A non-CCTV version of the Canberra torch relay
Read this initial report from Australia’s ABC news about today’s torch relay in Canberra. I’m sure more will follow. The only positive thing I saw was that the so called ‘torch guards’ were kept at bay by Australian police.
The rights of the individual and minorities have been trampled on by Chinese mobs in recent weeks. This isn’t negativity or bias; it’s simply the truth. I refuse to allow CCTV to give their usual rosy account of their citizens’ behaviour abroad without taking a less blinkered look at events.
Australia, in company with all ‘western’ countries, defends the right of the individual, or the minority, to express themselves. Chinese citizens abroad have abused their own right to gather in protest by acting in concert to deny smaller numbers from expressing views or displaying banners/flags that their government doesn’t like. And far from doing this in a peaceful way, as seen in Canberra this morning, there have been instances of harassment and aggression against people exercising the birthright afforded them by their nationality; the right to non-violent free expression. It is absolutely not the place of anyone, Chinese or otherwise, to interfere in that process.
China is unique insofar as it has such large numbers of citizens spread around the globe who respond almost in unison to their country’s call for action. That is a problem, because they are not acting out of a sense of injustice, personal sentiment, or free will, but rather through a centrally orchestrated groupthink mentality. Add a liberal sprinkling of induced nationalistic fervour to the dynamics of group behaviour and you’ve got yourself a militia.
And yes, I fully acknowledge that it is not every overseas Chinese behaving aggressively towards those with opposing views, although China seems more than happy to blame all French, British, and Americans for the indiscretions of a few.
Chinese people at home and abroad must grow up to the fact that declaring themselves a tolerant people doesn’t make it true. Only their behaviour can demonstrate that. Today, and previously in London, Paris, and San Francisco, intolerance and intimidation was used to drown voices trying to be heard in their own country. Now that’s intolerable.
I’ll say it again - protesting as legitimate visa/passport holders overseas is fine, but not when it interferes with the right of other people to express their contradictory opinions. The sad thing is, I’m sure that very few Chinese will be anything other than proud of their countrymen’s behaviour in recent weeks. If I’m right about that, ‘one world, one dream’ is beginning to look like a very distant prospect.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I hope the western countries now realize what kind of trouble they can get importing all these trouble makers.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Stuart, freedom of speech does not imply that you give your opponents an easy ride. Freedom of speech simply means that the state will not arrest you for holding contrary opininons. As long as the Chinese protesters stay within the bounds of the law, as they are by-and-large doing so, then that is all that is required of them. If you went to a mid-Western town in the US and publicly declares that September 11 was just desserts for US foreign policy, then you would expect an extremely hostile reaction. And that would be fair enough. Restaurants and gas stations may refuse to serve you. That is also fair enough. It would be the right of anyone to express extreme hostility towards you. That would also be fair enough, as long as the way that hostility was expressed remained within the law.
Freedom of speech simply does include freedom from a rancorous reception for your views.
There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a disproportionate amount of arrests of Chinese protesters in Canberra - I believe the number was seven. That is less than one would expect at a rock concert or any other large gathering. By-and-large, the torch relay event was a success in Australia.
And by the way, I have not met ONE Chinese who is not angry at desire of many Westerners to separate Tibet from China. That includes Taiwanese friends (remember the government of Taiwan claims not only Tibet for China, but also all of Mongolia).
And the most salient point here is that the Chinese protesters were not in any way anti-Western. Their position on Tibet is exactly the same as that of every single Western government in the entire world - that Tibet is a wholly legitimate part of the Peoples Republic of China.
So the anti-Western protesters were actually the few Tibetan exiles and their rend-a-mob Western friends.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:03 am
If Westerners are so deluded that they believe that Chinese feelings on Tibet are simply a result of communist propaganda, then they are completely deluded. Just as you would expect 99percent of Americans to oppose the splitting up of America into racially segregated states, so do 99percent of Chinese, regardless of political opinion, oppose any movement towards independence for Tibet.
Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore put it well; “young Americans and Europeans would realise that these displays of contempt for China and things Chinese will have consequences in their lifetime, well beyond the Olympic Games.”
If Westerners support the secession of Tibet, how would they feel if China roused the Australian Aborigines to proclaim Northern Territories an independent country separate from Australia? And more outrageously what if China encouraged the Aborigines to expel all white inhabitants of the Northern Territories, justifying it by saying that the whites were ’swamping’ the aborigines? All Australian whites would rightly be outraged.
Yet this is exactly what many Westerners demand of China in respect to Tibet. Utterly contemptible double standards.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Mongol Warrior says he ‘has not met one Chinese who is not angry at desires of many Westerners to separate Tibet from China’. Obviously he has not met any Chinese citizens of ethnic Tibetan origin. One striking thing about the torch relay in Australia was that all the people who were waving Chinese flags and insisting that Tibet is a part of China were Han Chinese, but none were ethnic Tibetans.
Mongol Warrior claims that Westerners are calling for Tibet to be separated from China, but many are not calling for autonomy for the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region, which is what the Dalai Lama is advocating. As a member of the United Nations , China is obliged to adhere to the principle of self-determination.
If China ’s leaders wants China to be taken seriously as a modern nation, they will have to get used to the idea of people - foreign and Chinese - protesting against human rights abuses. Many of us Westerners demonstrate against governments - our own as well as others - when they commit human rights abuses. For example, many white Australians have protested for many decades against mis-treatment of Australian Aborigines, and successive Australian governments have neither imprisoned, tortured or otherwise silenced such demonstrators, but instead has worked with Aboriginal people to try to solve the disadvantages that they suffer. Why shouldn’t we also protest when China also abuses human rights?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Sorry, there’s a typographical mistake in my comment (above). In the second paragraph I said ‘many are not calling for autonomy’. What I meant to say was ‘many ARE calling for autonomy’.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Dean,
Regardless of ‘freedom of speech’ in the final analysis, the Tibetans (who are indeed Chinese) have done well since 1950. Population has doubled, as has life expectanc, and education is provided in Tibetan. Ninety-five percent of Tibetans were serfs or slaves. Upon Tibet returning to China, the serfs were liberated. In fact the main reason behind the 1959 troubles, were the religious parasites and aristocracy were angry over land-reform- in which ordinary Tibetans were receiving their own land confiscated off the rich and monasteries. For the vast majority of Tibetans, the resumption of Chinese rule was truly a peaceful liberation.
Freedom of speech in respect of treatment of indigenous is very easy in Australia - AFTER aborigines have been made 2% of the population and have no clout anyway. The usual Anglo Saxon model of invasion is kill off all the indigenous and herd the remaining few onto reservations. Ninety nine percent of the land of course goes to whites. After whites have consolidated their power by numbers and control of territory they they gloat over how magnaminous they are because they allow a few aborigines to wave placards. Oh, the duplicity of the white man knows no bounds .
April 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
correction: in my April 25th, 2008 at 2:55 am post I wrote: “Freedom of speech simply does include freedom from a rancorous reception for your views.”
I should have written “Freedom of speech simply does NOT necessarily include freedom from a rancorous reception for your views.”
April 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Stuart your great…i support western states protest chinese authority,human rights and freedom democracies are all the people need, i hated so called nationalism,they r idiots…..
April 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Mongol Warrior - you say ‘the duplicityof the white man knows no bounds’. It would be more honest to say that the duplicity of people who seek to control others - be they white, brown, black or any other colour - knows no bounds. It is only narrow nationalism that prevents many people from seeing that it’s not a matter of one ‘race’ of people being good and the others being bad.
The rulers of the British Empire did not act out of magnanimity when they invaded Australia and destroyed Aboriginal cultures, and the rulers of China are not controlling Tibet with the altruistic aim of benefitting Tibetans, notwithstanding the increases in life expectancy that Tibetans have enjoyed (along with most human populations over the last five or six decades).
(By the way, I’m not claiming that Tibet was a happy classless society before China took control, but was the wealth gap that existed between the poor and the rich in Tibet pre-Communism much different from that that currently exists between the urban rich and the rural poor throughout China in 2008?)
Let’s stop pretending that there is such a thing as a virtuous empire, Chinese, British or other. Throughout recorded history and throughout most of the world, people who seek power have continued to disinherit and disempower whoever they could in order to increase their power, and they have continued lying to their own populations in order to strengthen their control.
Nevertheless, one important difference between China and Western liberal democracies is that those of us who live in the latter are allowed to protest against our governments, and we are not punished if we openly criticise our leaders or publish facts that they would prefer remained hidden. And if we decide that those who govern our countries aren’t doing a good enough job, we are able to replace them with others. In multi-party systems, any of us are able to put ourselves forward for election as a representative in government.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Dean,
I think you over simplified the liberal demarcated system. It is in fact a byproduct of many forces. If we look back into history, we may face a big chaotic picture, consists of blood, compromises, intelligence, and stupidity, it’s not only with shining words such as “freedom”, “democracy”, etc. This system, in the end, is just a widely adopted social-political practice. We can’t even say it’s better than the one in China, simply because we don’t have universal criteria to make judgement.
It’s also unfair to believe that common people in China has no influence over our gov. or even replace it. There are lots of ways for people to express ideas. People are not stupid. If you look into the internet, you will be amused the enormous ways invented by Chinese netizens to get around the censorship.
It’s also unfair to describe the Chinese government as a single mind entity. It has over 10 million employees and not everybody places their loyalty to Mr. Hu. And lot of chinese problems, are in fact the products of bureaucracy.
And it’s also naive to believe democracy can be given from foreign forces. In history, there is no success story that foreigners kindly liberated other countries and left them a modern political system. Everybody has his own agenda.
Size really matters. The western experiences can not be simply copied and applied to China. Just imagine if UK suddenly had over 20 cities as big as the Great Manchester and 100 Sheffield. Neither Labour nor Conservative has the ability to manage. And the whole system will crash.
My point is, please don’t read China with your western mind. A nation has 1.3 billion people and thousands years of history is not controlled by anyone (including CCP), and can not be simplified with any label (communism, non-freedom, dictated, etc.). In the context of globalisation (or westernlisation), we can trust nobody but only find a way for ourselves.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I agree with many of your comments, Linan Wang. My own comments were in response to Mongol Warrior’s apparent assumption that only white people have been duplicitous.
And of course I over-simplified - the topic is vast and complex, and space is short. As you say, history and human behaviour present us with a ‘chaotic picture’.
We all share the right as well as the responsibility to question and criticise those who misuse their power, whoever they are.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Dean: The difference is of course, China’s claim to Tibet is about 100 times more valid than the moral right of Europeans to rule Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.
China’s sovereignty over Tibet is recognized as wholly legitimate by every country in the world. Furthermore the United States itself recognized Tibet as part of China in 1942, eight years before the so-called 1950 ‘invasion.’
Now just because the British colonialists killed off most of the indigenous of Australia and stole all the land, does not mean that the Han Chinese therefore must have done the same to the Tibetans. Just because you admit wrongdoing on your side, it does not logically follow that the other side is equally guilty of similar wrongdoing.
For the Australian aborigines, white invasion was a disaster not only in respect of their cultural survival, right to land, but also their very physical existence.
For the Tibetans, the reassertion of Chinese sovereignty (not ‘invasion’) was a blessing for 95percent of the theretofore landless slave and serf castes. And Dean, do your really believe that gains in life expectancy, modernization would have happened had Tibet been simply left to go its merry medieval way? After 50 years of Chinese rule, Tibetans are now still 90% of the population, their language is thriving, their population is increasing and double that of 1950. Compare this to what happened to the indigenous under Anglo Saxon domination - the populations would be exterminated, reduced to 2or 3percent of the population, and denied most forms of cultural expression. True that over the past 3 decades efforts have been to make amends - but this is very easy to do for the mainstreams of American and Australian society - after all the whites control all the land, the media, have all the money, the political power. It is just noblesse oblige. What hope have the Aborigines got of having an aboriginal dominated government? (at least 50% of leadership in Tibet is Tibetan). What hope have aborigines got of owning even 25percent of the Australia that was once all theirs?
And Dean, the income disparity between rural and urban areas, is something every single developed country has gone through in their quest for modernization. It is not something that is good, but inevitable. The problem lessens as more and more people become urbanized themselves, and as this happend, farmers will make more money in feeding the larger urban populations. You cannot compare this situation with what existed in Tibet prior to liberation. It is like saying the economic disparity between blacks and whites in the US today is as morally reprehensible as slavery.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Mongol Warrior, if Tibetans are thriving under Chinese rule, why do we only see Han Chinese around the world, waving banners that insist that Tibet is part of China? Are we to assume that Tibetans are ungrateful for the ‘blessing’ that the CCP bestowed upon them in 1950?
How much political power do ethnic Tibetans really have in the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region?
Are there any ethnic Tibetans holding positions of power within the CCP in the TAR?
You cite the 1942 claim by the US that Tibet was part of China . Do you also agree with the US claim at that time that Chiang Kai-shek’s Guomindang was China’s legitimate government? Your argument lacks logical consistency.
Whites do not ‘ control all the land’ in Australia. Your arguments expose your ignorance about Australian land ownership laws. Large areas of Australia are owned and controlled by Aboriginal communities, and whites require permission from Aboriginal owners if they want to enter that land. That information is common knowledge, and is easily obtainable on the internet.
It is untrue that Aborignes have no political power in Australia, although that was true before the early 1970s. They have political power now because democratically-elected governments were forced to accede to the demands of Aboriginal activists and their white supporters. However, it is well-known that Aborigines on average have much lower life expectancy, poorer standards of living, and are disadvantaged in many other ways. The Australian government has publicly stated that this is unacceptable, and is working with Aboriginal leaders with the aim of improving remedy this situation. Australians do not pretend that everything here is perfect.
However, the main problem with your argument is that you seem to think that because I support the granting of greater autonomy to Tibetans, I therefore support white domination of Aborigines. This is completely illogical. I will re-word what I was trying to say in comment number 8 (above): I oppose the abuse of power, and I believe that all peoples have the right to justice and self-determination, irrespective of their ethnic identity. To make it even clearer, I support self-determination for Australian Aborigines as well as for Tibetans. So stop wasting time trying to teach me about Australian history.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Dean,
I think Mongol Warrior will ask the following question: if the Australia Aboriginal community decide to cast away all whites and want their land back, what would you do and what would you say?
The key point is not how equally your law treats aboriginals as whites and how much freedom by law they have, but the law itself was established illegally, the country, like USA, was established without permissions and authority of its legitimate owners in the first place. Therefore, all the rest are just BS. And you, no matter how liberal you are, just like Samuel L. Jackson said in movie A time to kill to Matthew McConaughey, quote “you are one of them , don’t you see?“
April 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Your question is very interesting, Linan Wang, and it helps to explain why some Chinese people are angry at westerners who criticise the Chinese government, knowing that countries like Australia and the US were occupied without the permission of the original inhabitants.
Your question suggests similarities between Australia and Tibet, implying that both were illegally occupied, but it is important to remember that the long history of relations between Tibetans and Han Chinese is very different from the history of relations between Australian Aborigines and whites, neither of whom knew the other existed until about 220 years ago.
This is not the place to go into a lot of detail about Australian history and society, but there are many Australian Aboriginal communities, not one, so the situation would not arise. Also, because the races mix freely in Australia, there are many people of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal descent – would they stay or leave?
It is now widely acknowledged by the people and government of Australia that the country was established without the authority and permission of the original inhabitants. Despite this, and despite the gaps between the standards of living of most whites and many Aborigines, inter-racial tension is generally lower than in many other countries. Many Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are working together to resolve the problems that were caused by past injustices.
It would be arrogant for me to speak on behalf of Aboriginal people but the viewpoints of many Aboriginal leaders and writers are widely available on the internet. If you are able to access the works of any Aboriginal writers, I think you will find that none of them are calling for whites to leave. (You might be able to contact some Aboriginal people through the internet and ask for their views.)
I realise that there is not enough space here to give a complete answer to your question – you need a library for that - but I hope my answer helps to explain why many westerners see no contradiction between our societies’ violent histories and our calls for self-determination for all peoples. Most of the westerners calling for Tibetan autonomy also criticise their own governments’ activities, for example the illegal invasion of Iraq.
(By the way, your quote by an American actor saying ‘you are one of them’ is completely irrelevant to this situation, and your statement that ‘all the rest are just BS’ trivialises the situation completely. We can all learn from each other, so if you want to persuade people of your views, respect the facts and keep to the point.)
April 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I’ve been away for three days without internet access. Thanks to Dean, Linan, Alex, and Mongol Warrior for keeping the discussion going.
My original point was that, in a country that loves to talk up its 5000 years of civilization, freedom of expression should be championed. What we continue to see from most overseas Chinese during the torch relay, however, is not free expression, legitimate protest, or people wishing to see the torch en route to Beijing, but rather an orchestrated attempt to stifle opinion inconsistent with their own.
On the Tibet issue, I’m not sure that those calling for independence are quite up to speed with the full history of the relationship between the mountain and middle kingdoms. Nor am I.
What I am certain of, though, is that a billion voices in China have no clue as to the true nature of CCP oppression in the region since 1950. All they know is what they’re told, which boils down to kind, backward kingdom liberated and aided by benevolent CCP; ungrateful Tibetans doing the evil Dalai Lama’s bidding. And that brings us full circle to the manipulative power of 60 years of a state-controlled media that only tolerates one view of the world.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Stuart, you are an arch-hypocrite. Aborigines under white rule have done a heck of a lot worse than Tibetans under Chinese rule. Where were you with your placards during the 2000 Sydney Games?
April 27th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Dean,
Yes, the question is a typical one might raised by Chinese. You did not response with a clear and strong answer. The question is highly conceptual, and my intention is to discuss it only at legal/moral level. You somehow tried to direct answer by means of attaching problems in reality/operational level (race mixing, multiple Aboriginal communities, etc). I can only say your response is not satisfactory. (Yes, probably I need a library and a lawyer…) Could you please use one simple sentence on this issue, if you think “Free Tibet” or “Highly autonomous” is enough for the Tibet topic.
I apologize for using bad words in a dialogue. It’s counter constructive in a conversation aimed at communication and understanding. It’s a shame. But my quote is not really irrelevant. I was trying to suggest you were in the same shoe as Matthew McConaughey in the movie: even if you were on the side of aboriginals, you are inherently guilty since you can just think without experiences. (No offense, it’s again in a conceptual level)
@stuart, I feel your attitude towards CCP is very ideology. CCP is a party with 77 million members. You may even have friends who are members. If you read more books on Tibet issues, e.g. Heavenly Funeral (by LiXiong Wang, who is anti-CCP), and “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth”, by Michael Parenti, or books of Tom Grunfeld (forget the name, but he is one of the word authority on this topic), you may find the truth is more complicated than your simplification.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Sorry, typo.
The sentence:
You somehow tried to direct answer by means of attaching problems…
should be:
You somehow tried to avoid direct answers by means of attaching problems
April 28th, 2008 at 1:11 am
“~~~you may find the truth is more complicated than your simplification.”
I agree with you, Linan Wang. Not only CCP but also many other phenomena are very complicated.
As to our media, yes, it is really too much controled by our government, but we are not silly enough to trust our media. We have our own views on what’s happening around us.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:00 am
“Stuart, you are an arch-hypocrite. Aborigines under white rule have done a heck of a lot worse than Tibetans under Chinese rule. Where were you with your placards during the 2000 Sydney Games?”
Of course I’m not a hypocrite. I’m defending the rights of minority opinion to be heard, and not be shut out by greater numbers organised for that very purpose.
It was absolutely not the place of Chinese counter-protesters to interfere with this process in countries whose laws protect the rights of free speech.
Your reply suggests to me that you miss this point - the post was never about the Tibetan issue per se. Even if it had been, it would be about Tibetan issues, and not concerned with your idea that “white rule” offers worse examples of human rights abuses.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction I’ve read a thousand times in response to any perceived criticism of China: ‘look what you did.’ This is merely a way of denying that a problem exists, and is designed to deflect attention from those issues China would rather not talk about.
What you still fail to understand is that other nations discuss openly, and acknowledge, the wrongdoings both of their past as well as the present-day issues facing indigenous cultures and minority groups. China hasn’t learnt to do this.
If there were Aboriginal protests in 2000 (I’m not sure about this) I guarantee you that the Australian government would never have mobilised overseas (or domestic) citizens to drown their voices in an intimidating sea of Southern Crosses.
Now do you get it?
April 28th, 2008 at 5:06 am
“you may find the truth is more complicated than your simplification.” - Linan.
It wasn’t my simplification - I was repeating the basic views of nearly all Chinese that I have spoken with on the issue.
I have no doubt that Tibetan issues are historically and culturally complex. In order to tackle these complexities the Chinese people need a more balanced view of Tibet’s modern history than their government feeds them.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:06 am
It’s a knee-jerk reaction I’ve read a thousand times in response to any perceived criticism of China: ‘look what you did.’ This is merely a way of denying that a problem exists, and is designed to deflect attention from those issues China would rather not talk about.
Stuart; are you retarded or something. What is right and what is not right is not an absolute concept. A country’s record on human rights is neither good or bad in absolute terms, it is only good or bad depending on how it compares with other nations. If a country suddenly appeared which donated 80% of its GNP to African development, then even a country like Iceland would look bad.
If we rank all countries in terms of human rights abuses, both internal and external, then by far the biggest serial abuser of human rights this decade at least is undoubtedly the US and UK. What China has accomplished with limited resources, land and a huge population is a victory for human rights. One or two negative cases does not change the overall picture. By raising living standards, raising life expectancy, raising literacy China is scoring hat-tricks for
human rights every single day.
And the reason why Aboriginal protest is limited in Australia, is because they are so completely marginalized. They are 2% of the population and live in the poorest areas of that country. One can visit Queensland, Sydney, Melbourne and never even see an aborigine.
Compare with Tibet; Tibetans are still 90percent the population of Tibet, still speak their own language among themselves, have Tibet TV, radio, newspapers. All in all they have a functioning culture that is truly alive.
So in relative terms (and we can only ever speak in relative terms), China’s performance on human rights is vastly superior to that of many Western nations, the US and UK particularly.
Therefore Stuart; if you hate China so much why not fuck off back home and do something about ending the Iraq war?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:16 am
” you hate China so much why not fuck off back home and do something about ending the Iraq war?”
MW, it is not persuasive nor tolerant to say that. Everyone has his own opinion. One can keep his own opinion and debate with others but he shouldn’t insult others.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Mongol Warrior, you said ‘one can visit Queensland, Sydney, Melbourne, and never even see an aborigine’. You wouldn’t necessarily know if you were seeing an aborigine, because there are so many people of mixed descent, having both aboriginal and white ancestors. There are people with light coloured hair and blue eyes who consider themselves to be aboriginal, because they have one or more aboriginal grandparents, and because they are recognised as part of an aboriginal community.
Linan Wang, can you please explain what you mean when you say I am inherently guilty because I can think without experiences? I am confused by your criticism of my comment - I was responding to a hypothetical question about what I would do if aboriginal people asked whites to leave. The question itself could not be asked by somebody who knows how Australian society works. That is not a criticism of you, by the way, but an acknowledgement of the complexity of different societies.
I answered the way I did because I live in the real world, and the aboriginal people I know are real people - a legal/moral question cannot be separated from reality.
Monica, thank you for reminding us that we can disagree without being aggressive or insulting. A very important point, if we genuinely want to share our views.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Getting back to the torch relay, which is where this conversation started, have the Chinese media reported the behaviour of the pro-China protestors in Seoul? It is good to see that the Chinese government for apologising for the behaviour of the unruly Chinese citizens in South Korea.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Sorry, a typo - I meant to say ‘it is good to see the Chinese government has apologised …’
April 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Dean,
To explain my point on “inherently guilty since you can just think without experiences”, I have to use an example. I have been studying and working on architecture over 15 years. By using my drawing ability, imagining, and computer technology I can turn a design into perspective drawing from design easily. Even though, I still prefer to visit a building and experience it after have studied its design, because the rich feeling brought from experiencing is totally different from what thinking brings. Since you are not an aborigine, you can only try to imagine their situation, based on which your sympathy is placed. My point is your imagination is far from their own experiences. You cannot really “feel” like them. Therefore, your defense on the equality, justice, freedom of Australia law/Gov. is abstract and weak.
@stuart, I think before this Tibet event, most of the Chinese people had sympathy towards Tibetan and Dalai Lama, at least most of my friends and myself. Now it’s clear what indeed Dalai Lama is, what a bloody political game he has been and is playing.
He is not an honest man. In his “An Appeal to the Chinese People”, he talks about “personal friendship with Mao and other senior leaders”, but in his biography he vaguely suggests he killed Mao by using Voodoo. He talks about non-violence but in responses to Iraq:
“On the subject of the Iraq war, the Dalai Lama presented a relatively consequentialist view. ‘It is still too early to say whether it is right or wrong. I think another few years, then we¡¯ll see, then history will show whether this war was really justified, because it brought a good result. So, up until now, I think difficult to say. At least the motivation, to bring democracy, freedom, and that goal is right, a right goal.’”
(http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archiv…ws/news2.shtml)
He is indeed a perfidious politician and not a real holy monk. (I am working on a personal project to aggregate his political actions/talks)
April 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Dean; are you thick or something?
You wrote: “You wouldn’t necessarily know if you were seeing an aborigine, because there are so many people of mixed descent, having both aboriginal and white ancestors.”
Exactly my point. Either the aborigines have mainly been killed off or assimilated to the point of almost non-existence. That is aboriginal culture has been thoroughly marginalized.
I will state again: in Australia aborginal culture is virtually non-existent in everday life. Go to the Gold Coast - completely whitebread with a few Asians.
However in Tibet, Tibetan culture suffuses the region. Language, dance, costumes, religion - all still exist and are vibrant. That is why Tibet still attracts Western tourists. Why? To see Tibetan culture.
Dean - can you point me to some large circulation aboriginal newspapers. Can you provide please a link to an Aborigine TV channel, radio station? No you can’t.
Aboriginal culture is invisible in Australia - therefore it is practically dead.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
This is all very off-topic, MW and Linan - you are busy attacking western cultures because you cannot possibly justify China’s treatment of Tibetans . But I will give a response, and I’ll try to keep it brief.
There are many internet links to Aborignal media, MW, and no, I’m not thick. If you want to find Aboriginal media, try Google, I don’t need to do it for you. (Although if you’re in China you might find that some of the sites are blocked.) There are aboriginal TV and radio stations. There are aboriginal writers who feature on a weekly basis in the main national newspapers. There are aboriginal leaders who advise the federal and state governments. Australian aborigines hold a variety of views. Aboriginal culture is not monolithic. They debate amongst themselves, and white people are welcome to join the debate. Not all white Australians hold the same views either. We are not monolithic. As children we are educated to find things out for ourselves, and to form our own opinions, rather than following a line that somebody else has worked out for us.
There is a variety of living Aboriginal cultures. Some aborigines choose to live in western ways, and have become assimilated. Others retain their culture, living in desert or rural communities. In Australia people have a choice. (I seriously wonder if you can understand that.)
I think you are so anti-western that maybe you can’t concieve of an open culture where people of all races can make choices about how to live, without government interference.
You have been brainwashed to believe that anything western is bad. Maybe you’ve been to the Gold Coast for a few days, but that doesn’t make you an expert on Aboriginal culture and Australian society.
MW, you do yourself (and China) a disservice by dishing out your adolescent insults. (Although I must admit to your use of terms like ‘thick’, and ‘whitebread’ makes me curious about where you live. Maybe you’re not as ignorant as you pretend to be.)
Linan, I am not pretending to ‘feel’ like an aborigine - they don’t all ‘feel’ the same anyway, for goodness sake - stop stereotyping people! I said in an earlier post that I am not arrogant enough to claim to speak on behalf of Aboriginal Australians. In my comments I am not pretending to imagine what it is like to be an Australian, I have been trying to convey the idea of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society where people can choose to follow their traditional cultures or to adopt western ways. Or adopt any other culture or sub-culture or religious belief, if they choose to, without fearing condemnation or oppression.
Your comments, Linan and MW, remind me of the old-style Australian racists of the 1950s who thought that ‘real’ Aborigines should live in the desert and eat kangaroos only.
If you are really interested in learning more about Aboriginal cultures, do some research of your own, rather than deliberately misinterpreting people who are trying to hold some sort of dialogue.
And if you really want an answer to your question about the 2000 Olympics, yes there were protests by Aborigines, and the opening ceremony featured musicians with pro-aboriginal and anti-government messages, and the climax of the opening ceremony was the lighting of the flame by Cathy Freeman, an outstanding Australian athlete. Who happens to be Aboriginal. And proud of it. And admired by many Australians, because she is very down-to-earth.
Please do some research instead of blindly following your prejudices.
(I regret that I wasn’t able to keep this as brief as I intended.)
April 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Dean: just answer this question. Who are better off: Tibetans under Chinese rule OR Aborigines under European rule?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Dean,
It’s getting personal. Please review my comments again and do me a favor to point out where I show my racial attitude, where I anti-western? In the dialogue with you, I just want to know how your government and law system dealt with the fundamental flaw. If you don’t want to answer, or it’s too complex to describe, fine.
“This is all very off-topic, MW and Linan - you are busy attacking western cultures because you cannot possibly justify China’s treatment of Tibetans .”
It’s illogic. Even if I can’t justify China’s treatment of Tibet, why I can’t raise my arguments about western cultures? (btw, I didn’t attack western culture. it’s such a big topic that out of my ability)
April 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
MW - I’m happy to have you comment despite disagreeing with just about everything you say, but please ease up on the insults.
A question: why do you find it so difficult to address a current Chinese issue without resorting to comparisons with the past indiscretions of other countries?
We’re talking about here and now, and China keeps telling us that it has a better model for the future of mankind. For the moment, China seems content to justify its own brand of imperialism on the grounds that western countries did the same.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I have addressed the current Chinese issue in respect to Tibet.
Tibet is a part of China. Of course nothing in this world is entirely unchallengeable, but based on precedent established by other nations around the world, it would be fair to say that Chinese rule of Tibet is more legitimate than the presence of Europeans in the Americas and Australia.
Of course you have to bring up others ‘indiscretions.’ As I have previously mentioned there are no absolutes for right or wrong in international affairs. Judging right or wrong, good or bad, can only be done against a relative scale. Assuming the West is the benchmark for all measures of morality, human advancement and fairness (as is your implicit position), by this benchmark China’s role in Tibet has been a noble one - although there is definitely room for improvement.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
By the way I do appreciate you providing this forum for the airing of different viewpoints.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
My input on the Tibet issue.
Despite the fact that Tibet issue was raised internationally at this particular time does reflect some undergoing international political games, it’s necessary for us (Chinese) to face the problem right now. Anger-deny-reflection-adjustment is a natural pattern when people encounter crisis but we should speed up the process and overcome it.
My undergoing personal project suggests following framework to solve the problem:
1, Clarification. What are facts? what are interpretations? what are the moral standards behind the interpretations?
2, Historical review. What have we done? What’s the original purpose? What are the actions we’ve taken? What are the results? ( It’s interesting to know that, the monks in Tibet are payed by Chinese Government. In most of the remote villages, it’s the principle income. I don’t know any religion is financed by UK government.)
3, Horizontal review. How other countries dealt with the similar problems? Is there any ideal model to follow? What’re the uniqueness of China-Tibet relation?
4, Whom we should talk to? Dalai Lama is not only a politician, but also a religion leader. Is he reliable? Is he an honest person? What’s his agenda? Is he the legitimate representative of Tibetan people? (As religion leader and political leader, he deserves a hair-to-toe examination, maybe even his religion)
5, What is Tibet? In Dalai Lama’s eye, Tibet covers even my home city, takes 1/4 of China. Is that a right scope?
6, How to define “autonomous”? Who has the authority?
7, OR, the whole above are just modern infrastructure, which is inherently wrong for an 1000 years old oriental relationship?
8, Can we contribute to the “international law” a new paradigm?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:49 am
That is a useful framework for resolving some of the problems, Linan, and it raises some very wide-ranging issues. It would be very beneficial if the questions you raise were to be addressed by open-minded people who were willing and able to look at all the relevant facts. For such an investigation to be effective, those people involved in the investigation would have to include Tibetans, representatives of the Chinese government, political scientists, historians and social scientists, among others. Of course they would have to have equal status in determining the outcome of the process. Given the right political will, it could be achieved.Linan, you said that I accused you of showing a racist attitude, but I did not use the term ‘racist’. However, your comment ‘you are one of them’ surprised me, assuming that because I am a westerner I am no different from the racist Europeans of teh paRather, I objected to your would which I would have I must admit to being surprised by the inconsistency though of your statement that I can’t comment on the situation of aborigines because I am not aboriginal, while you have freely commented on the situation facing Tibetans. MW, you asked whether Tibetans or Australian aborigines are better off. I have provided you with many facts that show that aborigines are better off in many ways, although their lives are not perfect. However they are wisely using the choices available to them to improve their lives, in many different ways (see comments above, I don’t see any point in rewriting any rewrite any of it). Many of your assertions run counter to the facts. If you really want people to take your opinions seriously, please do some basic research before stating things that are not true (for example, regarding . I suggest you do some basic research in future before exposing your ignorance, for example by claiming there are no aboriginal-c0ntrolled media outlets, or by claiming that aborigines have no political power in Australia.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Sorry, I accidentally hit the ‘enter’ button while I was still writing, so please disregard the mess which has appeared in the middle of my previous comment. I’m sorry but I don’t have the time or energy at the moment to re-write it properly (I have work that I must do) apart from a couple of short comments.
When I used the term ‘racist’, Linan, I meant that yours and MW’s comments seemed to place the aborigines in a time warp, when they were regarded by racist Europeans as being less than human. By comparing your attitude to that of racists I was not accusing you of racism, and I apologise for the imprecision of my language.
I prefer not to comment further on this topic at this stage, apart from suggesting that Linan’s framework would be a useful starting point for improving the situation in Tibet, especially ‘what is Tibet’, which is Linan’s point number 5 above. Is it possible that in the future China’s government will have the confidence and political will to deal with the problem openly and honestly? I imagine they would fear for the unity of China if this question was openly raised.
I join with MW in thanking Stuart for providing this forum.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Yes, I think the topic has already lost its provoking magic and we are now at the stage that spending considerable time on defending ourselves rather than ideas. Good discussion. Thanks to all, including me!