Why China is No Longer a Communist Country

The China Teaching Web ^ | 7/24/2008 | Robert Vance

[robertvance]

While Mao’s body has been amazingly preserved since his death in 1976, it seems that his spirit has not survived the test of time. He may lie in eternal peace inside his Mausoleum but the world around him has changed considerably; China is no longer the gray and drab country that it was during Mao’s time. It is now a place where people can dream and then go out and make that dream come true. It is not like the old days. People other than just high government officials can drive cars. Chinese people can do business and store up wealth for themselves. Peasants can go to the university now; finding food to eat is no longer such a grave concern. Just around the corner from where Chairman Mao lies in State, the American restaurant chain McDonald’s is full of Chinese people enjoying greasy food and a cool environment. Inside homes, people can watch Western movies on DVD and even occasionally on state owned television. The world is just a mouse click away for the millions of Chinese people who have access to the Internet. Friends and family are no longer afraid of discussing politics with each other. It is even acceptable to criticize the government behind closed doors. All this is happening as Chairman Mao sleeps peacefully at Tiananmen Square. If only he knew.

[D-fendr]

Any conversations with surviving monks?

Meet any from Lhasa Drepung formerly the largest monastery in Tibet with 10,000 monks?

As they exercise their freedom to practice their faith as you describe: Are they free to choose their religious leader? Are they free to rebuild the thousands of destroyed monasteries?

Did you happen meet any Tibetans who were small children whom the chinese forced to pull the trigger to kill their parents?

Do you, personally, support the return of freedom for Tibet?

[D-fendr]

One last question if you will:

Could you describe in more detail what “Han-itize” Tibet means - it’s means and result for Tibet and its history and culture.

[compound w]

In Tibet schools, for example, they teach entirely in Mandarin with little or no use of Tibetan language. The Chinese appear to be aiming for a situation in which native culture is kept entirely within the private realm or is rendered into mostly show and ceremony in the public realm. Chinese leaders seem to think this is the appropriate way to integrate Tibetans into larger Chinese society. This kind of model seems to have worked in Inner Mongolia, but it remains to be seen whether it will “work” in Tibet.

One thing I did not mean by “Han-itize” was literal genocide. The Dalli Lama calls it “cultural genocide,” but I think that goes way too far.

[compound w]

I believe that Tibet is now part of China. You make a number of assertions that are difficult to evaluate without reliable evidence. I’m sure there has been repression. But as is often the case, the most extreme claims are not always the most reliable.

[compound w]

Sorry for being late, I’m just catching up on some of your slams. You think this guy and me are the same?

I’d say you’re the one drinking kook aid and if “trolling” is anything like “baiting,” or like “baiting” instead of discussing, then I’d say the term can be applied to the old as well as the new around here.

[D-fendr]

I believe that Tibet is now part of China.

That would be correct; you likely are aware of the invasion of Tibet, perhaps. My question was whether you support that invasion and ongoing rule of Tibet by China.

I’m sure there has been repression.

Your research is correct here.

You make a number of assertions that are difficult to evaluate without reliable evidence.

What would you consider reliable evidence - what are reliable sources to you?

The Chinese appear to be aiming for a situation in which native culture is kept entirely within the private realm or is rendered into mostly show and ceremony… Chinese leaders seem to think this is the appropriate way to integrate Tibetans into larger Chinese society.

And what do you think of this? Is it appropriate and is it "integration"?

it remains to be seen whether it will “work” in Tibet.

Work for whom? How do you define 'work' in this usage?

The Dalli Lama (sic) calls it “cultural genocide,” but I think that goes way too far.

So in your view, not being permitted to speak Tibetan or to be Tibetan in public, or practice of Tibetan religion in freedom will not cause the death of Tibetan culture.

Really?

[compound w]

I think I’ll just say that you and I disagree on many of the facts in question and leave it at that for now.

[D-fendr]

I used your facts and asked for your opinions in the last reply, but it would be interesting to see which facts we disagree on. I think it is a fact that China invaded, crushed and now brutally rules Tibet - cruelly, illegally and unjustly.

If you disagree with this fact then we will certainly disagree on them all.

And, if you can serve in good conscience as an apologist for China on this recent history, then I believe your credibility on China today is doubtful.

thanks for your reply.

[compound w]

I have two points. First, I judge China based on what I consider to be amazing changes that have occured in its society, economy, and politics over the past couple of decades. Second, I judge the situation in Tibet based on information I’ve gathered from sources I trust. I’ll grant you that they may not have the entire picture and that more reliable evidence might give me a different view.

But I don’t believe every source that claims some attrocity occured, whether it’s said to have occured in Tibet, Israel, or Gitmo.

[D-fendr]

In reply to those two points:

1) What change can overcome the continued oppression of an entire people?

2) Forget atrocities, do your sources convince you that Tibet deserved or wished to be invaded, conquered and ruled by China?

[compound w]

If “oppression of an entire people” means the same thing today as it meant 20, 30, 40 years ago or more, then one can only conclude that the Chinese people are immensely less “oppressed” than they were in previous years.

China claims territorial possession over the area known as Tibet. Maybe they’re wrong. I know that America has also claimed possession of lands claimed by others. Maybe we were wrong. But the reality today is that the world seems to recognize China’s sovereignty over that land. If some Tibetans disagree and wish to engage in violent acts to undo what has happened, that’s fine. But I wouldn’t expect China to allow them to do this.

[D-fendr]

the Chinese people are immensely less “oppressed”

I was speaking of the Tibetan people.

China claims territorial possession over the area known as Tibet.

They do a great bit more than "claim". Their dead victims wish they only claim, and your phrasing exposes your tacit approval of their murders.

Maybe they’re wrong.

Tepid.

But the reality today is that the world seems to recognize China’s sovereignty over that land.

Debatable and irrelevant.

If some Tibetans disagree and wish to engage in violent acts to undo what has happened

Orwellian.

But I wouldn’t expect China to allow them to do this.

I expect them to be true to their character and brutally repress those who desire freedom. However, I would not include this in your list of "amazing changes" in politics.

My point is still: If you can remain blind or neutral to China's past and current actions in this, your credibility and opinion on China in other areas is worthless.

Thanks for your reply.

[compound w]

Just one last thing. It hardly seems “debatable and irrelevant” that most of the world, including the U.S., accepts China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Though I suppose it can be debated, as can any point, it seems quite significant to me that the key arguments being heard are that China should act more democratically toward Tibetans, not that they should quit the region and leave them alone.