mightygoobi, I shudder to think how articulate you are in your first and second languages, because that amazing post is far above what I expect from most people who speak English as a first language. Very interesting post. Thanks.

Thank you kindly ghostwes - I'm glad I was able to be understood. It frustrates me that it takes me far longer to write in English than 99% of the people on this board. And as I ended my monologue just then, I try

I'm hoping that the next generation of Chinese people from my country will be able to articulately discuss international issues, in English, with as much skill as you do over there in the States. Here in China, there are endless articles, newspaper publications, letters to the editor in Mandarin where we decry how bad western media is, how the world picks on us, how life is unfair, how XXX is biased etc. etc.

But that's like preaching to the converted. Until we learn to speak, write and communicate in English better, we're always going to be at a huge disadvantage.

Whether it be Tibet, human rights, Darfur etc. we do a terrible terrible job of putting forward our point of view. I'm not saying we're right. I am saying there are many different reflections on any story - but the Chinese voice is rarely heard.

It's not enough for us just to issue Mandarin press releases. Mandarin is a very different language to English. We are improving - we now have translators, interpreters and government officials that are good with grammar and syntax. But what we don't have are people who translate 'meaning'. Mandarin is a language naturally filled with flowery prose - we don't have 'normal' names like Beijing or Tian An Men. In our language, they are 'City of the North' and 'Gate of Heavenly Peace'. My own 'real' name is 'He who is brilliant and magnificent'. In Mandarin, such names sound normal - if you DON'T have such a name, it's weird. But you can't just translate 'mightygoobi' into 'He who is brilliant and magnificent' and expect western based and educated people to take you seriously.

When our government officials, when our Olympic's spokespeople, when our media agents talk about China in English, we sound like Chairman Mao from the 60s. I KNOW it sounds bad and I cringe. I sigh every time I see us simply taking our 'flowery prose' of Mandarin, translating it into English with perfect grammar and coming out with "The glorious People's Republic of China shall never accept the tyrants who chose to split the motherland and terrorists who attack the soul of the People who believe in the unifying harmony of the Olympic spirit" (published today in the English press here in Beijing).

I'm sorry to the original poster - I've diverted WAY off the topic. I should end my ranting

... and I compltely agree with the first reply to this thread. We should build more Entertainment Networks.

Well, now you're insulting me. I'm Canadian, sir, not American

In fact, I have three Canadian friends who are teaching English in China right now. Most ESL teachers seem to go to South Korea these days--formerly, it was Japan--but China seems to be becoming a big one. That's good. There's not much else for Canadian university students to do after graduation -- we have to send them somewhere!

I get what you are saying about China's bad PR. I think the same can be said of Iran right now, actually, as this amusing blog post shows:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/04/those-clever-dastardly-iranians.html

Hey, I am the original poster, and aftear that amazing post you had, I dont care what you post. I am going give karma for that China post because that is one of best I have heard. And also you were not that off topic, you should see how off topic people can be.

Sorry I did not finsih my comment. Does any body know why China invaded Tibet?

This is becoming horribly addictive. The original reason I logged on here was to find some MODS for Galciv2 and I'm now writing essays on China. My apologies for the lengths of my posts.  

Tibet is such a big issue that it probably deserves it's own thread - and this thread is becoming the 'China and it's various things' thread so I guess such talk should neverthless belong in here.

Rather than post a very subjective one liner answer to "why did China invade Tibet", might I offer my understanding of China / Tibetan history. As mentioned in my first post, I am NO historian, I'm a gamer - so the following is likely loaded with inaccuracies. This is however my understanding of some important historical events.


i) Way back in the Tang dynasty (approximately 600-900 I think), there was no 'one China' as such, just lots of little feuding tribes. With dozens of rival tribes around, the Han and Tibetan tribes try to find ways to stay alive and kill others - so they come up with the marriage of a Han prince to a Tibetan princess in 641AD - which appears to be the first high level formal linking of the two tribes. The Han tribe, with the Tibetan tribe, comes to dominate and this is seen as China's first'golden age'... lots of art, culture, free sex, trade and poetry. China's only female emperor rules during this period. Women hunt with men, rich families sponsor poets and plays, huge temples and art galleries are built etc. China's borders are blurry, and it's difficult to say that there is one country at this stage as opposed to 'a block of land ruled by a Han / Tibetan / Hui (another tribe) mixed-blood coalition'.

ii) Hurtling forward to the Yuan dynasty (1200-1400 or so), the Han of the Tang dynasty have fallen into decline. A new tribe from the north west, the Mongols ride in and wipe the floor with Han blood. The Tibetans and Mongols get on pretty well. Kublai Khan, leader of the Mongols, unifies China (unifies meaning kills all the Han leaders) and in 1279 founds the Yuan dynasty. Tibet, and in fact all of China (Shanghai, Xi'an, Guandong etc. but not Beijing since it formally doesn't exist at this time... though I seem to remember the Mongols had their own name for the tiny village that would one day become China's capital)) is part of this 'Khan' empire. The Mongol tribe dominates.

iii) Around 1400, the Yuan dynasty comes to an end (the Han rise up against the Mongols, the Mongols decide it's not worth it, get on their horses and ride back home). Ming dynasty starts and the Han are back in power again - this time without Hui or Tibetan partnership.

iv) Around 1600, the Han fall (rise and fall, rise and fall... history of China) and the Manchu tribe comes along and wipes out all the leaders - thus starting the Qing dynasty (I think it's intersting that 'dynasty' is a euphemism for 'civil war in which we assassinate all the leaders we don't like and put our own people in'). The Manchu's are in power for a long time... about 300 years to around 1900. This was the 2nd golden age of China. I think (though am not certain) that this period is the first time China adopted it's formal name of 'Middle Kingdom' - the thinking being that we are the masters of the universe and so everyone has got to kowtow to us. There's plenty of stories (which China LOVES to tell) of foreign dignataries from Italy, Japan, France etc. all queuing up to deliver tributes (Italian marble, French pianios, Persian spices etc.) to the mighty powerful Manchu rulers. In fairness though, the Chinese name for foreign lands is usually very poetic (England = Kingdom of Heroes; Germany = Kingdom of morality; the United States = Kingdom of beauty... don't ask me why, I don't know.. but we use these names even till today).

Mainland China says that Tibet (and everyone else in the world) worshipped the Manchu during this time and were eager to associate with the Manchu leaders. Some Tibetans point to the decadence of the period (prostitution, corruption, open gang warfare) flourishing of the opium drug trade, subjugation of Shanghai by foreign countries as signs of an empire in decline and a leadership it would never want to be associated with. One by one, the Manchu's lose wars (and land) against the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans and the Russians.

In 1912, the last of China's imperial dynasties ends. The Qing dynasty and the Qing emperor is the last. Sun Yat Sen formally declares the birth of the People's Republic of China. As part of this birth, it is announced that the five major 'tribes' - the Han, the Manchu, the Tibetans, the Mongols and the Hui would come together to form a new Republic (there are of course lots and lots of other smaller tribes, but these 5 are the big ones that have at one time had historical 'control' of China).

Mainland China says this declaration is formally accepted by all tribes who are tired of war and finally able to come to a unified peace under one flag, one country, one government, one anthem, one Constitution. Some Tibetans says that whilst certain traitor Tibetans were happy to associate with this new country, real Tibetans have been hungering for their own country since 1300 and Tibet never wanted to be part of the new Republic.

From 1950, parts of Tibet seek to declare independence from mainland China - claiming subjugation by the Han controlled new Chinese government (the Communist Party of China) and that they never wanted to or accepted being dominated by a foreign tribe. In 1959, things come to a head with open rioting in the streets. After extended violence, the government of China authorises the use of military troops to restore order. Mainland China says this was a very very last resort, after years of attempts to quell rioting and develop peace through dialogue and diplomacy - and that military troops were under strict instructions to show maximum restraint recognising that this was sure to be high on international media radars and that the goal was to win the heart of Tibet, not stomp it into the ground. Parts of Tibet say this was invasion of their soverign soil and that the attempts at dialogue were shams aimed at destroying Tibetan culture and replacing it with Han - and that military troops were brutal and violated all manner of human rights.

It is at this time that the present Dalai Lama flees Tibet.

Oh God... I have GOT to stop writing so much. Anyone else from China, please feel free to correct me - I'm certain I don't know it all. (and sorry to Nequa... I now acknowledge you are Canadian and not American .... though I must admit I can not tell the difference in look or accent. Similarly, I'm pretty certain most western people confuse China, Japan and Korea... after all, we're all "Asian".

Why do we in The United States have a hard on for Iran and for Mahmūd Ahmadinejād in particular?

Can you say Hostages? Can you say 444 days? Sure you can.

Now the current President Mahmūd Ahmadinejād, was one of the student leaders involved in the taking of the embassy back in 1979. Most people do not recall this as it has not really been brought up all that much.
Do not underestimate this man. The press often pokes fun at him but he did not get where he is by being stupid! He is very very dangerous and needs to be dealt with accordingly. (Not that the Bush Administration knows how to properly deal with it, but that is another story)

Another thing many people forget (That I make a point of reminding people about) is that there was one country that placed its own people in jeopardy in order to assist The United States during the hostage situation. They gathered together from other embassies all of the Americans who managed not to get captured when the American Embassy was stormed and then they took the passports away from their own people, left their own people stranded in a very hostile country and risked having their embassy taken by the very same people (The Iranian government) and their own people shot for their actions. Their own people offered themselves up to do this, they were not forced to do it, they offered.

This country said nothing to us or anyone else until they had managed to get many Americans out of Iran and to their country. They did this without asking, consulting or even giving us a hint.

They did not make big hay about it when it became public and they have never asked The United States for anything in return.
Their stated reason for doing it? “It was the right thing to do”

Do you know who this country was?

Can you say Canada? Sure you can... One of the great things about living in The United States is that you get to have Canada as a neighbor. (even if they did send us the baldwins)

Look, do you think you could give us a reputable link or... something... for all these "facts" that you post? There is no proof that he was involved in the hostage situation. Even the CIA doesn't seem to think he was involved, and if there was ever an organization that would claim it to be true, even if it wasn't... well, suffice to say, I think I'll go with "not guilty" on this one, your honour.

Here's some reading material for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

Sure, it's a wikipedia link, but you can follow the sources and investigate it for yourself, ok?

And I'm still waiting for some kind of source to support your claim that Ahmadinejad "threatened to destroy the world"...



You're very welcome, but... the Baldwins? Who?

oops.. I should have acknowledged Ghostwes, not Nequa as Canadian. My apologies. I would have editted my above post... but don't know how.

this is a messed up form, oviously america is gona get pissed at sum one do sumthing stupid and start a war, and or the middle east stop's suppling oil and we take it from them and that starts a war.

Either way this happens america will always be a superpower, but if america isn't a super power then no other country's will every be as powerful as it or we will take them down wit us,
america wont go down without a fight. If its economic crash, european countries are recruired 2 help america, this in turn the only way 2 destroy america and or weaken it is wit force. this will create a world war and inturn=armageden

(don't mind spelling) i'm young.

Already in the process.



This isn't about America being destroyed by another nation or group of nations. It's about America destroying itself (through rapid over-consumption, etc.) This is about another nation becoming economically and culturally dominant. However, like I stated in posts before, the American army does work in the interests of corporate America. The war in Iraq displays this point exactly.



Not likely. Many empires have risen and fallen over the thousands of years of human civilization, and none have produced the armageddon. The Mongol Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen, and it's fall was gradual. The English Empire controlled approximately 1/4 of the world's population, and it's decline didn't occur with armageddon. As long as America has its army, it will remain a superpower. However, if America cannot support itself, then it will no longer be able to support its army.

I will have to get back to you on this one as I am pressed for time today. I know that sounds like a cop out but please bear with me. I try to make sure that my links are reputable and that is not always evident on first blush, it takes a lot of time to check out those who are supposidly checking out details.

But I will say this much. I do not have at my finger tips the needed info to back up my statements, I will have to dig it up.

Given the ridiculous claims you've been posting in this forum, I won't be holding my breath, but OK, whatever. Maybe you know more about this than the CIA does.

However, couldn't you have at least answered the question about the Baldwins?

Goobi you just hit edit and you change what you need

Goobi

Dont apologise - not for a moment. Personally I find it refreshing to hear different perspectives from those in the middle of current events, and not just a repost of whats printed elsewhere. We humans are great ones for the herd instinct, jumping on popularist bandwagons stiffling original thought and reasoning.

So dont stop, the more varied the membership here, the wider the areas in the world, the more interesting it becomes. There's a great quote I love often attributed to Edmond Burke, but no one really knows if it was his or not:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"

As long as there are a few good people around not afraid to speak up, the former will never happen.

Addictive? Sure is!


Regards
Zy