China tries to appeal to Obama by equating Tibet with U.S. slavery

[Newsjock]

Source: The Globe and Mail

Was Mao Zedong the Abraham Lincoln of China?

In an attempt to convince U.S. President Barack Obama of its claim to Tibet, the Chinese government has likened the 1959 Communist takeover of the area to the American Civil War, inferring that Mao freed Tibetans from slavery much as Lincoln ended slavery in the United States.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang suggested that Mr. Obama – who arrives in China this weekend on his first presidential visit – should understand China's controversial Tibet policy better than other world leaders because “he is a black president and he understands the slavery abolition movement.” Mr. Obama claims Mr. Lincoln as a hero who, he says, helped make it possible for someone of part African descent to win the White House.

... Tibetan groups ridiculed the comparison. “It is an insult for the unelected and authoritarian Chinese government to suggest that an instinctive democrat such as Abraham Lincoln would have sided with China in seeking to deny the Tibetan people their fundamental right to determine their own future,” said Matt Whitticase, a spokesman for the Free Tibet campaign.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-tries-to-appeal-to-obama-by-equating-tibet-with-us-slavery/article1361525/

[David__77]

1. The Chinese spokesman is right.

It is a truth that there was slavery in Tibet in 1959. The slavery was indeed abolished at this point. You will find Mao's picture in many Tibetans homes (the ones who actually live in Tibet). On the other hand, there are many who want a separate Tibetan state, and it cannot be stated that they simple want to return to the slave-owning aristocratic system. The question of the Tibet and Tibetan self-determination is not a simple one to me.

[DissedByBush]

7. From one slavery to another

with a bit of genocidal treatment along the way.

And why would Obama understand slavery because he's black? That's kind of a racist assumption. Obama's African ancestry missed slavery in this country by about a hundred years.

[David__77]

15. African Americans understand the importance of fighting slavery.

There's little doubt about that.

[DissedByBush]

35. I could see in the case of Michelle Obama

She can go back to family that was under slavery.

Barack Obama can't trace his cultural roots under slavery any more than I can. The only reason he has his skin color is because of an African father he barely saw. Otherwise, he was mainly raised white middle-class.

[dschis]

2. Both of you have a point

[msongs]

3. ok china freed slaves....now, free tibet nt

[Sultana]

4. +1

[Vehl]

30. +1 .nt

[David Zephyr]

43. +1

.

[FarLeftRage]

5. Wrong analogy...

The chinese have committed a cultural and ethnic GENOCIDE against the natives of Tibet.

So, this is more like what the Spaniards did in central and south America

[AlphaCentauri]

10. Could it be more like the Native Americans GENOCIDE

and the construction of reservations as independent nations?

[naaman fletcher]

6. I always find the Free Tibet crowd amusing..

A bunch of Americans who call themselves liberal yearning for a Fascist state. The Dalai Lama's were Fascists ruling a near-feudal state. There was no freedom or liberty, and there was rank discrimination against women, homosexuals, and others.

What's next, demanding that Memel and the Sudetenland be restored to Fascist rule?

Yeah I know that Buddhism is cool in Seattle, but please stop making fools of yourselves.

[BigBluenoser]

14. While I wouldn't use the same language you used...

I do agree on some points. Reinstating a feudal theocracy would not be in anyone's interest (except the former religious-nobility).

The problem is no one really has much leverage on China to get/convince/compel them to do anything. They are the dominant regional power, a near super power military & economic state and their manufacturing industry supplies the world. As such, Tibet will be "freed" (whatever the hell that will mean) when China has a damned good reason to do it. It's a great card to be able to play if they need an out if their foreign & economic policies ever get them in trouble. "We are sorry. We give you Tibet. Now, could I interest you in these Ralph Lauren Polos and a case of dog food?"

[David__77]

17. China cannot allow its dismemberment territorially.

Unless of course they want to completely disintegrate itself as a state. It would be like what happened to Yugoslavia. "Inner Mongolia," "East Turkestan," all sorts of small enclaves of minority nationalities, would be segmented - all the easier to be dominated by Western capital. China should definitely increase its economic subsidies to these areas, Tibet included, continue to exempt them from the "one child" policy, and do much more to promote the use of indigenous languages and the growth of local culture. Economic development is good, but people need more than that too. And allowing one bit of Han chauvinism just opens the door to separatism and strife such as was seen in Xinjiang in recent times.

[Vehl]

19. BS, Tibet was NOT China except for a SMALL time period in the past

China has no claim on Tibet Whatsoever. IF every country were to annex another based on "1500 years ago one of our kings got tribute from/ruled part of this country for like...50 years"..then according to Chinese logic,all of south Asia, and half of south east Asia will be annexed by India, Almost half of Europe Annexed by Turkey, and half of Spain by the Moors..and parts of Korea by the Japanese.


I'm astounded that you would go onto say that China giving up Tibet will result in its Dismemberment! :thumbsdown:

According to you(and the Chinese argument) any country, ever invaded in the distant past by another(even if it was but for a brief time period) has no claim of sovereignty when one of those "ancient invaders" invade it again and annex it nowadays?.


China has no claim on Tibet and should pack up and leave, along with its Han colonizers.

[David__77]

23. My argument had nothing to do with the legitimacy of China's borders.

Borders, many of them, are founded on great crimes and injustices. Like the US border, for instance. China may not be an exception. Regardless of that, the dissolution of China's borders and its segmentation into multiple states would lead to many social problems as have been seen in other regions in recent times.

[Vehl]

26. And we should worry if China gets fragmented?...dont invade if u dont want to risk anything :)

Btw..IF china was really worried about dissension within its borders, it should not have invaded Tibet in the first place. Already the Uighur's and other cultures of western China are chaffing under the Chinese rule. China really cannot expect to rule them forever under its Military Jackboot, as they have done for the past 60 years.

Why bring in the border disputes us had with Mexico a hundred years or more ago? surely you do not intend to say that the UN resolutions about the rights of sovereign nations and people mean nothing..or do you?

[David__77]

32. The analogy is correct.

In fact, one hundred years from now, the Uighur or Tibetan nationalists will probably be viewed like the "Aztlan" separatists of the US. This is because "facts on the ground" will be that these regions will be very ethnically mixed and socially, culturally, and economically integrated with the rest of China. It is likely there will even be a Han majority in these areas. I'm not defending that, but it does probably mean that they will remain part of China.

[NuttyFluffers]

37. i strongly doubt it. at best it will be like Ukraine and Russia.

China is grotesquely exaggerated in just about every venue. this is a mere freak blip in history -- it will rectify itself rather fast. China has the people and the bureaucracy, it just never had the temperament and political/military skill to hold. and those regions will *never* give up. they are just far too different, just as Korea and Japan and Vietnam are far too different to be culturally absorbed and overwhelmed by China, and that was when they were pretty much the only game in town, pre-1000 CE. and the best the Chinese were able to do is hold onto Vietnam for 1000 years -- and lose.

sounds pretty, won't happen.

[provis99]

40. China has the oldest right in the book to Tibet

the Right of Ownership by Conquest; the same right the Israeli government makes to Palestinian land.

[mitchum]

34. Absolutely!

I have also been befuddled and amused for those same reasons.

[Lilith Velkor]

8. ...

[AlphaCentauri]

9. I didn't know there were elected officials in Tibet

Do they have elections?

“It is an insult for the unelected and authoritarian Chinese government..... "

[DissedByBush]

12. There are "elected" officials all over China

But "elected" doesn't mean much in a one-party dictatorship.

[Coventina]

11. Perfect analogy. Remember that genocide Lincoln launched

against Southerners?

:eyes:

:puke:

[David__77]

16. What genocide did the Chinese launch?

I really don't understand...

[Vehl]

20. OK.....this settles it....you know zilch about what you are talking about.

No need for me to waste my time replying to you anymore.

:)

[David__77]

22. lol

People love to throw the term "genocide" around.

[Coventina]

25. Well, according to my Webster's dictionary: Genocide -

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

The shoe fits like the PRC was Cinderella!! And not just in regards to Tibet.

[Vehl]

28. lol indeed....

sure...Hundreds of monasteries, and places of Tibetian culture were NOT destroyed
None of the dissenter's families had to pay for the bullet that the PRC used to execute those who stood up for their rights
Thousands of Tibetans are NOT killed/arrested tortured by the PRC for wanting their rights!

no genocide at all
:sarcasm:


and yeah whats that? some Tibetans having the portrait of Mao in their homes?.lol. Guess what, not too long ago, thousands of Frenchmen had the portrait of Hitler in their homes ...in Vichy France. Surely the Allies should have realized that these people "loved the advances and just-rule brought by the Great 3rd Reich" and let them be?. God-forbid that we(allies) attacked a nation that "loves" the who conquered it! oh wait..we did! damn!


Anyone who is familier with the Chinese occupation of Tibet knows that almost ALL reporters have "minders" assigned to them. and even if the "minders" might stay away from following a reporter into a house(when the reporter is about to conduct an interview), the poor people in the house know full well that if they were to utter anything negative about the PRC, not just their lives, but those of their kith and kin would be forfeit. So yeah...some had the portrait of Mao in their house...how surprising!

[Coventina]

24. check your inbox

I just sent you a PM.

:hi:

[Vehl]

29. just did, tks :)

:hi:

[Regret My New Name]

33. I would like to be educated...

I don't mean that in a snarky way either... I just hate it when I'm reading two groups of people debate and then one side resorts to something similar to: "If you don't know then you're never going to know"...

[Vehl]

39. see #28 for starters. nt

[Deja Q]

21. Oh, "an instinctive democrat" like Lincoln too...

He was a Republican...

[Brickbat]

13. Well, China would know from slavery.

This is really a bit much.

[Vehl]

18. Two words. B*** S***!

China has no right whatsoever to hold onto Tibet. Let the people decide.(and what i mean by the People are the Tibetans..not the Han Chinese colonists who were transplanted by the Chinese government to change the demography of Tibet)

And for those who ask "what cultural genocide", my answer would be to get some knowledge about the subject before posting such Q's :)
Whats next? are the Junjaweed in Darfur(supported by China btw) doing something similar(saving people from slavery :crazy: ) to the Darfurians too? Sheesh!

[IDFbunny]

27. China has the right of conquest.

They did it and western liberal hand wringing isn't going to undo it.

[KamaAina]

31. So where is their 40 hectares and a yak?

:shrug:

[ChangoLoa]

36. Progressives defending imperialism?

Tibet was indeed a feudal kingdom when Mao invaded it. Uighurs were also organized in a feudal way. So what?

Who gave the right to the Chinese to intervene in theses people's own historical process?

Who says more "advanced" countries can annexe other countries on the basis that their social/political organization is "better"?

What I see here is the good old colonialist argument!

19th century French/British claiming that they were on a "cilivizationist" mission in Africa/Asia, fighting, for example, against the feudal Algerian/Indian/Vietnamese societies for their "own good".
They intended to bring "modernity"... hmm.

16th century spaniards in America, fighting against warrior empires who practiced human sacrifices... Jesus Christ!
Spain had to bring them to the "lights of christianity"... hmm.

etc..
etc..
etc..

[Vehl]

38. Agreed. The apologists here dont want to think such thoughts at all.

Its sickening. But then again this is a free country so people can post whatever they like...maybe if they think the invasion is a-ok they should move to Tibet and live under the "benevolent" Chinese rule :)

If they do that they will change their current worldview sooner than the time it would take one to type "mao"
:P

[ChangoLoa]

45. Chinese methods of colonization became clear to me when I traveled through Turkestan/"Xinjiang"

Segregation, exclusion from the modern parts of the cities, strong permanent repression, destruction of cultural patrimony...

Another example is how the government builds many penitentiaries in Turkestan/"Xinjiang", sends Han prisoners from the east coast and forces them to settle down in the region once they are out.

[provis99]

41. I just read this whole thread, and didn't see anyone defend imperialism.

Why don't you read the whole thread too, before you start making stupid accusations.

[ChangoLoa]

44. You need to learn how to understand a question mark

before you start making pointless personal attacks. "Stupid accusations": ironical much?

And the good old colonialist argument I mentioned was the one made by "Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang" in the OP is was replying to...

[Hekate]

42. Oh. My. God. The Tibetans are a separate people with their own language...

The Chinese have had 50+ years to practice cultural genocide on them. Ethnic Chinese have been and are being imported and every effort is being made to stamp out the written language and culture of the native Tibetans. If you want to get an education at all you must get it in Chinese.

I can't believe we are having this argument about Tibet and China at DU again -- the ignorance is frightening.

I have faith that Barack Obama knows better than to believe any of this crap, while at the same time being enough of a diplomat to not laugh in Qin Gang's face.

Hekate