I’m not saying their culture is ‘backward’. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t believe in cultural backwardness as that implies a sense of cultural superiority, which implies racism which I really really hate. I’m just saying Tibet is not geographically well-situated for trade and economic growth. Tibet is a landlocked place in a rather dry area, which, by the way, can be proven by empirical data, so I couldn’t be biased if I tried.
As for China staying under French and British rule being a better economic option? Please cite some statistics. Selling opium to China and ransacking all the national treasures to take back to Europe was not exactly beneficial to the Chinese economy. (Check out the scandal around Yves Saint Laurent’s partner trying to sell a bronze Chinese statue from their art collection; that was loot from China taken during a French raid.) China’s economy suffered a dramatic decline during that time. Even though economic growth cannot possibly justify human rights abuses, not a lot of people are dying of starvation in Tibet right now. China isn’t raiding Tibet economically, even if they are ransacking it culturally. The Europeans did both to China during the 19th century. I’m sure you know that.
As for East Timor, I’m not sure if they’re actually better off being independent. I know New Zealand and Australia pretty much have peace keeping forces permanently stationed there, and if independence is so good to them, why would they need foreign peace-keeping forces? Beyond these questions, I can’t give you an opinion on East Timor because I have not researched it adequately.
Also, I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not, but Tibetan authorities (before the CCP campaign) also committed a lot of human rights atrocities. http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html I’m not saying that this justifies the CCP’s actions at all, because it doesn’t, but I think it’s important to know all aspects of history. You might find this interesting, appalling, helpful, ludicrous, I don’t know. But it’s important to put all the information on the table and presents all sides of the argument. I am going to look for that Chinese scholar’s article in the academic journal databases, so I’ll have to get back to you later on that one.
And let’s just assume Tibet can be a self-sufficient nation that won’t rely have to rely on international aid, what sort of jobs would it be able to offer its citizens? I live in a country with 4 million people, and I can tell you that this country is basically training smart employees for other countries. We call it the Great Brain Drain. It’s not because this country isn’t a nice place to live –it’s very nice– but with such a small population, there just aren’t the types of jobs that people want to do. I imagine young Tibetans out of university would go elsewhere, like the USA or Canada or even China for job opportunities. In the end, Tibet would have to rely on the goodwill of its neighbours, just like this country here has to rely on good relations with nations like the USA or Australia or Britain (and, more recently, China). It would save those young people living in Tibet a lot of trouble if Tibet was part of a large united league of some sort that accepts Tibetan qualifications. That’s just something else to think about.
Independence is never as simple as ‘they are awful; we will be independent!’ The USA had mapped out its plans for a new government before it declared independence from Britain. To be quite honest, that seems to be the one successful example of an independence movement because they would be able to shoot down all the questions I asked of the Tibetan independence activists. If they manage to come up with something like that, then I might very well decide that they are justified. You must note that the Declaration of Independence doesn’t say much about specific races. In fact, it sought to include all races. Inclusivity is important for a revolution, and inclusivity is something that the Tibetan liberation movement lacks.
Also, life is not composed of ‘either or’. I might not like the CCP, but I think some of their arguments are viable, just as I don’t like organized religion, but I can also agree with some parts of their philosophies. What I’m saying is that there are grey areas in life. I don’t know about you, but I don’t deal in absolutes unless it comes to discrimination, and I will always say no to discrimination of any sort, be it gender, racial, religious or related to sexual orientation.
Sandra Toksvig
April 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm
As I feared it seems you are not able to go beyond the confines of the rigid orthodoxy that so characterizes China’s distorted views. As Mary Parker once observed ‘You can’t teach an old dogma new tricks” and the views you so forcefully repeat make any reasonable or intelligent exchange highly unlikely. The misrepresentation, selectivity, evasion and fallacious reasoning that characterizes your writing on this subject does not encourage any meaningful discussion, Despite your words ” clothed in reason’s garb” it is apparent you are not truly interested in a mature conversation but looking to propagandize for China. While I shall continue to visit your site, I particularly enjoy your fashion page, regrettably I can see there’s no point in pursuing this topic with you further. Not having the experience or knowledge, of the organization that selected not to publicized your pro-China views on Tibet, I had not so quickly recognized your singular quest to promote propaganda and vilify those who do not endorse your views.
F_Le_Rulz
April 26, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Sandra, I was not the one who first used the words ‘propaganda’, ‘dogmatic’, or ‘indoctrinated’ in reference to the other debater. Let’s not be so quick in accusing someone of ‘vilifying’ someone else. It is such a harsh accusation, and regimes like the one in Beijing often like to accuse people who disagree with them of vilifying them.