True, but I am sure that chinese people also want the freedom to protest and live somewhere where the government is less opressive. The Chinese people and the people of Tibet both want the same thing. Freedom Thats such a cop out. Infinity is just being infinity, but from our lower limited perspetive we can choose to live at a higher level.
Sure as Chinese grow richer, they will demand for more democracy, but what makes you think that they will allow Tibet to secede from China? Demanding democracy for themselves is one issue, giving Tibet freedom is another issue. Something to do with their concept of unity of their homeland which includes Taiwan.
Well thats why I think Autonomy is a much more viable aim than independance. I think as a people they recognise tibetan heritige, culture and its autonomy, and to accept that diversity as part of china they need to give it a greater level of autonomy.
I can't help but think of the Soviet Union in this respect. The very basis of the Soviet constitution was a presumption - never followed - of "national autonomy" within the Soviet sphere. While the pastiche of the nations as disparate as the asiatic and balkan SSRs was maintained - the "national festivals" of the various peoples, in their color and pageantry in costume and dance - we all know it was a colonial system, an exploitative extractive system that sought the destruction of national and cultural autonomy under the hegemony of the Soviet empire. The same obtains here, on a much smaller scale. There is nothing of "Tibet" in what is in place now, nor will there ever be, absent independence. Game over.
As long as it exists in the hearts and minds of the people, it still exists. And with regards to the old soviet union, all these countries now have that independance again.
I'm married to an Estonian, so, yep, I know what it is to persist. But the SU only collapsed when it could no longer control the tide. Personally, I think it started well before Gorbachev, who only recognized the reality. The much overused "paradigm shift" among the young, urban intelligentsia meant perestroika was already moving when it became official. Once the SU could no longer credibly maintain its empire, it collapsed. The national chorales in Estonia (my aunt in law attended), when for the first time in decades, national songs were song in packed stadia, and Soviet soliders simply said "screw it" and walked home, happened as a result of collapse - and did not cause it. I see nothing similar in place in China with respect to Tibet. So long as it can, China will hold on to its colony. And the signs are only strengthening that China will be quite capable of not only that, but more.
Then its time to plant those seeds. There is dissent in china, and I forsee a time in the future where with increased prosperity, access to information and globalisation will cause a that critical mass of people demanding change. As to the chinese people moving to tibet, they are either running from something, or looking for something, either way, they are probably just as unhappy with the chinese government as the tibetans are. And at the end of they day, would you prefer to try to make a change and believe it is possible, or just say why bother. I prefer to believe in a better future.
I beg to differ, in Tibet case, I will say "Why Bother" there isn't really any chances for them at all.
Don't get me wrong, Dark - I'd love it, for many personal reasons as stated above, as well as a general sense of deep compassion for the people in both countries. And it well may be that a similar generational shift in "apparatchiks" may come along, as they did in the SU, fomenting the kind of change that led to perestroika and glasnost. But to do so, we must see a profound levelling of the differences between the China of today, and the SU of the late '80's and early '90's. One crucial difference between the two times and places is that the SU was economically strained to the hilt, and the mobilization engendered by the rise of this young intelligentsia only put the spark to a conflagration ready to light. China, on the other hand, is on the verge of an economic boon century. It's my general bent, going back to my days at Berkeley, anyway, that regimes facing domestic insurgency on the order of the SU's "new generation" can essentially buy off would be troublesome coalitions by largesse. What Ernest Gellner in his book Nations and Nationalism calls danegeld. China has a lot of danegeld. As the two situations are radically different from one another, unfortunately, I am led to conclude as I do.
Not sure if this was to me or not, but I'm not "out," if so. It's just what I see, based on what I see is, or isn't in place.
Was actually to wisdomtool, I intended this thread to be about how to make a change, not should we bother. I fully intend to run a email based marketing campaign, I was thinking a jpeg type flyer distributed via mass email that can be printed out, and since they are jpegs they will not trigger any word based filters. All I really need is someone who can speak chinese and who knows enough about the political situation to help me come up with a powerfull & potent message.
Pardon me, I do have my sympathies with the Tibetans, but have you considered this? You are not in the line of fire, your email or whatsoever campaign may if successful stir up even more radical opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet which would result in more crackdowns and bloodshed.
Yes I have considered this, and its not a thought I lightly dismiss, if anything the message I promote will be one of peace, which is where the wording, translation and content will be critical. This would be why any message I send would be one of tolerance, embracing diversity, freedom for all people, chinese, tibetan or any other ethnic group to have a free voice. I was thinking of quoting chairman mao "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend" The message would have to be one of embracing diversity so as not to stir hatred.
Wisdom has a good point, and I wasn't really thinking of it from that end. As much as it sucks, sovereign states don't really enjoy being called on human rights; with its historical, imperial legacy, China is most especially concerned about the preservation of its sovereignty, and any perception of same. It is, as someone on the thread said in so many words, "touchy." (may have been you, wisdom). Let us not forget that it was under Mao that the "interminable revolution" and the glorious years of the Cultural revolution took place. Dark, I think your idea is good spirited, but a bit incomplete in conception, in terms of its ramifications. International politics is a wily beast - much like the French Revolution, good intentions can blossom to a mother that devours its children. Were your idea to have any impact at all, and I'm not sure it will, I think it might reap more harm than good. Just my opinion, and I applaud your energy here. Just wondering if this can be thought out a bit more.
It is not easy to find someone that cherish such ideals, I do not want to pour cold water over them in such a way. Do find ways that can help the Tibetans grow and be more independent and developed as a society, that in itself being a constructive development will be less likely to incur the wrath of the Chinese government but also help to strengthen the Tibetans' bargaining power and their ability to preserve their culture and not be manipulated at ease by their Chinese overlords. But this is a very delicate operation. I wish you the best though.
Of course. At the end of the day I do want to make a difference but would always lean on the safe side with any message that I propogated, and at the end of the day my end goal is to reach people on the ground more than change the heart of the chinese government directly, at the end of the day a message of peace passed on through social groups and association is a lot safer and more subtle than an open slap to the face of an overly defensive touchy government. if you could pass on a message to the chinese people, what would it be?