| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
asleepingpig
China75 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:17 MK wrote: what what what ? how can you tell they will live a worse life being independent Oo what what what ? Is "indenpendent" some kind of food so that they could be far from famine? | ||
|
v1rtu0so
United States140 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:26 potchip wrote: The native Americans certainly no longer show their dis-pleasure by mob-rioting....I guess an equivalibruim has been reached. There's no denying that China wanting to keep Tibet/XinJiang is not out of the kindness of the heart. The fact is, CCP can offer to be magnanimous, but will not tolerate dissent. Government wants the land and the implied resources, treating the people on that land well so there's no trouble is a mean not an end. Talking about representative in CCP is idealogy as it will never happen, democratically or not when you have a 90% ethinic majority. Problem is there's no agreed method to 'properly' assimilate an ethnic group. Governments do what they can. America can acknowledge there were mistakes all they want but we won't know what will work, or what state of affairs will constitude a successful assimilation. IMO independence is not for the utility of the people, other than the selected few in power. But people do get easily caught in the emotions. So you seem to agree with me, but somehow you don't seem to acknowledge that any sort of integration against people's will is despicable. And that supporting such gov't action is also problematic. | ||
|
GoodWill
Canada149 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:01 v1rtu0so wrote: If these millions of indians constitute the vast majority of people living in Alaska (no longer true) AND wanted to "attack the white madly" (unlikely, but OK), then US should let them be independent. Another important caveat is that these people need to have lived their for long time (effectively the land has been theirs), which is also no longer true. Tibetans and Uighurs, however, (with some reservations) seem to mostly meet these criteria. edit: damn i missed the proleague responding to this thread And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria". Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit. | ||
|
asleepingpig
China75 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:25 silynxer wrote: Do you have a source for that? I'm very interested to read about it and couldn't find anything at all after a quick search (yes I'm lazy). I try google, quite difficult. There are only news in Chinese. Hong Kong have similar reports, but it's also in traditional Chinese. | ||
|
asleepingpig
China75 Posts
PS: it is translated by google. According to the Hong Kong media reports, the State Great Hural of Mongolia before the meeting to discuss a proposal, Mongolia and China on the establishment of a federal State plan. Gobi Province, a member of the national conference on socio-economic development of the plan first put forward. Meeting of the State Great Hural of Mongolia December 3, 2000 on the establishment of specialized Union and Mongolia, and Mongolia and into China were discussed. During the discussion, the members of the Gobi Province, Mongolia, into China to build a similar, like Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Region of China, so that the end of Mongolia's return to the motherland to become a part of China. As early as the State Great Hural of Mongolia in 1995 Mongolia has joined the Members have suggested, however, due to resistance, the proposal has not been discussed. In recent years, the Mongolian government as a result of economic difficulties has been under increasing pressure, China and other places of Erlian prosperous life of Mongolian nomads have had a powerful appeal. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:26 asleepingpig wrote: what what what ? Is "indenpendent" some kind of food so that they could be far from famine? what about being able to live their own way ? so basically, you are saying that without Chinese, these guys are screwed and can't develop their own industry ? com'on, you can't be serious. | ||
|
Polus
United States25 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:26 potchip wrote: The native Americans certainly no longer show their dis-pleasure by mob-rioting....I guess an equivalibruim has been reached. There's no denying that China wanting to keep Tibet/XinJiang is not out of the kindness of the heart. The fact is, CCP can offer to be magnanimous, but will not tolerate dissent. Government wants the land and the implied resources, treating the people on that land well so there's no trouble is a mean not an end. Talking about representative in CCP is idealogy as it will never happen, democratically or not when you have a 90% ethinic majority. Problem is there's no agreed method to 'properly' assimilate an ethnic group. Governments do what they can. America can acknowledge there were mistakes all they want but we won't know what will work, or what state of affairs will constitude a successful assimilation. IMO independence is not for the utility of the people, other than the selected few in power. But people do get easily caught in the emotions. Arguing on utilitarian grounds for a national majority strikes me as pointless since a nation is an arbitrary concept. If I understand your reasoning correctly - If I led a violent revolution in Latin America and somehow forged a new, independent country I could then rightfully suppress any attempts by minorities to secede? Utilitarianism as an ethical model works great in test tube type theorizing. Unfortunately reality has a tendency to get in the way. | ||
|
asleepingpig
China75 Posts
| ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:42 asleepingpig wrote: A place full of Gobi and desert. Maybe Uighurs can live better than Tibetans because they can sell oil. ok, so CHina should leave them alone. OH WAIT ! No, because China has to test some nuke there. that ? | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
 As my list of facts stated, independence will not happen, so what is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. What is currently the situation in America is forseeably going to be the state in China, in regards to natives and the colonisers. China will, and can afford to provide more than it 'takes' from XinJiang for the time being, in developing the region economically. I also dispute the people's will, as no evidence suggest in either direction. Nor do I believe let the 'people (with a grain of salt, I strongly believe it is only the selected few that drives the movement and will benefit, the rest just go with the flow, and suffer the consequences)' do whatever they want is going to result in the optimal result. They might be spiritually happy but bankrupt, and soon to be unhappy as a result. Nation is a concept, country is an institution, and a necessary one at that. | ||
|
Polus
United States25 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:48 potchip wrote: I prefer not to engage in philosophical debates on the what ifs and riding moral high horses. The nature of my work as a BA is such I always faces with an imperfect world and have to work within the constraints As my list of facts stated, independence will not happen, so what is right or wrong is almost irrelevant. What is currently the situation in America is forseeably going to be the state in China, in regards to natives and the colonisers. China will, and can afford to provide more than it 'takes' from XinJiang for the time being, in developing the region economically. I also dispute the people's will, as no evidence suggest in either direction. Nor do I believe let the 'people (with a grain of salt, I strongly believe it is only the selected few that drives the movement and will benefit, the rest just go with the flow, and suffer the consequences)' do whatever they want is going to result in the optimal result. They might be spiritually happy but bankrupt, and soon to be unhappy as a result. Yes, I suppose it's all well and good to be a pragmatist as long as it's not your human rights being infringed upon. | ||
|
v1rtu0so
United States140 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:34 GoodWill wrote: And these minorities aren't the vast majority in their provinces either. "Their" land were territories of successive Chinese dynasties as well. I don't see how they "seem to mostly meet these criteria". Oh, and US didn't take native Indians' lands by force or coercion or anything, that kid is legit. I believe they were the vast majority, before Chinese gov't started its aggressive transplantation of Hans to the region -- this is why there are now so many conflicts in that region between Hans and the natives. The chinese gov't have been very successful; as you say, the Uighurs are indeed no longer the vast majority. Congratulations! Do you condone the forceful conquest of these regions by whichever dynasty was strongest then? Let's hope not. Regardless of to whom this land have belonged in the past, it has been theirs (Uighurs and Tibetans) for many years now and they have come to strongly associate with it (not something Hans can say). Surely, modern China is morally better than ancient Chinese dynasties (or whoever lay claim to that land forcefully)? Or am I expecting too much? I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last quip. I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
Side note, to those who are making the argument, what if some state of the US... Alaska revolted against the US would we let it go? Well first off, they'd vote on a peaceful secession which they're allowed to do by constitutional law (Puerto Rico does it constantly by voting no to join the union) then they'd feel the after effects of not being allowed back into NAFTA, and promptly rejoin in the most basic scenario - so using a well established republic and free trade as some example of what the US government would do versus what the CCP would is ill-advised. Hell state leaders talk about secession to this day and the federal government lets them blow their steam rather then go in and stomp a city out. That said, unfortunately for most of the dissenters (peaceful or otherwise) there is no being the majority nor is it open to discussion. Even if you are given special rights by the government, you are still a social taboo to the whole community around you which is worse then big brother. | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On July 08 2009 14:27 v1rtu0so wrote: And becoming independent in their own homeland is...bad? Not bad, just unrealistic. The situation for Uighurs now is not that bad. The Uighurs are allowed to be Muslims and they're allowed to keep their own culture. In fact, as a result of the Chinese government's policies, the percentage of Uighurs in parts of China outside Xinjing has increased! I'm sure there is some discrimination going on by Han Chinese, and the Chinese government is definitely suspicious of them. But that is not a great reason to want independence. All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries. Yes, Xinjing has oil and gas, but there's no infrastructure to develop them. No pipelines and no roads. And Xinjing is landlocked, it will never even have a port. I think Xinjing has a better chance of raising their standard of living if they stick with China. Who else has the money to develop that infrastructure? Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits. Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation. Even the Dalai Lama has said that Tibet should remain a part of China. I'm sure the Uighurs can do the same. EDIT: tl;dr version: Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country. | ||
|
v1rtu0so
United States140 Posts
". All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries. " "Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits. " "Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation." Intriguing stuff. edit: more fun "Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country. " Sorry if I sound overly cynical, but I am bit tired indeed. | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
| ||
|
moriya
United States54 Posts
Yes China really do because they find nuke on gobi cannot demonstrate its massive kills, luckily Japan is the best place for test, as US did many years ago... On July 08 2009 15:44 MK wrote: ok, so CHina should leave them alone. OH WAIT ! No, because China has to test some nuke there. that ? | ||
|
v1rtu0so
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On July 08 2009 16:05 v1rtu0so wrote: LOL I am getting tired. Can someone else respond to that post? ". All minorities face these problems, and many of them have solved them without starting their own countries. " "Best of all, China wants to help develop Xinjiang because of its oil and gas. The Uighurs have a chance to reap the benefits. " "Some Uighurs want independence because they think that their culture is being eroded, but I don't think that's the Chinese government, that's just the price of modernisation." Intriguing stuff. edit: more fun "Uighurs and Xinjiang have problems, but it's better they try to solve them as part of China than as an independent country. " Sorry if I sound overly cynical, but I am bit tired indeed. No worries, I'm also coming at it from a cynical point of view. For China, Xinjiang = money because of oil and gas. For the Uighurs, China developing Xinjiang = jobs and money They don't have to care about each other, they don't even have to like each other. They just need to take the money. | ||
|
GoodWill
Canada149 Posts
On July 08 2009 15:56 v1rtu0so wrote: I believe they were the vast majority, before Chinese gov't started its aggressive transplantation of Hans to the region -- this is why there are now so many conflicts in that region between Hans and the natives. The chinese gov't have been very successful; as you say, the Uighurs are indeed no longer the vast majority. Congratulations! Guess where that's happened before? Who else have been very successful and who else are indeed no longer the vast majority? I should congratulate you too for taking what's been granted. Do you condone the forceful conquest of these regions by whichever dynasty was strongest then? Let's hope not. Regardless of to whom this land have belonged in the past, it has been theirs (Uighurs and Tibetans) for many years now and they have come to strongly associate with it (not something Hans can say). Surely, modern China is morally better than ancient Chinese dynasties (or whoever lay claim to that land forcefully)? Or am I expecting too much? Guess where that's happened before? I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last quip. I previously admitted US has committed injustice to the indians. And now that the uighurs AREN'T the "vast majority" (like the Indians) and they dont "own" their land (Remember when I mentioned they were part of the Chinese dynasties? Yeah, you never refuted that), you feel very comfortable recommending China giving up the sovereignty of those territories while conveniently ignores what's happening at your doorstep. Native American Independence movement is not ancient history, I might add. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
