User talk:Comrade Conrad

Sorry that no one responded to you on Talk:Tibet -- I thought I would take the opportunity to respond to your points on your talk page.

To Free Tibet Supporters from a Chinese:
China is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. We have tens of different languages, many places issued their own currency, had their own government from time to time. There are Tibetan communities in Han majority provinces outside of Tibet. Should these people be forcibly seperated from Han Chinese and evicted to Tibet in your opinon? I am a Mongolian-Han mix, do you have a place for me in your definition of China?

The Han ethnic group is itself a hybrid of several different groups. Tibet is a frontier region and historically China had not forced assimilation on this region while other countries ethnically cleaned their own frontiers. So now we have an awkward transition period where China's critics can wag their fingers while sitting comfortably in their ethnically cleansed countries. I don't like how the CCP treats Chinese people everywhere, not just in Tibet. Policy mistakes in the last several decades effected all of China. I certainly sympathize with Tibetans because from their POV those polices came from an outside culture, and to a large degree the Chinese government is responsible for it's own bad press.

The time for repressing Tibtan culture however is in the past. Today's China is building monastaries and temples there. We can only hope time can heal the damage. People do get arrested still, but not for being Buddhists, rather for taking part in sedition and insurrections. The vast majority of Tibetans live in peace and are free to practice their culture.

There are limitations in the way the religious centers are ran because there is a security dimension to religion there. How do one justify calling for non-interferance in the monastaries when these institutions call for violent insurrections? The same is true in many countries where Islamic preachers are abusing their positions to incite terrorism. Remarkably, in Tibetan communities in Sichuan or Qinhai provinces there is no problem displaying portraits of the Dali Lama - because the security concern does not exist. The forbidding of his portrait in Tibet does not come from an anti-Tibetan policy.

It is however nonsense to believe Han Chinese have done nothing but damage Tibet. Tibetan living standard have been dramatically improved in every measureable way. You may believe their culture was intruded upon, but there is no escape from modernity. Do you really think Tibetans want someone to take away their televisions, movie theaters, schools and hospitals?

Today Lhasa is a developed city with highrise buildings, Mercedes on the paved roads, Tibetans in shopping malls buying gold watches. The main complaint from Tibetans is that Chinese have an unfair competitive advantage in the new economy, not that this economy shouldn't exist. This view of Tibet "The Snow Leopard" is a very one-sided view of a developing region of China, treating it with biased romanticism and mysticism.

CCPs poor treatment of its citizens is improving but has a long long way to go. I think the overall trend is good and people should work toward the overall good. Hopefully China will eventually democratize and liberalize as everyone in China wants. The present Chinese government is doing the best it could to heal past wounds in Tibet. Unfortunantly the seperatist movement supported by Tibetan exiles and China critics is not helping the matter. For example China is promoting autonomy for Tibet, but autonomy cannot become cultural segregation which would only produce more problems later.

If we are all to live in harmony, then we all have to live and let live, at the same time allow assimilation to take course. China needs to help Tibetans get better education and job opportunities, and Tibetan nationalists need to accept infrastructure investment like the new railroad as opportunities for a better life. This is already happening, whether we have the Dali Lama's cooperation or not.

Thanks for listening.--Comrade Conrad 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say, "I am a Mongolian-Han mix, do you have a place for me in your definition of China?" I thought this seemed like a very strange question to ask, especially in English to an audience that consists mostly of Western people. Almost everyone in America is of mixed ancestry; I am, by ancestry, a German-Swedish mix. It would hardly occur to me to wonder if I have a place, even though Germany and Sweden are two different countries. Heck, Mongolia and China are already two different countries. Is that a problem? If not, why would it be a problem for Tibet to be independent or self-governing?


 * "So now we have an awkward transition period where China's critics can wag their fingers while sitting comfortably in their ethnically cleansed countries." One hears this sort of argument a lot and maybe it's true ... but does it matter? If other people do something they shouldn't do, does that have anything to do with what you should do?


 * "I don't like how the CCP treats Chinese people everywhere, not just in Tibet." Look, I could say, "I don't like the way U.S. government treats people everywhere, not just in Iraq, but in America, too." And that would be true. But it would be wrong to conclude that those are the same situation. The U.S. government should do a better job running America, but it should simply leave Iraq. And, no, that doesn't mean that Iraqi-Americans have to leave America ... why would it?


 * You contradict yourself by implying that Tibet now has religious freedom, but then pointing out PSB control of monasteries and the ban on pictures of the Dalai Lama. What you apparently mean to say is "Tibet would have religious freedom, except that it doesn't because ..." Look, everyone knows the Dalai Lama is the most important figure in Tibetan Buddhism. If people aren't free to have pictures of him, then they don't have religious freedom. A monastery that is run under the control of the Public Security Bureau does not have religious freedom. To accuse them of plotting insurrection and sedition&mdash;which is probably not true&mdash;is an excuse. Maybe it's a good excuse, maybe it's a bad one, but, either way, it's not religious freedom.


 * What about the Panchen Lama? Are monks in Tibet free to decide which of the two Panchen Lamas is the real one? Why not? Why did Chadrel Rinpoche spend six years in prison for his role in identifying Gedhun Choekyi Nyima? Are you going to tell me that this poor kid who has been held outside of Tibet since he was 6 years old, who has never made a public appearance in his life&mdash;are you going to tell me that he is plotting an insurrection? Why is the government afraid of him?


 * You ask, "Do you really think Tibetans want someone to take away their televisions, movie theaters, schools and hospitals?" Of course not. Why would you think that? Who said anything about taking those things away? Where did you get an idea like that?


 * You observe, "Today Lhasa is a developed city with highrise buildings, Mercedes on the paved roads, Tibetans in shopping malls buying gold watches." Have you ever been actually to Lhasa? I don't mean to say that there are no tall buildings at all, but, when you go there, the main impression you get is not, "Wow, look at all these highrise buildings!"; and, trust me, it's certainly not "Wow, look at these Tibetans with gold watches!"


 * "For example China is promoting autonomy for Tibet, but autonomy cannot become cultural segregation which would only produce more problems later." Are you serious? Do you really believe that? Where is this "autonomy" that China is promoting in Tibet? When was the last time the leader of the TAR (i.e. the Communist Party secretary) was even from Tibet -- Han, Hui, Zang, anybody who actually lived in Tibet before becoming its leader? Never, that's when. What kind of autonomy is that?


 * You know, it's easy to be against sovereignty when you are the largest country in the world. You never have to worry about your country being completely swamped by some larger neighbour. That said, China still isn't actually against sovereignty: they still want to control what goes in inside their own borders, which is normal. But, if we are really all in favour of everybody living together in harmony and of "assimilation" and we're against "cultural segregation", how about this: China turns Tibet over to the United Nations, so it can be governed under international control. I'm sure the Tibetan nationalist side would agree to that in a heartbeat. As a bonus, I'm sure the UN would buy them a lot of new railroads and hospitals. How about that?&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)