Listening to Radio Nationals Program (below) on Tibet by Phillip Adams I had to question the consistency of cultural policy in the world. One view is that cultures have a right to the ownership of their territories- but this seems to be applied inconsistently in the world. In Australia both major political parties favour high rates of immigration those that are against this policy are labelled racist.

How does this compare to Radio National's segment below?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/tibet-climate-change/10118376

But Tibet is facing twin challenges; as climate change melts its glaciers and its grassland turns to desert, the Chinese government which controls the semi-autonomous region has increased mining and migration into the region.

Both are threatening the very existence of Tibet’s traditional nomads.

//In Australia both major political parties favour high rates of immigration those that are against this policy are labelled racist.//

No, not necessarily. Just the racist ones.

I heard Bob Carr speaking on this subject a while ago (episode date Tuesday 24/7, interview starts at 13:20):

http://iview.abc.net.au/show/tonightly-with-tom-ballard/series/0/video/LE1691H143S00

He's in favour of cutting immigration numbers in half. But he approaches the argument from the point of view that Australia simply can't support too large a population, and is quick to point out that he's only concern is the numbers, not where immigrants are coming from. He doesn't come across as being the slightest bit racist, so he doesn't get labelled accordingly. And it really is that simple: if you don't want to be labelled racist, just follow Bob's example and don't act like one.

But if it looks like a racist, swims like a racist and quacks like a racist, then people are going to call it a racist. Which seems fair enough to me: avoiding calling people racist even when they're being overtly racist, because that might hurt their poor widdle feewings, seems to me like a particularly dodgy sort of political correctness.

Stay away from the ABC, CM, particularly RN and the really awful Philip Adams. China is a dreadful nation that wants to spread Chinamen all over the world - they are like the Muslims in that respect - colonising to conquer. They have done it by force in Tibet, but our dirtbag politicians are encouraging them to do the same in Australia. They are buying Australia, but the result will be the same as their viciously aggressive method in Tibet

Canem,
China seems to be trying to replace the indigenous Tibetan culture with another. AIUI the migrants are overwhelmingly Han Chinese.

Australia did similar things decades ago. But nowadays we're accepting migrants from all over the world, The culture of those already here isn't being replaced by another.

Not many people are aware that before China took over Tibet they did not have a single school, hospital or paved road in the country and the former rulers fled with much of the national wealth.

Also, the Dalai Lama is keen to regain power in Tibet but negotiations with China are not progressing smoothly.

One of the ways a people who are desperately in need (or hope) of external unearned assistance, make their claims, is to blame their problems on that catch-all culprit, climate change.

The Pacific Islands deserve help, we are told, because of AGW. They're all sinking don't ya know.

Except they aren't.

Ditto Tibet.

Climate change is reeking havoc we are told. Except, when you look at the data, it's not so obvious.

http://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/b0bdfb00-efc8-4d65-99f9-b1d80e625581/mfig007.jpg

Article the graph comes from and associated data is here...

http://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.1956

Sure temperatures have risen from the recent colder past. But they've merely gone back to levels that have occurred regularly over the past four centuries.

But as we know, climate change is now a religion. The facts are entirely immaterial.

"Not many people are aware that before China took over Tibet they did not have a single school, hospital or paved road in the country ..."

Which apparently, according to the Sino-apologists, makes the conquest okydokey.

Not many people are aware that before Europeans took over Australia they did not have a single school, hospital or paved road in the country....

CM no easy way around this, China started these actions years ago, decades ago, see how the Dalai Lama fled from them, nothing makes that right, however diplomacy demands we hold some views finding it hard to even consider that our governments at any time, set out to replace white Australians, see you in another thread

Toni Lavis said- "But if it looks like a racist, swims like a racist and quacks like a racist, then people are going to call it a racist. Which seems fair enough to me: avoiding calling people racist even when they're being overtly racist, because that might hurt their poor widdle feewings, seems to me like a particularly dodgy sort of political correctness."

Answer- I wonder if Toni Lavis considers China racist for marginalising the Tibetans? Or are the Tibetans racist for desiring a return to 100% Tibetan culture in Tibet? Maybe both are racist... Perhaps the Tibetans have a greater claim over Tibet because "they own the land" in just the same way that Australian's have a greater claim over Australia than other imported cultures. Over many generations those from other cultures develop a strong attachment to the land- then they may be less willing to give it away.

Cultures have an impact on another culture based on their difference and previous relationships with the culture- the bigger the difference the bigger the impact. A culture has the right to protect its culture if this is racist then "racism may be a good thing". As with many things life is complicated and sometimes compromise between principles is necessary- "what is more important Australian culture or anti-racism"- I generally favour local principles over global ones- so "Australian Culture before anti-racism". A devils bargain perhaps- it's often necessary to choose between two undesirable alternatives.

Political Correctness has constrained the ability to create language that describes the outrage against multiculturalism, diversity policy.

Correct me if I am wrong but did Australia and USA sit back and let Indonesia take western PNG, I think they actually information wise helped them.

PhilipS,
What I heard was that the UN, US, AUS, HOLLAND wined & dined a bunch of West Papuan leaders in Jakarta when they asked them if they wanted to belong to Indonesia or not. I was told by several West Papuans that these leaders agreed to become part of Indonesia but after the partying ceased, they screamed blue murder.
Will need to look up the official version on Wikipedia though to see how that version differs from the one we 've heard over the recent years.

Remember when India invaded peaceful Goa?

The world did absolutely nothing, probably the utter peacefulness of the Goans was a direct threat to Indian corruption.

Back then Goa didn't have many paved roads, few motor vehicles and the coastal areas were unspoilt, air pollution was something that Goans read about as happening in places like London.

In Indian Goa everything is changed, four and six lane highways are being built, there is a railway that bypasses the capital, cars are everywhere and pollution is on the rise and there is hardly a bit of coastline left undeveloped.