DialecticBlue,

What is colonialist about pointing out oppression? Only an idiot communist would suggest that it was colonialist to out oppression. The Chinese media have been unable or unwilling to show the people of China anything which the regime decrees as adverse to it’s interests.

It is astounding arrogance to suggest that it is racism on our part that we are offended, and say so, by the blatant and disgusting actions of the Chinese Communist gov’t. The killing, bashing and locking up of Tibetans is routinely carried out, whilst being withheld from the Chinese people. Even the Prime Ministers speech in China, in Chinese is apparently not available.

NathanC,

No one thinks that Han chinese are evil, only the CCP. Tell me why if a couple of Han Chinese are killed does that make it OK to kill hundreds and lock up tens of thousands of Tibetans in retaliation?

Photojack

In the real world we take criticism. Mahathir Mohammed always had critical things to say about Australia, we didn’t like it but we didn’t censor every reference to it either. Until the Chinese gives up authoritarianism altogether they will always be a backwards country. Its nice they treated you so well, pity you can’t actually say that for anyone who has an opinion not shared by the CCP. Hu Jia was jailed for 3.5 years for merely speaking his mind. How many innocent people are doing forced labour in prison camps? How many Falun gong practitioners have had their organs harvested? Its disgusting and no amount of rose colured lenses will make the ugliness diappear

Joe,

Thanks for your response. They (Aboriginal people)would not. My point is they can claim their rights in peaceful manner. Killing innocent people in order to get attention should not be allowed and encouraged. Do you agree? It is my point.

My second point is who has rights to ask. Is Dalai Lama or Tibetan people in Tibet? My answer is Tibetans in Tibet have more right to claim. What is yours? In other words, unless we go to Tibet, we won't find out the answer.

-->"But it does appear to have more support in Tibet, total independence, undunded, entirely on their own..."

From current media I find the majority of protesters are western. Are they moral people as they claimed? Do they really concern about Tibet and Tibetans as they claimed?

Your answer might be Yes. If you have a time, please look at this vidio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twHzXN3kNTs

You may tell something differently

Hey I'm not going to pat them on there backs for the methods they use however it works and with such a large "unmonitored society" that has to be an achievement, Truth is In China I would feel safer walking around Beijing with a Dalai Lama T shirt than I would carrying the Olympic torch through London. Do not think for one moment that one side of the equation is completely blameless there are many religions and movements within China that are free to practice and have opinions they have simply not needed to stir controversy to gain recognition you got to ask yourself what have they done that makes them stand out. Does China ban the Tibetan monks from practicing their religion not at all they subsidise them and they even receive a healthy state pension for their effort to preserve what the Chinese government sees as a Valued cultural heritage. You make it sound as if we live in some kind of Utopia in the West, I could as easily say the Chinese people take to many of their freedoms for granted. Nobody denies that china uses a heavy hand, what your failing to see is that is what the vast majority of Chinese want and believe is necessary so that their children can be safe and have a future who are we to stand in the way of their democracy and security. That all said yes we do need to voice our concerns and put pressure on all governments to keep them in check in a way that have a positive effect. And that would be my gripe "where is the positive effect". You need to "tame" China not prod and tease it. I think the masses are to stirred up and want blood not reconciliation.

Hi Paul,

”Self determination for the Tibetans is absolutely a different concept to that which Australia’s aborigines have sought. Australia’s aborigines are Australian for a start. The Tibetans don’t consider themselves Chinese.”

Please don’t be so sure. Many Tibetans in Tibet do consider themselves Chinese, as do many people of other ethnicities (my own relatives included). They are very different from the radicals you see in the West. These radicals are mostly children of the exiles from Kham (of its Western Sichuan part) and Amdo (Qinghai, Yunan, North West Sichuan) areas, where the communist land reforms in the 1950s were implemented more severely than in TAR proper (all ethnic autonomy regions were given relatively ‘softer’ treatment as part of the ethnic policy at the time). This is why the exiled Tibetan government stresses on the autonomy of “Greater Tibet” which is a lot larger than TAR, in fact it’s over 25% of China’s territory. This concept of “Greater Tibet” has made any negotiations with the Chinese government (yes, Dalai Lama’s family members have held numerous meetings with the Chinese government over the years) very difficult.

My point is, the overseas Tibetans don’t speak for ALL Tibetans. And the rioters certainly don’t represent all Tibetans, just as the LA, Parisian rioters don’t represent the entirety of their own respective communities. Though of course I don't deny there must be many underlying issues in Tibet.

To go back to your analogy, I don’t think the aboriginal people consider themselves Australian more than the Tibetans (in Tibet) consider themselves Chinese. Why else did Cathy Freeman run aboriginal flag first and most, before she ran the Australian one? People have layers of self definition – and I think that’s a great thing.

To Paul (continued):

“Further the Aborigines don’t want their own country, they just want to be able to live their own lives within our country.”

I haven’t done any survey on this but assume what you said is true, isn’t it sad that these peoples whose lands were completely annexed from them are now silent on the issue? Considering over 90% of their languages are now lost, when most Tibetans outside of Lhasa still use only Tibetan and little or no Chinese (go visit one day and see for yourself) – who should accuse whom of “cultural genocide”?

If you ever travel to China and speak to the people on the streets, you will find most of them actually support the current government. No one is saying it’s perfect, but people acknowledge and appreciate the progress the government has made in the past 30 years. If nothing else, to lift 1.4 billion people (Tibetans included) out of dire poverty is an improvement to the most basic human right in itself.

And it’s arrogant to assume that Chinese people are all brainwashed. Yes the Chinese media is mostly state controlled, but people have long learnt how to get around the system, especially in this day and age. If the propaganda was all that successful there wouldn’t have been so many immigrants coming out to the West, chanting "democracy" and "freedom" along the way. Mind you, many of these immigrants’ long held fantasies about the West have been dealt a severe blow by the recent blatantly one-sided media coverage.

Loudmouth
>>The marriage of a daughter of a Tibetan king surely, if anything, holds the king hostage as surely as putting him in the emperor's dungeon, so let's not go on about eternal friendship and mutual love.<<

This marriage is really historic and for eternal friendship.

Let's look at the history. Since 634, Tibetan king Songtsen Gampo(Song zan gan bu) sent envoy to China's Tang Dynasty to plead marriage with princess. After a couple of refusal, Songtsen Gampo brought heavy betrothal gift pleaded marriage again, companied by 200,000 army in west of Song Zhou, Si Chuan. And intimidated he would attack China if refusal. Naturally, marriage was refused by powerful Chinese emperor. Later, Songtsen Gampo really attacked Song Zhou, Si Chuan province, China. Chinese emperor immediately sent 50,000 troops to enforce local defence force and made a joint attack on Tibetan troops. Songtsen Gampo quickly suffered a severe defeat and fled.

But, interesting enough, Songtsen Gampo sent envoy to offer a pology and again plead marriage with princess. This time, surprised a lot, Chinese emperor agreed the marriage. It is a mark of respect and for eternal friendship. In 641, historic marriage realized.

Considering that defeated Saddam Hussein pleaded:" George W Bush, if I marry your daughter, Iraq will be American sincere ally !". LOL

Tibet simply advanced 1000 years as Pricess brought a lot of techniques into Tibet. Since then, Tibet created his own characters, ended letterless history. And at that time, not many Tibetans were Buddhist, Songtsen Gampo advocated Buddhism and built Jokhang Temple partly because Chinese princess was a Pietistic Buddhist.