Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Is China a comunist country
|
| China is a comunist country |
|
| China is not a comunist country |
|
Total Votes : 29
|
|
(last vote on : May 9 2011 18:29:47)
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
Tibet was never part of China and China never part of Tibet.
The above statement is simply not true. China, to a greater or lesser degree, has exercised suzerainty over Tibet since the 13th century. When China has had a strong central government, it has exercised more direct control over Tibet. When it has had a weak central government, Tibet has had a great deal of autonomy. For instance, during the period 1912-1951, China was in almost constant turmoil, and Tibet experienced very little Chinese authority. At no time, however, has Tibet ever been recognized as an independent, sovereign nation by the international community. When the Chinese went into Tibet in 1951, it was more to re-establish a suzerainty that had lain dormant since 1912, rather than an invasion of an independent country. For example, no foreign government has ever established an embassy in Lhasa, and Tibet has never had formal diplomatic relations with other countries, which is one of the key determinants of a nation's independence and sovereign status. The British attempted to establish some authority in Lhasa with their expedition under Younghusband, but they failed. This is not a justification for China's treatment of Tibet. But if we are to understand the Tibetan issue, we must understand the historical background.
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2011 17:01:42
 |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
Ruphus,
I cant get into it right now, but let's just say that China could hypothetically break the US economy, (which I don't think is true) why would they want to? Why would you want to ruin the market you sell your consumer electronics goods to?
China thinks Americans are big fat chickens that need to plucked of their money. Why would you kill your all best, fattest and most greedy chickens ? You can only eat them once if you slaughter them, and then they are gone. If you keep them alive you can feed them and sell off their feathers.
I didn´t mean that the Chinese would break the US economy, but as it had been said that China was to be getting strong I wanted to make clear how strong it actually already is.
Next, as you correctly mention, China will not use its power to ruin the US economy, however what you can count with is that it will be using its new options to keep not only the USA but foreigners in general from illuminating and critisizing infringements of human rights ( and possible future environmental havoc ). Remember how the US rejected to put themselves under control of the international law court, even reserving the right to free eventually arrested US personal violently?
The new Chinese economical ( hence political ) power will likely mean similar autocracy in international policies.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2011 17:18:51
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to xirdneH_imiJ)
|
|
|
I disagree. Tibetans will tell you they have never have been a part of China and western rationalizations of what constitutes a single nation are not applicable.
China wants so play it both ways, using a Western recognition of what constitutes a nation, while at the same time subjugating Tibet despite the history that Tibet has considered itself a separate country. It's not any business of a Western nation to determine statehood based on whether or not Tibet ever wanted to have a foreign embassy.
Tibet has always been culturally and politically separate from China. Tibet never used the Chinese system of governance, they self governed as a theocracy. Self governance, it can be argued constitutes a single nation. The parallel to this relationship between China and Tibet can be found in North America where the native people practiced various forms of self governance, considered themselves to be sovereign nations, yet did not hold real estate capitals with embassies from France or Germany. China conquered Tibet the same way the Europeans took the lands of North America, both were inhabited by a recognized organized nations.
It just took China long to do it because Tibet was so far away and not useful to them economically until some bright guy in the twentieth century said we need to capture the Western Treasure house. ( Western Treasure House is what the Han call Tibet in fact.) It took the industrial revolution for China to think forward enough to realize they needed to 'own ' Tibet to eventually extract it resources. Now there's a train line that goes from Beijing to Lhasa and it's like the Ave' train of destruction.
China couches it's historical relationship with Tibet in terms of a congenial stewardship, then when it was convenient used that as a rational to say Tibet was historically part of China. The Chinese never had any use for or care for Tibet until it was useful to them. And to this day there is a deep social and cultural disconnect between Han Chinese and Tibetans which serves to illustrate the two countries separateness.
But I suppose history is up for interpretation, it depends on whether you read English, Chinese or Tibetan history books. The official US State Dept. line on Tibet is that Tibet was never its own country, but then we are talking about the same Dept. of State that broke treaties with other North American Nations and took Hawaii.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2011 17:40:03
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
I disagree. Tibetans will tell you they have never have been a part of China and western rationalizations of what constitutes a single nation are not applicable.
I sympathize with Tibetans, but they are the ones who are rationalizing their relationship with China. No one is arguing that Tibetan culture is vastly different from Han Chinese culture. But that is not the question. The historical fact, Tibetan rationalizations notwithstanding, is that since the 13th century China, to a greater or lesser degree, has exercised suzerainty over Tibet. No doubt there have been times when Tibetans felt a sense of independence, but it has been a phantom independence of the mind and spirit. The hard fact is Tibet has never been independent, at least since the 13th century.
I know the "Richard Gere School of History" has enormous influence on some people's thinking regarding Tibet. My advice would be to be wary of a second-rate actor and fourth-rate historian's view of the issue.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2011 18:02:41
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
I sense that we are very close to agreement on this issue.
My point is that history is not a closed book with one solution. And that no matter what the past circumstances were, it does not justify the exile of an accepted ruler or the destruction of a culture. The reason historical readings and continuing scholarship are important to Tibet - China past relations, is that it ultimately works to build a case for China to concede that it needs to work a lot more to make Tibet better for Tibetans who remain there. Since China will not in any foreseeable future let go of Tibet.
I will concede this, for me to have said China was never a part of Tibet and Tibet never a part of China is a poor way of stating historical information, perhaps poised on the edge of hyperbole, because I'm fond of hyperbole. Or, as my history teacher often said, never is a long time. I will state as you did that, Tibet to a lesser or greater degree ruled itself from pre Buddhist times to 1951. But with a heavy emphasis on 'to a greater degree'.
Hows that? Everything is up for discussion, like the details of how it happened.
I also want to be clear I don't have a Free Tibet sticker on my car. If anything it would be "Mao helps me park, ask me how".
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 24 2011 21:24:28
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Is China a comunist country (in reply to xirdneH_imiJ)
|
|
|
To me your sophisticated discours on the matter has been very interesting and impressive.
And it inspired me to a new handle on ethnic sourvereignity.
For instance:
There is a country in the Near East which has its mineral ressources all on one side ( in the territory of a certain ethnicy [ if I spelled that right ] and the fertile agrar area again to another side, with almost nothing in between the two. Leaving the vast part of country and population with null ressources if the several ethnics were to hypothetically devide.
Now, if the current regime there was to be gone one day, it should be foreseeable that foreign powers would instantly fire up ethnic attempts to separation in the way they have done elsewhere, like e.g. in former Yugoslavia.
For one as eventual civil war would initially yield the usual turn over for foreign weapon industry, and secondly as it should be easier to instigate common drain off of mineral ressources when dealing with a smaller fraction of the original country.
For me it would have been clear before that a separation in such a case would be unfair.
Until now, alone for the reason that the country was unified ( once actually over much bigger territory ) and grown historically, but after your discussion on Tibet, now for a further reason too.
Which would be roughly as follows:
If a certain ethnic area of a country was traditionally and self-evidently part of the whole, it shouldn´t separate in the aftermath either, only for to exploit local ressources alone ( leaving the rest of the nation on its own ).
Has the unity however been opposed traditionally ( hence before mineral ressources became evident factor ) for reason of cultural souvereignity, respectively suppression of it, attempts to separation should be just legit.
Thank you, guys, for helping me think!
Ruphus
PS.
Watch how the survey stats above has developed progressively intelligent, with initially China been vastly selected as "communist" and % indicators meanwhile having changed quite some.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 25 2011 18:52:28
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
6.640625E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
